critical thinking questions on presidential foreign policies answer key

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

12.10: Critical Thinking Questions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 153922
• What are the opportunities and limitations for presidential leadership in the contemporary political system?
• How have presidents used their position to increase the power of the office?
• What role has technology played increasing the power and reach of presidents?
• Under what conditions will presidents use direct action? When might they prefer passing a formal policy through Congress as a bill?
• What do the conditions under which presidents decide to make public pleas suggest about the limits of presidential power?

Top 6 Key U.S. Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines

Bettmann/Getty Images 

• U.S. Foreign Policy
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• M.A., History, University of Florida
• B.A., History, University of Florida

Foreign policy can be defined as the strategy a government uses to deal with other nations.  James Monroe pronounced the first major presidential foreign policy doctrine for the newly created United States on December 2, 1823. In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt made a significant amendment to the Monroe Doctrine. While many other presidents announced overarching foreign policy goals, the term "presidential doctrine" refers to a more consistently applied foreign policy ideology. The four other presidential doctrines listed below were created by Harry Truman , Jimmy Carter , Ronald Reagan , and George W. Bush .

• Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was a significant statement of American foreign policy. In President James Monroe's seventh State of the Union address, he made it clear that America would not allow European colonies to further colonize in the Americas or interfere with independent states. As he stated:

"With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not ... and shall not interfere, but with the Governments ... whose independence we have ... acknowledged, we [would] view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing ... or controlling [them], by any European power ... as an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

This policy has been used by many presidents over the years, most recently John F. Kennedy .

Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt issued a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that significantly altered America's foreign policy. Previously, the US stated that it would not allow for European colonization of Latin America.

Roosevelt's amendment went further stating that the US would act to help stabilize economic problems for struggling Latin American nations. As he stated:

"If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, ... it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing ... in the Western Hemisphere ... may force the United States ... to the exercise of an international police power."

This is the formulation of Roosevelt's "big stick diplomacy."

Truman Doctrine

On March 12, 1947, President Harry Truman stated his Truman Doctrine in an address before Congress. Under this, the US promised to send money, equipment, or military force to countries that were threatened by and resisting communism.

Truman stated that the US should:

"Support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

This began the American policy of containment to try and stop the fall of countries to communism and to halt the expansion of Soviet influence.

Carter Doctrine

On January 23, 1980, Jimmy Carter stated in a State of the Union Address :

"The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil."

To combat this, Carter stated that America would see "an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region ... as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Therefore, military force would be used if necessary to protect American economic and national interests in the Persian Gulf.

Reagan Doctrine

The Reagan Doctrine created by President Ronald Reagan was in effect from the 1980s until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was a significant change in policy moving from simple containment to more direct assistance to those fighting against communist governments. The point of the doctrine was to provide military and financial support to guerilla forces such as the Contras in Nicaragua. Illegal involvement in these activities by certain administration officials led to the Iran-Contra Scandal . Nonetheless, many, including Margaret Thatcher credit the Reagan Doctrine with helping bring about the fall of the Soviet Union.

Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine is not one specific doctrine but a set of foreign policies that George W. Bush introduced during his eight years as president. These were in response to the tragic events of terrorism that occurred on September 11, 2001. Part of these policies is based on the belief that those who harbor terrorists should be treated the same as those who are terrorists themselves. Further, there is the idea of the preventive war such as the invasion of Iraq to stop those who might be future threats to the US. The term "Bush Doctrine" made front-page news when vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was asked about it during an interview in 2008.

• The Relationship Between U.S. and Great Britain After World War II
• Biography of James Monroe, Fifth President of the United States
• Understanding the Bush Doctrine
• What Is Multilateralism?
• The Truman Doctrine
• Biography of Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States
• Top 10 Things to Know About James Monroe
• Containment: America's Plan for Communism
• Quotes from James Monroe
• U.S. Policy in the Middle East: 1945 to 2008
• Theodore Roosevelt: Twenty-Sixth President of the United States
• James Monroe Fast Facts
• Theodore Roosevelt Fast Facts
• The Truman Doctrine and the Cold War
• Foreign Intervention in Latin America

Chapter 22: Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914

Critical Thinking Questions

U.S. History Copyright © 2014 by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Follow us on social

Stay responsible. subscribe for global insights.

10 foreign policy questions that should be asked at the presidential debate (but probably won't)

Quincy institute staff want answers from biden and trump on endless war, russia, nukes, china, and more..

