Review: Mobilizing Consent
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207803300115 |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Author | Robert D. Accinelli |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
REVIEWS
263
this
volume
is
a
landmark
in
Canadian
historiography
and
an event
in
the
intellectual
life
of
Canada.
The
author's
prose
is
clear
and highly
readable and
the volume
is
well
worth
the
attention
of
anyone
in-
terested
in
Canada.
Margaret
Prang/University
of
British Columbia
MOBILIZING
CONSENT
Public Opinion
and
American Foreign
Policy
1937-1947
Michael Leigh
Westport, Conn:
Greenwood
Press,
1976,
xvi,
187pp,
$14.50
In
spite of
a
mountainous
literature
on
public
opinion
and
foreign
policy
in
the
United
States,
scholars
continue
to
puzzle
over
the rela-
tionship
between
what
the
public
believes
and
how
policy-makers
behave.
It
is
this crucial
yet
vexing
problem
to
which this study
by
Michael
Leigh
of
the
University
of
Sussex
addresses
itself.
Using the
tools
of
both
the
historian and political
scientist, Leigh
tests
two
conflicting
interpretations
of
the
relationship
between
the
mass
public and
decision-makers:
that
of
the
traditionalist
who con-
tends
that
officials
are
constrained
by
public
opinion
and
that
of
the
radical
who
argues
that
they
can
manipulate opinion
in
support
of
their
own
predetermined
policy
choices.
Leigh's
test
consists
of
an
analysis
of
the
linkage between
mass
opinion
and
policy-makers
in
the
context
of
three
major reorientations
in American
foreign
policy
be-
tween
1937
and
1947:
the shift
from
neutrality
to belligerency;
the
endorsement
of
internationalism
in
the
form
of
the
United
Nations;
and
lastly,
the commitment
to
a
Cold-War
orientation
as
expressed
in
the
Truman
Doctrine.
Building
on
several
well-known models of
the
opinion-policy
relationship,
Leigh
contends
that
an
important
nexus
in
that
relationship
consists
of
the
'solicitation
of
public
views'
by
decision-makers
and
the
'diffusion'
by
them
'of
foreign-policy
informa-
tion
to
the
public
...'
He
reasons
that
'if
the
decision
maker
feels
obliged
to
consult or persuade
public
opinion,
the
logical
inference
is
that
it
holds
views
he
deems
relevant
to
the
decision
at
hand'
(p
7).
Applying
this
criterion
for
public
'participation'
in
decision-making,
To continue reading
Request your trial