Domestic politics and international competition: populism and the importance of understanding rhetoric

ABSTRACT

How do ideology, foreign policy, and the international system interact with and shape one another? This paper examines the relationship between ideology and foreign policy in the United Kingdom, India, and China and finds three common threads. First, while ideology likely affects foreign policy formulation, the causal mechanisms involved are complex and not necessarily uniform across states. Second, destabilizing forces like populism are increasing around the world with the potential to disturb current conceptions of the international order. Finally, from a policy perspective, distinguishing between a state’s operational and symbolic rhetoric can reduce the likelihood of strategic miscalculation. With these commonalities in mind, we contend that foreign policymakers must approach other states understanding that each state’s domestic situation is unique and that while Sino-American competition looms large in American policymaking, it might not be the driving force behind other states’ foreign policy decisions. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or United States Government.

KEYWORDS:

• Ideology
• populism
• foreign policy
• rhetoric
• domestic politics

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jordan Becker, Corvin Connolly, and two anonymous reviewers for their recommendations and thank Angelos Chryssogelos, Sandra Destradi, Johannes Plagemann, John Gregory, Li-Hsing Ho, Benjamin Martill, and Alexander Mesarovich for the insightful conversations that accompanied their West Point Security Seminar papers and presentations informing this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or United States Government.

Notes

1. Gregory and Li-Hsing (2023) define operational rhetoric as specific, concrete rhetoric that “actually influences state action,” while symbolic rhetoric is more general and abstract and “does not directly relate the actual ideological motives of … state action.”

2. In this definition, we remain open to both sides in longstanding debates between Marxists and critical theorists on one side and empirical social scientists on the other. The former have traditionally viewed ideology as a form of false consciousness to legitimize a particular power structure, while the later take a value neutral approach (Eagleton 1991; Gerring 1997; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009, 309–310). These approaches need not be mutually exclusive, as “the same belief system can simultaneously serve multiple functions … ” and can “reflect both genuine attempts to understand, interpret, and organize … ” and “conscious or unconscious tendences to rationalize the way things are or, alternatively, the desire for them to be different” (Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009, 309–310). Ideology can be genuine or instrumental, and the instrumentality can be intentional or unconscious.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jake Barnes

Jake Barnes is an instructor of American Politics in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy. He is a captain and Military Intelligence officer in the U.S. Army.

Seth Benson

Seth Benson is a Second Lieutenant and cyber officer in the U.S. Army.

Jack Farris

Jack Farris served as an Assistant Professor of International Affairs in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy. He is a major and Military Intelligence officer in the U.S. Army.

Michael Rosol

Michael Rosol is an Academy Professor and Director of the International Affairs Program in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy. A colonel in the U.S. Army, he has served in a variety of Armor, Cavalry, and Strategist positions in the United States, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Todd Schmidt

Todd Schmidt, Ph.D. is the Director of Army University Press and Editor-in-Chief of Military Review. A colonel in the U.S. Army, he has served in a variety of strategist and Air Defense Artillery command and staff positions in the U.S., South Korea, and the Middle East.