Tuesday's highly anticipated debate between President Trump and Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is expected to delve into several broad topics critical to today's political environment: the Supreme Court, COVID, the economy, race and violence in cities, the integrity of the election, and the candidates' records.

Of course the discussion may or may not touch upon salient foreign policy and national security issues that often spill over from these more domestic concerns -- like the U.S. relationship with China, Russia, or the continuing wars abroad.

So we canvassed the Quincy Institute staff and asked them what questions should be asked tomorrow night (but probably won't):

Andrew Bacevich , President: In its recently published official history of the Iraq War, the U.S. Army acknowledges "the failure of the United States to attain its strategic objectives in Iraq." Do you agree with that judgment? If so, what are the implications of that failure for U.S. policy going forward?  If not — if you think that the war ended in something other than failure — how would you characterize the outcome? In either case, what lessons should the United States take from its war in Iraq?"

2) The United States has embarked upon a comprehensive program of modernizing its nuclear strike force — new strategic bombers, new ICBMs, new missile-launching submarines, new warheads. Estimated total costs exceed $1 trillion. The Obama administration initiated this project. The Trump administration has continued it. Seventy-five years after Hiroshima, why does the United States find it necessary to initiate a new nuclear arms race? Can you offer an alternative to doing so?

Lora Lumpe , CEO: The United States government has declared that we are in an existential struggle for survival with China, resulting in calls by U.S. politicians and defense analysts to contain Beijing by decoupling our economies and technology spheres and ramping up our defense posture in Asia to retain American dominance there. And yet none of our allies and friends have signed onto this zero-sum approach and the American public does not want to greatly increase defense spending, especially when we are facing so many challenges at home, nor to decouple from China. What in your view is the alternative strategy toward China that will keep America and the global commons safe, enhance our competitiveness, and defend our values?

Trita Parsi , Executive Vice President: The Middle East has progressively become more unstable and violent under American military hegemony. In 1998, the region suffered from five armed conflicts. By 2019, 22 violent struggles engulfed the area. This has made America less safe and cost countless American lives. America's posture of military dominance in the Middle East is precisely why the US has become entangled in so many conflicts there, including the region's endless wars. Will you commit to not only ending the endless wars but also ending the strategy that gave birth to these wars, by bringing U.S. troops home and ending our military hegemony of the Middle East?

Stephen Wertheim , Director, Deputy Director of Research & Policy : Under the Obama-Biden administration, the United States expanded its warfighting to seven countries officially acknowledged by the Department of Defense : Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. President Trump, why haven't you ended any of those wars, despite your objections to "endless wars"? Vice President Biden, which of these wars will you end, and why should we believe you given your record?

Jessica Lee , Senior Research Fellow, East Asia Program : This year marks the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War. A major hurdle to progress in nuclear talks between the United States and North Korea has been the lack of trust and atmosphere conducive to diplomacy stemming from both sides’ failure to make peace. If you were elected president, would you commit to declaring the Korean War over and pursue a permanent peace treaty that could lead to a less militarized U.S. posture on the peninsula?

Annelle Sheline , Research Fellow, Middle East Program : Yemenis refer to the air campaign against their country as the “Saudi-American war.” Continued American support for the war is often justified on the basis of preventing additional casualties, yet civilian casualties from targeted attacks exceed 13,500 people and American officials fear that they may face charges of war crimes for providing material support for the bombardment. The UAE pulled out last year. Why does the US continue to support Saudi Arabia’s brutal campaign against Yemen? In what why does this serve US interests?

Rachel Esplin Odell , Research Fellow, East Asia Program : The coronavirus has revealed that having a globe-spanning dominant military force, with military spending greater than the next ten countries combined, does not help to keep Americans safe from the most pressing threats we face, such as pandemics and climate change. On the contrary, the U.S. military has a carbon footprint larger than 140 countries and is a major contributor to climate change. How can the United States rethink its approach to national security and shift our spending priorities in a way that better protects Americans?

Steven Simon , Senior Research Analyst, Middle East Program: The past three administrations did not make arms control a foreign policy priority. Each administration justified this decision on the basis of extenuating circumstances. The current administration has withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, as well as the ‘Open Skies’ Treaty, and is close to letting the New START treaty expire without renewal. As a result, nuclear weapons and delivery systems are increasingly unconstrained. What priority will your administration accord this issue in the future?

