Chapters Two and Three Outlines

This is the outline for the second and third chapters. My head is swirling, SWIRLING!!!, with realization about how much research and tedious (albeit pleasant) work this will take. Just to gather the information, let alone to operationalize and analyze it in any meaningful degree. Wow. I definitely have my work cut out for me. At least I now know what and how (sort of) to go about it. Much more definition is needed, but it feels good to put it down on paper. (Or on a Word Document....)

The second chapter, after establishing the parameters of U.S. foreign policy identity and change in the modern world in the first chapter, will focus on legislative behavior since 1970, asking the practical empirical question of whether Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism has made religion more salient in the foreign policy legislative process. I will look at when and how religion enters the political sphere, and if this is different than in the past. How, when, and by whom is religion brought into the foreign policy dialog? Is this different than before 1979?

I will approach this question through content analysis of the Congressional deliberation process in all stages of agenda setting, policy making, rule making and implementation. Additionally, within the full range of foreign policy legislation, I will analyze the content of Committee and Subcommittee hearings, Dear Colleague letters, bill text and amendments, Statements of Administrative Position, amicus briefs, one-minute speeches, and committee/floor speeches, as well as bill sponsorship, co-sponsorship, and roll call votes.

I am certain that this process will be revealing regarding legislative behavior in the foreign policy domain. The independent variable will be fluctuations in conflict aggravation in certain regions of the international system, electoral variables, threats toward the United States from certain regions, and other relevant variables that capture dynamics in the Middle East region. While I cannot begin to hypothesize to any informed degree at this stage, I might expect that when conflict erupts in general within the region, within states and among differing religious groups, the United States will not assume a threatened posture and will leave religious commentary out of the policy or intervention dialog. However, whenever violence is directed at the United States, policy makers will immediately and indiscriminately filter a response through a religious identity framework although the legislation and outcomes that come from the deliberation are stripped of religious language.

The third chapter looks at how religious identity shapes individual members’ personal experiences in legislative foreign policy decision making. In the past, scholars have looked at the religious views and backgrounds of Members of Congress as they inform decision making on certain social issues like abortion and traditional marriage. However, this study will be more comprehensive in looking at all foreign policy issues, from U.N. funding, international family planning programs overseas, the global HIV and Malaria initiatives, intervention in genocide situations, condemning other State actions, and all issues covered by the Foreign Affairs Committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate. This will be a preliminary attempt to see which aspects, if any, of religious identity inform Congressional preferences, in a manner similar to partisanship and constituent base. The different aspects of religious identity relevant for decision making have been elsewhere defined as “belonging, believing, and behaving.”

The “belonging” variable of religious identity is the denominational affiliation or the sociological group aspect of religious identity. Therefore, the belonging variable captures whether one is Southern Baptist, Secular Jewish, Unaffiliated Agnostic, or Athiest. The “believing” variable of religious identity involves the theological leanings of the individual, which is often mediated through the denomination. This variable requires a close look at the orthodoxy-scale of the beliefs as well as understanding of specific teachings and doctrines that inform preferences for foreign policy issues. The “behaving” variable of religious identity involves a Member’s involvement in religious practice and community. Some databases of this information exist, and others must be refined and assessed, although today there is much more understanding of Member’s religious leanings and identities beyond a mere “Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Other” categorization that comprised the totality of religious survey information until recent years and more thoroughly operationalized religious identity.

This chapter will compare the effects of these measures on political behavior alongside the conventionally significant partisanship and constituent base variables. This will show when, if ever, along the whole spectrum of foreign policy issues, each of these variables is salient and significant. This is an advance on current scholarship in that it assesses broad religious effects on foreign policy behavior using more foreign policy issues than previous studies and utilizes and incorporates newer religious data with a broader grasp on the intricacies of American religiosity, especially amidst Protestant denominations.

In addition, the third chapter must include a robust section on Presidential religious identity. However, it will be restricted to how the President’s identity influences his behavior on foreign policy making in the legislature. Of course, the role of the President in foreign policy decision-making extends far beyond the deliberations in Congress, and is worthy of study in its own rite. However, this study will look only at legislative deliberation and action on foreign policy issues, and the President plays an important role in this, through issuing Administrative positions on significant legislation, making appeals to Members of Congress and directly over their heads their constituents. Therefore, it is important to assess the ways in which the President’s religious identity in all aspects of belonging, believing, and behaving, inform his preferences and policy decisions.

The method for this section includes drawing from current datasets on religious variables for members, roll call votes, committee votes, content analysis of speeches and press releases, op-eds, and co-sponsorship of legislation. In addition, I will search for information regarding participation and attendance at religious groups and caucus meetings in Washington and in their districts. It would be useful also to obtain personal interviews with Members on the Foreign Policy Committees in the House and Senate regarding their decision-making processes. Additionally, a Principle-Agent analysis may assist in discerning to which Agent Members of Congress are beholden, as their choices may have multiple pulls—to party, President, constituency, pressure group, religious denomination, or theological doctrine.

