Reversing Course - by David Skidmore (Hardcover)

Book Synopsis

An examination of the several reasons for the failure of foreign policy reform during the controversial administration of President Jimmy Carter.

In Reversing Course, David Skidmore argues that President Carter's initial foreign policy agenda required a scaling back of U.S. commitments abroad, reflecting a decline in resources, as well as influence, in a world developing in ways necessarily reducing U.S. hegemony. By probing beneath the obvious and carefully sifting the abundant but poorly understood evidence, Skidmore finds at the root of Carter's failed effort an irresistible pressure to reverse a liberal foreign-policy agenda in order to address the effect at home of well-organized conservative criticism. For Skidmore, Carter's course "reversed" toward a traditional containment strategy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union not because of Soviet intransigence or faulty idealism but because Cold War politics sold better in the polls.

While offering significant theoretical arguments, Skidmore carefully anchors his thesis in the day-to-day political give and take among those personalities and events that provoked headlines and commentaries long before they were the stuff of history. Among the telling factors and events analyzed in this book are the Vance/Brzezinski conflict, the support and opposition of Howard Baker, the SALT II Treaty, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, to mention only a few.

Although Skidmore draws conclusions that apply to the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations as well, his focus is not on personality but on theory and underlying structures. He provides a demonstration that this structural approach can "be helpful not only in unraveling the mysteries of policy change under Carter but also in specifying the underlying sources of policy vacillation over much of the past two decades." .

From the Back Cover

In Reversing Course, David Skidmore argues that President Carter's initial foreign policy agenda sought to scale back U.S. commitment's abroad, reflecting a decline in resources, as well as influence, and a world developing in ways necessarily reducing U.S. hegemony. By probing beneath the obvious and carefully sifting the abundant but poorly understood evidence, Skidmore finds at the root of Carter's failed effort an irresistible pressure to reverse a liberal foreign-policy agenda in order to address the effect at home of well-organized conservative criticism. For Skidmore, Carter's course "reversed" tow and a traditional containment strategy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union not because of Soviet intransigence or faulty idealism but because Cold War politics sold better in the polls. While offering significant theoretical arguments, Skidmore carefully anchors his thesis in the day-to-day political give and take among those personalities and events that provoked headlines and commentaries long before they were the stuff of history. Although Skidmore draws conclusions that apply to the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations as well, his focus is not on personality but on theory and underlying structures. Here is persuasive demonstration that this structural approach can "be helpful not only in unraveling the mysteries of policy change under Carter but also in specifying the underlying sources of policy vacillation over much of the past two decades".

Review Quotes

An innovative and important interpretation of Carter's foreign policy.
--John A. Vasquez, Vanderbilt University

In this major contribution to the theory and practice of foreign policy, David Skidmore develops a new theoretical framework that achieves a much needed integration of international and domestic constraints on U.S. foreign policy.
--Alexander George, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

Skidmore has brought forth an interesting and well-reasoned argument that domestic political forces played a major role in the substance of U.S. policies during the Carter years. The book furthers the debate between those who assert that policy is almost wholly a function of external sources and critics of structural realism. In short, this book makes an important theoretical contribution.
--Ole R. Holsti, Duke University