Kelley Vlahos , Senior Advisor, U.S.-Russia relations have deteriorated over the last four years, with multiple investigations and counter investigations into the scope of alleged meddling in the 2016 election. Meanwhile there have been heated confrontations between the U.S. and Russian military in Syria. Washington has Increased economic sanctions and withdrawn from critical nuclear treaties, but so far it has done little to achieve our desired outcomes from Moscow. While many among the establishment would like to continue on this status quo path -- focused on Russia as an enemy and a geopolitical threat -- others are pressing for a change, acknowledging that diplomacy, not military or economic warfare, is the path forward in a multipolar world. Where do each of you stand on the matter?

Motorists pass by a burning barricade during a protest as the government said it would extend a state of emergency for another month after an escalation in violence from gangs seeking to oust the Prime Minister Ariel Henry , in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, March 7, 2024. REUTERS/Ralph Tedy Erol

US should let Haiti reclaim its democracy

Haiti’s deepening crisis — armed groups launching an assault on the government, and the de facto prime minister on indefinite layover in the San Juan, Puerto Rico airport — is a predictable consequence of 14 years of U.S. support for undemocratic regimes connected to Haiti’s PHTK party as it has dismantled Haiti’s democracy.

Haiti has a chance at reversing this descent and returning to a more stable, democratic path, but only if the Biden administration will let it.

Prime Minister Ariel Henry was stranded in San Juan Tuesday on his way back from Kenya, where he had signed an agreement for Kenyan police to come bolster his repressive, corrupt and unpopular regime. The armed groups, including many that had collaborated with Henry’s regime, took advantage of his absence to attack government infrastructure, and free 5,000 prisoners, many of them members of armed groups. Henry had planned to fly to the neighboring Dominican Republic and take a helicopter ride back to Haiti’s National Palace under the cover of darkness. But Dominican authorities refused entry to the prime minister’s chartered plane , which re-routed to San Juan.

Prime Minister Henry has not yet resigned, and the State Department denied reports that it demanded his resignation. But Henry has clearly lost the support of the United States, which for two years had allowed him to resist Haitians demands for fair elections. Absent Washington’s support, Henry has little chance of regaining power.

This dire situation is not only predictable, it was predicted. Haitian-American officials , Haitian civil society , members of the U.S. Congress , and other experts had been warning for years that the U.S. propping up Henry would lead to increasing tragedy for Haitians. The United States, which installed Henry in power in the first place, ignored these pleas and stood resolutely by its friend. With U.S. support, Henry’s unconstitutional term as prime minister exceeded any other prime minister’s term under Haiti’s 1987 Constitution. Levels of gang violence, kidnapping, hunger , and misery also reached unprecedented levels.

The United States is still insisting on getting Kenyan troops to Haiti. The State Department has persistently — if so far unsuccessfully — tried to deploy non-American boots onto Haitian ground since Henry requested them in October 2022. The mission’s deployment initially stalled because it was widely rejected as a bad idea that will primarily serve to prop up the repressive regime that generated the crisis. Haitian civil society repeatedly insisted that the first step towards security must be a transitional government with the legitimacy to organize elections and determine how the international community can best help Haiti.

Concerns that the intervention would serve only to reinforce an unpopular regime led the countries that the Biden administration first tapped to lead the mission, including Canada , Haiti’s Caribbean neighbors , and Brazil , to pass. The U.N. itself concluded that the mission would require too much “ robust use of force ” to be appropriate for a peacekeeping mission. So, the Security Council took the unusual step of authorizing the mission, but on the condition that it not actually be a U.N. mission that the organization would have to take responsibility for. The Biden administration, likely concerned about election-year cell phone videos of troops shooting indiscriminately in crowded neighborhoods — as the last foreign intervention did — declined to send U.S. troops for the mission (but is considering deploying a small Marine contingent to Haiti in early March).

Last August Kenya — which did not even have diplomatic relations with Haiti but did need the hundreds of millions of dollars that the United States offered — agreed to lead the mission. The exploratory delegation Kenya sent to evaluate conditions in Haiti quickly realized how deadly the planned mission would be for Haitians and Kenyans alike, and proposed to limit its scope to protecting public infrastructure.

