Charley Du Charley Du
Charley Du Charley Du
In the same vein, Allison’s definitions of Rational Policy, Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Models are not convincingly distinct. He states that a government consists of several organizations which create a loose alliance in the Organizational Process Model and that the leaders of such organizations have their own distinct will as well in the Bureaucratic Politics Model. His best attempt at explaining the different models and variations is using the chess game as an analogy. However, just as the chess game is extremely complex, so are governmental structures and international relations. One can look at the movements on a chess board as two players trying to win a game, or as individual …show more content…
More specifically, both Allison and Weldes demonstrate that domestic politics play a huge role on any decision that states make in the international arena, while taking different angles. Although Allison’s division of models and variants are convoluted, he is correct in suggesting that internal structure and mechanisms can affect a government’s international decisions. Furthermore, the decision maker, the bureaucracy, and party factions all played a role in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was well known that Kennedy himself had established rapport with Khrushchev to the point where his first reaction was “He can’t do this to me!” upon hearing the news of the presence of offensive warheads in Cuba. Had the president been someone else with a different established relationship with Khrushchev, the reaction and situation, most definitively, would be different. Allison also demonstrates that there are many forces at play concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis, including the President, the United States Navy, the Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency. Similarly, political pressures were mounting on Kennedy when the New York Times published reports that missiles were being supplied to Cuba and the Congressional elections were to take place in the following month (Boyle 142). Thus, Kennedy not only …show more content…
However, it has been shown that this does not have to be the case. While there are real threats in an anarchical international system, states are not simply concerned with being a hegemon or being defeated in military warfare. Instead, states are driven by domestic politics as well because specific actors have the desire to ensure their longevity as heads of states—whether it is to survive a coup or having their party reelected. Underlying both external and internal forces is the continuous construction of the actor, the state and anything in the international system. Although this construction is incessant, it is influenced by both internal and external forces. This combination of complex forces results in a new perspective, which will be coined “neo-constructivism.” Neo-constructivism is not concerned with whether individual paradigms or analytical perspectives can single-handedly explain international phenomena. Rather, it realizes that domestic and international struggles and threats to a state’s survival—in its loosest sense—take place in a spaced filled with ever-changing culture that can be constructed by the same state’s leaders. This more comprehensive view can be used to explain the United States’ view on and policies regarding Communist states through the past decades. While Richard Nixon took a hardline approach to the
Charley Du Charley Du
In the same vein, Allison’s definitions of Rational Policy, Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Models are not convincingly distinct. He states that a government consists of several organizations which create a loose alliance in the Organizational Process Model and that the leaders of such organizations have their own distinct will as well in the Bureaucratic Politics Model. His best attempt at explaining the different models and variations is using the chess game as an analogy. However, just as the chess game is extremely complex, so are governmental structures and international relations. One can look at the movements on a chess board as two players trying to win a game, or as individual …show more content…
More specifically, both Allison and Weldes demonstrate that domestic politics play a huge role on any decision that states make in the international arena, while taking different angles. Although Allison’s division of models and variants are convoluted, he is correct in suggesting that internal structure and mechanisms can affect a government’s international decisions. Furthermore, the decision maker, the bureaucracy, and party factions all played a role in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was well known that Kennedy himself had established rapport with Khrushchev to the point where his first reaction was “He can’t do this to me!” upon hearing the news of the presence of offensive warheads in Cuba. Had the president been someone else with a different established relationship with Khrushchev, the reaction and situation, most definitively, would be different. Allison also demonstrates that there are many forces at play concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis, including the President, the United States Navy, the Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency. Similarly, political pressures were mounting on Kennedy when the New York Times published reports that missiles were being supplied to Cuba and the Congressional elections were to take place in the following month (Boyle 142). Thus, Kennedy not only …show more content…
However, it has been shown that this does not have to be the case. While there are real threats in an anarchical international system, states are not simply concerned with being a hegemon or being defeated in military warfare. Instead, states are driven by domestic politics as well because specific actors have the desire to ensure their longevity as heads of states—whether it is to survive a coup or having their party reelected. Underlying both external and internal forces is the continuous construction of the actor, the state and anything in the international system. Although this construction is incessant, it is influenced by both internal and external forces. This combination of complex forces results in a new perspective, which will be coined “neo-constructivism.” Neo-constructivism is not concerned with whether individual paradigms or analytical perspectives can single-handedly explain international phenomena. Rather, it realizes that domestic and international struggles and threats to a state’s survival—in its loosest sense—take place in a spaced filled with ever-changing culture that can be constructed by the same state’s leaders. This more comprehensive view can be used to explain the United States’ view on and policies regarding Communist states through the past decades. While Richard Nixon took a hardline approach to the