In the end, chapter three will take us closer to understanding how and when religious identity informs decision making on various foreign policy issues that come before the legislature through various means.

Chapter One Outline

The first chapter of my dissertation will focus on U.S. foreign policy Identity. This will be heavily focused on qualitative content analysis of important policy documents and decision making processes. It will also possibly turn into a second shorter chapter on the organizational expansion of the State Department, since this is the personification of U.S. identity abroad through the medium of a government agency. Thus, bureaucratic politics, the organizational model, and process tracing as well as content analysis will aid my search for U.S. foreign policy identity.

This paper has so far served to show why the advent of religious fundamentalism has ushered in a new threat-advisory to the contemporary world order, and each decade that has passed since the Iranian revolution has lead to increased transformation. I propose in my dissertation to focus on a spectrum of the religion-in-IR debate by looking at the way that religion has informed US foreign policymaking since the 1970s, perhaps restricting my analysis to the Middle East if it proves to be a unique region.

In the first chapter, I will look at the way that US legislators have understood American identity as regards foreign policy in the post-Iranian revolution era. I hypothesize that American legislators increasingly view our nation as a religious nation—moreover, a Christian nation. At the very least, more talk of a sovereign God has colored the foreign policy rhetoric since the 1970s and the entrance of political Islam on the world-stage. As it has become increasingly visible, and had more of a voice due to technological advances, global telecommunications and the internet, U.S. identity rhetoric has become increasingly religious. Thus, American identity since the 1970s in foreign policy analysis has become increasingly religiously characterized.

To examine the identity to which the American legislature and related institutions ascribes, one must look closely at the changing foundational documents of contemporary foreign policy such as the Bush Doctrine. Additionally, one must consider the expansion of the U.S. State Department as an organization, focusing on the creation of the Bureau of Religious Freedom. One must also look at the dialog centering on the responsibility of America toward democratic countries with oppressive regimes. These include the Iranian revolution of 1979, when a U.S. backed regime was overthrown for a popular fundamentalist uprising, the election of Hamas into power in the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2004, Egypt in 2011, and rumblings elsewhere. Has the rhetoric of American diplomats and legislators changed? Additionally, is the legislator’s perspective of American foreign policy identity different than the mass public? Than the media and bureaucrats?

If U.S. legislators view American identity in foreign policy matters as part of a broader or religious identity, there are interesting implications about whether or not this religious “othering” is divisive or uniting. For example, there are global faith movements, in which the devout are set opposed to the secular, following the “culture wars” divide rather than an ethnoreligious divide. The “culture wars” divide denotes an arising dichotomy between individuals with an orthodox religious worldview and those with a secular worldview. This has led to movements of orthodox Jews, Muslims and Christians joining together in opposition to unorthodox programs within certain domestic and international issues like family planning programming and funding at home and abroad, among other concerns. This can be witnessed in social issues, but may apply more widely beyond issues of abortion, traditional marriage, and public prayer. I hypothesize also that the changes in foreign policy identity have gone from promoting democracy’s work to promoting God’s work in the eyes of U.S. Congressmen. Since the World Wars, these have been conflated, but in today’s world, the difference between functional, definitional democracy and “good” democracy has begun to emerge causing additional concerns for U.S. policymakers.

One last question within this first inquiry into broader U.S. Foreign Policy identity is whether the U.S. has a regional identity in one part of the globe that differs from another. Is U.S. identity as regards the Middle East a primarily “religious” identity, where religion is the salient matter, whereas U.S. foreign policy identity is a “liberal democratic” identity, such as in transitioning post-soviet regions and in China, Africa, India? What is the difference between these regions that would cause American identity to be segmented?

Tree House Study

I'm sitting upstairs at the Starbucks down the street from my house, the tree house loft. I got here really early today, which allowed me to secure my most coveted spot, the table by the window overlooking Pennsylvania Ave. It is a bright and sunny day, with the last of the few spare leaves shimmering golden and maple in the sunshine. Below, life feels and looks like it is picking up speed again, after the lloooonnngggg sloooow trudging through the bitter cold and chill of winter wind. Oh, life, come alive again! Oh, soul, come alive again!

Last night I went walking on the National Mall with my good friend, and I enjoyed the brisk pace to keep me warm, and the cool sprays of rain water sitting on my skin. My cheekbones almost felt frozen, but everything else was toasty!

Another thing brightened my day today: upstairs there were two little blond boys. Maybe three and four years old. They were chatty and sunny and an older man was talking to them and making them giggle. When he left, he told them to have an awesome day, and they both chirped back together, "you have an awesome day, too!" It was so cute, unbelievably cute, and they were pure sunshine and light in my day. I know its going to be a good one!

And it will end just as sweetly at the Cheesecake factory with my Sweetheart!