The Two Faces of American Freedom boldly reinterprets the American political tradition from the colonial period to modern times, placing issues of race relations, immigration, and presidentialism in the context of shifting notions of empire and citizenship. Today, while the U.S. enjoys tremendous military and economic power, citizens are increasingly insulated from everyday decision-making. This was not always the case. America, Aziz Rana argues, began as a settler society grounded in an ideal of freedom as the exercise of continuous self-rule—one that joined direct political participation with economic independence. However, this vision of freedom was politically bound to the subordination of marginalized groups, especially slaves, Native Americans, and women. These practices of liberty and exclusion were not separate currents, but rather two sides of the same coin. However, at crucial moments, social movements sought to imagine freedom without either subordination or empire. By the mid-twentieth century, these efforts failed, resulting in the rise of hierarchical state and corporate institutions. This new framework presented national and economic security as society’s guiding commitments and nurtured a continual extension of America’s global reach. Rana envisions a democratic society that revives settler ideals, but combines them with meaningful inclusion for those currently at the margins of American life.

In The Two Faces of National Interest, W. David Clinton sets out to form a clear definition of a concept that may have become too elastic for its (and our) own good, and to ascertain its utility in the field of foreign relations. Much of the confusion surrounding the term national interest, Clinton argues, stems from the fact that analysts and officials use it in two different senses, without defining it precisely or making clear which sense they mean in any particular case. In Part One of his study, Clinton presents a clarification of the two meanings - one, the common good of a society, which necessarily looks inward to the basic principles of the domestic regime; the other, a specific claim, which can be supported by justifying arguments, made by the state on other states or the society of states. Clinton lays out the critics' case against national interest, suggests that his definition meets the objections, and considers the special case of the fit between national-interest thinking and the American diplomatic tradition. In Part Two, Clinton uses this definition to consider four departures in American foreign policy - that is, significant turns in policy that occasioned reexamination of the requirements of the national interest - since World war II. The preparation of the Marshall Plan and the decision to enter the Korean war both came during the Truman presidency and together did much to define containment; the evolution of the Nixon Doctrine and of the Carter policy on human rights accompanied the end of the containment consensus and marked attempts to devise a new roster of asserted interests. Interpreting these events by means of the society's national interest and the several national interests or claims pressed by it on the international setting, Clinton concludes that the concept of national interest, if used carefully, remains a valuable tool for understanding international relations. In presenting a balanced treatment of what is sometimes an extremely controversial subject, Clinton addresses an issue largely ignored since Charles Beard and Hans J. Morgenthau. Written with grace and power, The Two Faces of National Interest is an informed, thought-provoking, and authoritative work that will have enduring value as a scholarly and public information.

This is the first systematic and critical analysis of the concept of national interest from the perspective of contemporary theories of International Relations, including realist, Marxist, anarchist, liberal, English School and constructivist perspectives. Scott Burchill explains that although commonly used in diplomacy, the national interest is a highly problematic concept and a poor guide to understanding the motivations of foreign policy.

This book intends to make NI more accessible and viable, especially as a critical device for better understanding contemporary politics. The purpose is to refresh the debate on NI and to explore this fascinating concept, appreciating its multifaceted and malleable nature. Throughout time, NI has been presented as an ambiguous but obstinate concept in politics, political discourse, and theoretical elaboration. NI has constantly resurfaced, and many designate themselves as its protectors. Its increasing relevance, pertinence and recurrence make it clear that it can no longer be ignored in political analysis.

This collected volume presents research focusing on the interaction of domestic, foreign, and transnational actors in the process of the construction of national interests. The contributors concentrate on the extent to which the role of non-state actors has strengthened the formulating of national interests of the Slovak Republic in the post-integration period. The book addresses academic readers as well as everyone interested in Slovakia and its recent development.

Most Americans assume that U.S. foreign policy is determined by democratically elected leaders who define and protect the common good of the citizens and the nation they represent. Increasingly, this conventional wisdom falls short of explaining the real

The United States has been marked by a highly politicized and divisive history of foreign policy-making. Why do the nation's leaders find it so difficult to define the national interest? Peter Trubowitz offers a new and compelling conception of American foreign policy and the domestic geopolitical forces that shape and animate it. Foreign policy conflict, he argues, is grounded in America's regional diversity. The uneven nature of America's integration into the world economy has made regionalism a potent force shaping fights over the national interest. As Trubowitz shows, politicians from different parts of the country have consistently sought to equate their region's interests with that of the nation. Domestic conflict over how to define the "national interest" is the result. Challenging dominant accounts of American foreign policy-making, Defining the National Interest exemplifies how interdisciplinary scholarship can yield a deeper understanding of the connections between domestic and international change in an era of globalization.