With world affairs so troubled, what kind of foreign policy should the United States pursue? Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton look for answers in a surprising place: among the American people. Drawing on a series of national surveys conducted between 1974 and 2004, Page and Bouton reveal that—contrary to conventional wisdom—Americans generally hold durable, coherent, and sensible opinions about foreign policy. Nonetheless, their opinions often stand in opposition to those of policymakers, usually because of different interests and values, rather than superior wisdom among the elite. The Foreign Policy Disconnect argues that these gaps between leaders and the public are harmful, and that by using public opinion as a guideline policymakers could craft a more effective, sustainable, and democratic foreign policy. Page and Bouton support this argument by painting a uniquely comprehensive portrait of the military, diplomatic, and economic foreign policies Americans favor. They show, for example, that protecting American jobs is just as important to the public as security from attack, a goal the current administration seems to pursue single-mindedly. And contrary to some officials’ unilateral tendencies, the public consistently and overwhelmingly favors cooperative multilateral policy and participation in international treaties. Moreover, Americans’ foreign policy opinions are seldom divided along the usual lines: majorities of virtually all social, ideological, and partisan groups seek a policy that pursues the goals of security and justice through cooperative means. Written in a clear and engaging style, The Foreign Policy Disconnect calls, in an original voice, for a more democratic approach to creating such a policy.

A former American diplomat reveals a disconnect between Washington policymakers and those who work in US embassies. When the world awoke on November 28, 2010, and read the first of the 251,287 State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini warned, “It will be the September 11th of world diplomacy.” The WikiLeaks scandal certainly stirred tempers around the world, but it was not the implosion that many leaders expected: rather, it shed a new spotlight on the work of the U.S. foreign service. In To the Secretary, Mary Thompson-Jones explores the most fascinating and overlooked of these cables to offer an unparalleled window into the day-to-day work of U.S. diplomats, demystifying the lives of those who implement America’s foreign policy across the globe. From the story of Bulgaria’s Aleksi “the Tractor” Petrov to disappearing ballot ink in Ukraine, a Honduran coup d’état, or disaster relief for a devastated Haiti, To the Secretary depicts the work of ambassadors and foreign service officers through their firsthand narratives dealing with crises, corruption, and testy world leaders. Negotiating distinctly un-American customs and corridors of power, these shrewd brokers in embassies from Argentina to Zimbabwe worked tirelessly to promote American diplomacy in a world frequently hostile to the United States. To the Secretary also reveals the disconnect that diplomats face at home, guided by conflicting approaches from multiple Washington stakeholders intent on their own agenda, often unaware of realities on the ground. In an honest assessment of America’s foreign policy challenges, Thompson-Jones describes the deepening gulf between decision makers in Washington and their diplomats in the field. From misinterpreted analyses of anti-Americanism to Washington’s unwillingness to send resources to support diplomatic activities that could make a difference, To the Secretary shows what policymakers can learn from diplomats abroad—and how this can strengthen America’s place in an unstable world.

Bridging the gap that separates the two cultures of academia and policymaking is the central purpose of this pathbreaking study. George examines six U.S. strategies toward Iraq in 1988-1991. He urges policymakers to make better use of scholarly knowledge and challenges scholars to develop the types of knowledge that can be employed effectively by policymakers.

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.

This “eye-opening analysis” explains how and why America’s culture wars and partisan divide have led to dysfunctional US policy abroad (The Atlantic). In this provocative book, Peter Gries challenges the view that partisan elites on Capitol Hill are out of touch with a moderate American public. Dissecting a new national survey, Gries shows how ideology powerfully divides Main Street over both domestic and foreign policy and reveals how and why, with the exception of attitudes toward Israel, liberals consistently feel warmer toward foreign countries and international organizations—and desire friendlier policies toward them—than conservatives do. The Politics of American Foreign Policy weaves together in-depth examinations of the psychological roots and foreign policy consequences of the liberal-conservative divide; the cultural, socio-racial, economic, and political dimensions of American ideology; and the moral values and foreign policy orientations that divide Democrats and Republicans. Within this context, the book explores why Americans disagree over US policy relating to Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and international organizations such as the UN.

Not Enough Representation: The Disconnect between Congress and Its Citizens examines how representative the United States Congress is among different demographic groups and how representational issues affect Americans’ perception of Congress, potentially threatening its legitimacy. The opening chapter analyzes political representation from the perspective of the nature of the relationship between voters and legislators, addressing why Congress is so demographically unrepresentative. The book will then focuses on outcome—the representativeness of the legislature in terms of its members’ demographic backgrounds. Congress, simply put, is not demographically representative of the American public. There are significant gaps between Congress and the American public on the basis of race, gender, religion, wealth and generation. Since members of Congress do not adequately represent the diversity in their electorate, this suggests that Congress in turn does not make polices that advocate for the citizenry as a whole. The book first examines the nature of the relationship between citizens and legislators before analyzing demographic groups in the general population and comparing their preferences to how Congressional members of that demographic group legislate. In the process, the book ties representation to many of the hot-button issues that polarize both the American public and Congress. Congress is not descriptively representative of the U.S. population. Many groups of Americans have historically been, and continue to be, underrepresented in Congress. More than ever before, this underrepresentation is troublesome to a substantial number of Americans—and problematic for American democracy.