The United States was not open to renegotiating the deal, and Kenya withdrew its proposed limits. But Kenya’s High Court temporarily blocked the deployment as unconstitutional. Ariel Henry’s visit to Kenya was for the signature of an accord that Kenya’s President William Ruto hoped would overcome the court’s objections. Kenyan lawyers insist that the agreement itself is illegal, and are continuing their challenge . In the meantime, Kenyan officers who had volunteered for the mission are changing their minds . Another obstacle appeared on March 7, when the White House conceded that the mission cannot be deployed without congressional approval of funding.

The State Department’s insistence that the Kenyan deployment must nevertheless happen raises fears that the United States will also continue its policy of installing and propping up undemocratic regimes in Haiti. Finance Minister Patrick Boisvert, who Henry tapped as interim prime minister when he left for Kenya, increased concerns of authoritarian governance on March 6 when he declared a three-day curfew and state of emergency throughout the Port-au-Prince region in an edict that did not even mention the legal basis for his authority. The next day Boisvert raised more fears by extending the emergency measures for a month and adding in a ban on all protests.

The State Department’s rescinding its support for Henry might have been promising had the gangs not already made his ouster inevitable. State’s claim that it now supports “an empowered and inclusive governance structure” that will “pave the way for free and fair elections” might have been promising if it had not added the condition that the new government must “move with urgency to help the country prepare for a multinational security support mission.”

A legitimate, broadly supported, sovereign transitional Haitian government might request foreign police assistance. But a government allowed to form only if it accepts a U.S.-imposed occupation force originally designed to prop up a hated, repressive government is not sovereign. It may not be legitimate or broadly-supported either.

The United States tasked CARICOM, the federation of Haiti’s Caribbean neighbors, to forge a civil society consensus. CARICOM has enjoyed credibility in Haiti in the past , but over the past few months it has faced criticism for trying to strong-arm civil society into an agreement that maintained Henry’s power. Not surprisingly, CARICOM-led talks on March 6 and 7 failed .

When allowed, Haitians have a history of coming together to make their way out of a crisis. Haiti became a country in 1804 by defeating Napoleon, with almost no outside help. In 1986, when the U.S. finally withdrew its support from Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, Haitians eventually wrested power from the military and held fair elections. In 2006, they voted their way out of the crisis created by the U.S. kidnapping of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide two years before. In August 2021, shortly after the killing of Haiti’s last president, Jovenel Moïse, a broad-based group presented the Montana Accord that would have created a transitional government leading to elections in two years. The U.S. vetoed the accord, citing, among other reasons, that the two-year time frame was too long. That was 30 months ago, and there are no elections in sight.

Handout photo shows US House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on December 12, 2023 in Washington, DC, USA. Zelensky met with US lawmakers Tuesday on Capitol Hill to advocate for more aid as discussions rema Photo by Ukrainian Presidency via ABACAPRESS.COM via Reuters

What will more aid to Ukraine accomplish?

There is little secret that proponents of total victory in Ukraine have trained their focus on ensuring that a $60 billion Ukraine military aid package, introduced by the Biden administration late last year, is passed by Congress. Its backers claim this aid is of vital, even existential importance, but what effects could this package actually have on the battlefronts in Ukraine and what is really at stake in the debate over Ukraine aid more broadly?

The funding, part of a larger $95 billion supplemental package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, allocates $20 billion to replenish Department of Defense stockpiles after previous rounds of Ukraine aid, around $14 billion for Ukraine to purchase weapons from U.S. entities, $15 billion in support including intelligence services and military training, and $8 billion in direct budget support for the Ukrainian government. This sum, though prodigious in an absolute sense, pales in comparison to the $113 billion in Ukraine aid approved by Congress in 2022 during a time in the war when the balance of forces was much more favorable to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) than it is now.

The AFU faces a cascade of critical challenges; prime among them are its growing shortage of troops and its dire munitions deficit in what, according to Ukrainian officials, has become an “artillery war.” The aid package strives to alleviate Ukraine’s mounting shell hunger, but money does not directly translate into readily-available munitions. It is not clear how many shells, and how quickly, the U.S. can send Ukraine even if the supplemental was approved today. Russia, according to estimates by RUSI from earlier this year, fires 10,000 artillery rounds per day. Consider, for a sense of scale, that European annual production by February 2023 totaled just 300,000 rounds — or roughly what Russia has spent every month in Ukraine. Russia — which is believed to have made around 2 million artillery shells in 2023 — outproduced its Western counterparts at a rate of seven to one, according to an Estonian intelligence assessment from last year.

