¹ Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), pp. 3–35 Google Scholar. Jacobson, Harold K. reminds me that Wolfers was frequently less disposed than in “The Actors …” to accord predictive power to rational models, even at the pole of power—hence his emphasis on “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol,” Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics, pp. 147–65Google Scholar.

² Wolfers, , Discord, p. 16 Google Scholar.

³ Wolfers, p. 15.

⁴ Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁵ Other contributions to the “issue area” literature include several community power studies— Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Polsby, Nelson W., Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Wildavsky, Aaron, “The Analysis of Issue Contexts in the Study of Decision-Making,” Journal of Politics, 24, (November, 1962), 717–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rosenau, James N., “Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed. Farrell, R. Barry (Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1966) pp. 27–92 Google Scholar and “Foreign Policy as an Issue-Area,” in Domestic Sources of Policy, ed. Rosenau, James N. (New York: The Free Press, 1967) pp. 11–51 Google Scholar.

⁶ Lowi, Theodore J., “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory,” World Politics, 16 (July, 1964), 677–715 Google Scholar; “Making Democracy Safe for the World: National Politics,” in Rosenau, , Domestic Sources, pp. 295–331 Google Scholar.

⁷ Lowi, , “American Business …” p. 689, n. 17Google Scholar; “Foreign policy, for which no appropriate ‘-ion’ word has been found, is obviously a fourth category.”

⁸ Lowi, pp. 690–91.

⁹ Lowi, , “Making Democracy Safe …,” p. 314 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 324.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid., p. 325, n. 61: “… it is interesting to note the absence of a foreign-policy variant of redistribution. This might be due to my incomplete coverage rather than to a datum about the system.”

¹³ Ibid., p. 324.

¹⁴ Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935)Google Scholar and Lowi's, summary of Schattschneider in “American Business …,” pp. 680–682 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Eckstein, Harry, ed., Limited War (New York: The Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Coser, Lewis A., The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Waltz, Kenneth N., “Electoral Punishment and Foreign Policy Crises,” in Rosenau, , Domestic Sources …, p. 279 Google Scholar, points out that in July, 1950 “just over half the Americans polled thought the United States was “actually in World War III.”

¹⁷ The literature on each is extensive. Recent capsule depictions of the internal politics of the three are to be found in Morison, Samuel E., Merk, Frederick and Freidel, Frank, Dissent in Three American Wars (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Mueller, John E., “Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam,” American Political Science Review, 65, (June, 1971), 358–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar shows the striking similarity in mass attitudes to the wars in Korea and Vietnam. He concludes that popular support decreases logarithmically with the increase in American casualties.

¹⁹ Pennock, J. Roland, “The ‘Pork Barrel’ and Majority Rule: A Note,” Journal of Politics, 33 (August, 1970), 709–16, at 714 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Hellmann, , Japanese Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics: The Peace Agreement with the Soviet Union (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid., p. 149.

²² Ibid., p. 130. Hellmann's conclusion warrants comparison with another important case study in which fish played an important role. I have in mind, of course, Cohen's, Bernard C. The Political Process and Foreign Policy: The Making of the Japanese Peace Settlement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Once again the fish issue was the only really controversial aspect of the settlement. The peace settlement itself provoked little debate. The fisheries issue was settled separately by the North Pacific Fisheries Convention—a process which had all the attributes of regulatory politics. There were, thus, for the United States two issue areas: one, the peace settlement (Type III); the other, the regulatory fisheries convention (Type II). (For a similar assessment, see Rosenau, , ed., Domestic Sources, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar)

²³ Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Huntington, Samuel P., The Common Defense (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

²⁵ For evidence that Soviet decision making in the 1962 Cuban missile crises paralleled that in the United States, see U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations, Sub-Committee on National Security Staffing and Operations, Staffing Procedures and Problems in the Soviet Union 88th Congress, 1st Session, 1963.

²⁶ More recent general studies of Soviet civil-miliary relations include: Kolkowicz, Roman, The Soviet Military and The Communist Party (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Wolfe, Thomas W., Soviet Strategy at the Cross Roads (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horelick, Arnold and Rush, Myron, Strategic Power and Soviet Foreign Policy (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁷ See, especially, “The Military-Industrial Complex: USSR/USA” Journal of International Affairs, 26 (Spring 1972), 1–97 Google Scholar.

²⁸ Hodnett, Grey and Potichny, Peter J.; The Ukraine and The Czechoslovak Crisis (Canberra: Australian National Univ., Department of Political Science, Occasional Paper No. 6, 1970)Google Scholar.

²⁹ The best is Lodge, Milton, Soviet Elite Attitudes Since Stalin (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969)Google Scholar, See, too, Schwartz, Joel J. and Keech, William R., “Group Influence and the Policy Process in the Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review, 62 (September, 1968), 840–851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Skilling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

³⁰ E.g., the articles in Skilling and Griffiths.

³¹ After this article was written, Thomas L. Brewer published an important contribution to the literature linking issue-area and foreign-policy behavior in the American case. See his “Issue and Context Variations in Foreign Policy: Effects on American Elite Behavior,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17 (March, 1973), 89–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.