Josep Borrell, Europe’s top diplomat, noted that Europe cannot shoulder the burden of supporting Ukraine on its own, but there are signs that Washington could struggle to backfill some of Ukraine’s core needs even with ample political will on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, there is no immediate fix for revamping the U.S. defense-industrial base to support the staggering scale of Ukrainian munitions expenditures. U.S. officials have announced plans for an incremental production ramp peaking at 100,000 shells per month, but this target will not be fully met until at least October 2025. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said Ukraine needs 2.5 million shells this year — or roughly 208,000 per month — to sustain its war effort, suggesting a shell usage rate that the West simply cannot underwrite in the short to medium term even with the supplemental funding bill.

Kyiv’s severe materiel deficits are accompanied by equally serious manpower shortages, a problem that the West cannot alleviate short of direct military intervention in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has struggled to craft a viable mobilization strategy amid spiking domestic divisions even as the number of foreign volunteers has declined from its peak of 20,000 in early 2022. These shortages are driven not only by Ukrainian casualties, which reportedly exceed the 31,000 total combat deaths claimed by Zelenskyy last month, but by depopulation trends so stark as to verge on demographic collapse . Kyiv must likewise grapple with the second-order effects of waging a prolonged and costly total war; a more expansive mobilization program would take even more people out of the labor force, further straining Ukraine’s limping wartime economy.

Moscow is not a static actor in this unfolding drama. The Russians keenly perceive Ukraine’s weaknesses and are racing to exploit them to the fullest extent, leveraging their vast manpower and firepower advantages to apply pressure all along the line of contact in Eastern-South Eastern Ukraine in the aftermath of Avdiivka’s fall .

In short, the Ukrainian war effort is on life support. Its collapse is, for the first time since the Russian invasion commenced in 2022, now a distinct possibility. What can the $60 billion aid package achieve in light of these grim realities? It will undoubtedly help Ukraine impose costs on and slow the pace of Russian advances. Though it will not forestall the continued threat of a collapse, it will likely give the AFU a lease on life through the coming months. But, as Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) accurately observed , it “is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield.”

Importantly, to acknowledge the limits of Western aid is not the same as suggesting that there is absolutely no value in continuing to support Ukraine. Indeed, a scenario in which the AFU collapses and Ukraine gets steamrolled by Russian forces would be dangerous for everyone involved and make it more difficult to reach a durable settlement. But it is equally true that any plan to support Ukraine must be coupled with a sober assessment of what can and cannot be achieved at this stage in the war.

Prospects of continued Western aid to Ukraine are an important, if not principal, source of leverage vis-a-vis Moscow in this war, but leverage tends to dissipate if left untapped. The problem is not aid as such but, rather, a continued insistence on maximalist war aims that are increasingly detached from this war’s realities.

Proposals to sustain Ukraine’s defense through 2024 in a bid to push Kyiv toward a new counteroffensive in 2025 are setting the AFU up for a re-enactment of the disastrous 2023 counteroffensive, if not worse. Plans involving NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine have wisely been ruled out by most Western leaders.

Advocates of maximalist war aims in Ukraine have been remarkably successful over the last two years in affecting their policies both on and off the battlefield. From HIMARS rocket launchers and SCALP cruise missiles to Patriot missile systems and Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks, Ukraine has been saturated with a vast and potent array of Western weaponry. The international sanctions regime on Russia is by far the largest in history and growing, with the EU now on its thirteenth package of restrictive measures while the U.S. Treasury Department constantly looks for opportunities to further tighten the screws on Moscow.

The $60 billion supplemental is the latest such measure, but the issue has never been a lack of action — it’s the absence of a viable endgame in Ukraine. Speaker Mike Johnson has called on the Biden administration to articulate “a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict.” Indeed, it is vitally important to re-center the Ukraine debate on achieving consensus around a realistic framework for war termination.

Diplomacy Watch: Chinese diplomat shuttling to Russia, and Ukraine

Chinese diplomat Li Hui, the Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs, traveled to Ukraine, Russia, and elsewhere in Europe this week in what he described as an effort to build consensus among various parties for eventual peace talks.

It is Li’s second round of shuttle diplomacy since Russia’s invasion just over two years ago. The diplomat first traveled to Russia and Ukraine in May 2023, shortly before Kyiv launched its unsuccessful counteroffensive.

The latest visit also comes at a crucial time in the war, as Russia recently made its first major territorial gain in months, and the next tranche of aid from the United States continues to be held up in Congress.

During his trip, Li is also expected to visit Brussels, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw to get a sense of whether, given these developments, thinking in European capitals has changed, and there is an opportunity for Beijing to assume the role of peacemaker.

Reports suggest that there is little optimism for any substantial breakthroughs during the trip.

“Beijing’s continued diplomatic and economic support of Russia since the war has been a sticking point in relations with Europe, which said its trust in Beijing has eroded as it steps up scrutiny of its trade with China,” according to Bloomberg. “There’s also skepticism over China’s 12-point peace proposal issued in February 2023 to end the war.” The Bloomberg report adds that the Ukrainian ambassador in Beijing has also been given the “cold shoulder,” as only a handful of his more than 40 requests to meet with Chinese ministries have been granted.

Public opinion polling also shows that Ukrainians have an increasingly negative view of China and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, has made clear that he wants China to be present at the series of “peace summits” that Ukraine and its allies have put together since last summer.

“Ukrainian people see China as a hostile country. But at the same time, the Ukrainian president and officials still want to see China at the same table with other countries to discuss [Zelensky’s] peace talks,” Vita Golod, chair of Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, told the South China Morning Post . “I think Ukraine still sees a Chinese mediating role because China is the only country who is welcome to Moscow and Kyiv at the same time.”

Kyiv may also welcome Chinese involvement in mediation because it may legitimize Ukraine’s stance with the Global South, which Zelensky has been trying to win over since the start of the war.

As the SCMP article notes, Ukraine is unlikely to have confidence that Beijing can act as a neutral arbiter, given China’s perceived closeness to Moscow. .

“On his last trip to Kyiv, Li was given a list of steps China could take – short of condemning Russia – to help Ukraine,” according to the SCMP. “These included working to return children transported to Russia; maintaining the openness of the Black Sea grain corridor; and helping ensure the safety of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, which has been occupied by Russian forces.”

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said that Chinese “efforts point to one goal: that is to pave the way for ending the conflict and starting peace talks.”

“Past experience shows that a conflict when prolonged tends to deteriorate and escalate even beyond the expectations of the parties involved,” he added. “In the absence of peace talks, misperception and miscalculation will accumulate. (...) China supports the holding of an international peace conference at the right time”

When China first indicated interest in playing a peacemaking role, Washington tepidly endorsed the possibility, but there is little indication that the two countries are willing to work together to end the conflict.

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said on Sunday that he hopes that Ukraine and Russia can negotiate a cessation of hostilities soon, given the current battlefield dynamics. “On the issue of Ukraine, our view is that both sides have reached the limits of what they can get by war. We think that it is time to start a dialogue for a ceasefire," Fidan said, according t o the online Turkish media outlet Duvar . "That doesn't mean recognizing the occupation [by Russia], but issues of sovereignty and ceasefire should be discussed separately." Ankara has remained non-aligned during the conflict, providing Ukraine with some military support but refusing to join Western sanctions on Moscow. On Thursday, the Turkish president’s office announced that Zelenksy would visit Istanbul for talks with his counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday.

— Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) maintains that he is in no rush to bring the foreign aid bill that passed the Senate in mid-February to the House floor. There are two discharge petitions, one led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the other by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), that are looking to collect signatures that could force the bill to the floor over the Speaker’s objections.

“In the end, this all comes down to trust, which is in short supply in the Capitol right now,” according to a report in Punchbowl News . “Can Democratic leadership work with Republican Ukraine hawks on a discharge petition that would force Johnson’s hand? Is there any way Johnson and House GOP leaders [can] seek a deal with Democrats on this?”

— Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been unable to forge a political consensus in Ukraine over the recruitment of thousands of new soldiers that he says are necessary to combat Russian attacks, according to The Washington Post .

The lack of a clear plan “has fueled deep divisions in Ukraine’s parliament and more broadly in Ukrainian society. It has left the military relying on a hodgepodge of recruiting efforts and sown panic among fighting-age men, some of whom have gone into hiding, worried that they will be drafted into an ill-equipped army and sent to certain death given that aid for Ukraine remains stalled in Washington,” according to the Post. “The quandary over how to fill the ranks has confronted Zelensky with perhaps the greatest challenge to his leadership since the start of the February 2022 invasion.”

— A Russian missile struck the Ukrainian port city of Odessa while Zelensky was there on Wednesday. The attack hit approximately 500 to 800 meters away from Zelensky, who was visiting Odessa alongside Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a source told Reuters . “We witnessed the strike today,” Zelensky told reporters following the strike. “You see who we’re dealing with; they don’t care where to hit. I know that today there were victims, I don't know all the details yet, but I know that there are dead, there are wounded.”

U.S. State Department news:

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller was asked about the attack on Odessa during a press briefing on Wednesday.

“I think the strike is yet another reminder of how Russia continues to strike Ukraine every single day, and it’s a reminder of Ukraine’s need for air defense interceptors, and it’s a reminder that the United States Congress needs to take action, as we have called on them to do, to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression,” Miller said.

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Houthi attacks underscore failures of biden red sea strategy, why netanyahu is laughing all the way to the bank, neocon iraq war architects want a redo in gaza, at the hague, us more isolated than ever on israel-palestine, weighing the political fallout from lula's nazi comment, munich dispatch: gaza 'wind blowing against the west'.

By subscribing to our recent updates, you will gain access to a wealth of valuable information, including breaking news, expert analysis, and thought-provoking articles. Whether you are interested in science, technology, business, health, or any other field, our updates will keep you informed and engaged.

France and Germany on the rocks as Ukraine crisis deepens

The enduring problem with proxies, on air, biden walks back his own rafah 'red line' in real time, what the french evisceration of algeria has to do with gaza today, this tiktok bill won't fix what is ailing american society, the complete falling out of russo-japanese relations.

©2024 Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Get stories worth sharing delivered to your inbox

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Review Questions

1 . Which of the following is not  an agent of political socialization?

• a family member
• a religious leader
• a U.S. senator

2 . How are most attitudes formed?

• in adulthood, based on life choices
• in childhood, based on early childhood experiences
• in college, based on classes and majors
• after college, based on finances

3 . ________ political content is given by a media source that lets the reader or viewer know upfront there is a political bias or position.

• Explanatory

4 . Where do your beliefs originate?

5 . Which agents of socialization will have the strongest impact on an individual?

6 . The Bradley effect occurs when people ________.

• say they will vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s name
• say they will vote against a candidate because of the candidate’s race
• say they will vote for a candidate but then vote against him or her
• say they will vote in the next election but instead stay home

7 . Which of the following is  not  part of a scientific poll design?

• a leading question
• a random sample
• a representative sample
• a low margin of error

8 . A poll states that Hillary Clinton will receive 43 percent of the vote. There is an 8 percent margin of error. What do you think of the poll?

• It is a good poll and the margin of error is small.
• It is a good poll and the margin of error is acceptable.
• It is a non-representative poll and the margin of error is too high.
• The poll accurately predicts Clinton will receive 43 percent of the vote.

9 . Why do pollsters interview random people throughout the country when trying to project which candidate will win a presidential election?

10 . How have changes in technology made polling more difficult?

11 . Why are social policies controversial?

• They require people to accept the authority of the government.
• They require government to balance the rights and liberties of different groups.
• They require the government to increase spending.
• They require a decrease in regulations and laws.

12 . Which factor affects congressional approval ratings the most?

• presidential actions
• foreign events
• Supreme Court actions
• domestic events

13 . Which institution has the highest average public approval ratings?

• the presidency
• the U.S. House of Representatives
• the U.S. Senate
• the Supreme Court

14 . Why might one branch’s approval ratings be higher than another’s?

15 . When are social and economic issues more likely to cause polarization in public opinion?

16 . How do polls affect presidential elections?

• Polls help voters research information about each of the candidates.
• Polls tell voters the issues that candidates support.
• Polls identify the top candidates and the media interview those candidates.
• Polls explain which candidates should win the election.

17 . Presidential approval ratings ________ over a president’s term of office.

• stay relatively stable

18 . Which body of government is least susceptible to public opinion polls?

• the president
• U.S. Senate
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Supreme Court

19 . Why would House of Representative members be more likely than the president to follow public opinion?

20 . How do the media use public opinion polls during election season?

American Government 2e Copyright © 2019 by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Introduction
• 1.1 What is Government?
• 1.2 Who Governs? Elitism, Pluralism, and Tradeoffs
• 1.3 Engagement in a Democracy
• Review Questions
• Critical Thinking Questions
• Suggestions for Further Study
• 2.1 The Pre-Revolutionary Period and the Roots of the American Political Tradition
• 2.2 The Articles of Confederation
• 2.3 The Development of the Constitution
• 2.4 The Ratification of the Constitution
• 2.5 Constitutional Change
• 3.1 The Division of Powers
• 3.2 The Evolution of American Federalism
• 3.3 Intergovernmental Relationships
• 3.4 Competitive Federalism Today
• 3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
• 4.1 What Are Civil Liberties?
• 4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms
• 4.3 The Rights of Suspects
• 4.4 Interpreting the Bill of Rights
• 5.1 What Are Civil Rights and How Do We Identify Them?
• 5.2 The African American Struggle for Equality
• 5.3 The Fight for Women’s Rights
• 5.4 Civil Rights for Indigenous Groups: Native Americans, Alaskans, and Hawaiians
• 5.5 Equal Protection for Other Groups
• 6.1 The Nature of Public Opinion
• 6.2 How Is Public Opinion Measured?
• 6.3 What Does the Public Think?
• 6.4 The Effects of Public Opinion
• 7.1 Voter Registration
• 7.2 Voter Turnout
• 7.3 Elections
• 7.4 Campaigns and Voting
• 7.5 Direct Democracy
• 8.1 What Is the Media?
• 8.2 The Evolution of the Media
• 8.3 Regulating the Media
• 8.4 The Impact of the Media
• 9.1 What Are Parties and How Did They Form?
• 9.2 The Two-Party System
• 9.3 The Shape of Modern Political Parties
• 9.4 Divided Government and Partisan Polarization
• 10.1 Interest Groups Defined
• 10.2 Collective Action and Interest Group Formation
• 10.3 Interest Groups as Political Participation
• 10.4 Pathways of Interest Group Influence
• 10.5 Free Speech and the Regulation of Interest Groups
• 11.1 The Institutional Design of Congress
• 11.2 Congressional Elections
• 11.3 Congressional Representation
• 11.4 House and Senate Organizations
• 11.5 The Legislative Process
• 12.1 The Design and Evolution of the Presidency
• 12.2 The Presidential Election Process
• 12.3 Organizing to Govern
• 12.4 The Public Presidency
• 12.5 Presidential Governance: Direct Presidential Action
• 13.1 Guardians of the Constitution and Individual Rights
• 13.2 The Dual Court System
• 13.3 The Federal Court System
• 13.4 The Supreme Court
• 13.5 Judicial Decision-Making and Implementation by the Supreme Court
• 14.1 State Power and Delegation
• 14.2 State Political Culture
• 14.3 Governors and State Legislatures
• 14.4 State Legislative Term Limits
• 14.5 County and City Government
• 15.1 Bureaucracy and the Evolution of Public Administration
• 15.2 Toward a Merit-Based Civil Service
• 15.3 Understanding Bureaucracies and their Types
• 15.4 Controlling the Bureaucracy
• 16.1 What Is Public Policy?
• 16.2 Categorizing Public Policy
• 16.3 Policy Arenas
• 16.4 Policymakers
• 16.5 Budgeting and Tax Policy
• 17.1 Defining Foreign Policy
• 17.2 Foreign Policy Instruments
• 17.3 Institutional Relations in Foreign Policy
• 17.4 Approaches to Foreign Policy
• A | Declaration of Independence
• B | The Constitution of the United States
• C | Federalist Papers #10 and #51
• D | Electoral College Map
• E | Selected Supreme Court Cases

The main challenge is figuring out where students wish to register, at home or at college. Out-of-state students have an even greater challenge because they have moved across state lines.

To increase voter turnout in the United States, I would suggest these options: move to all-mail voting, hold elections on weekends, automatically register voters, and pass federal law that further reduces impediments to voter registration.

I would ask them their age, educational level, interest in politics, income level, and whether they voted in the last election.

Candidates with extreme viewpoints gain media attention, and primary voters are more ideologically motivated than voters in other elections.

Closed primaries do not allow voters affiliated with other parties to vote, thus keeping the decision inside the party.

Voters tend to vote for candidates who look attractive and competent. They may consider race, gender, height, weight, and other physical attributes.

People of means can easily form interest groups to propose initiatives/recalls and that have the resources to pay for signature collection.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/chapter-7

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.