In liberal democracies, it is generally believed that policies are made in accordance with public opinion. Foreign policy decisions are no exception. While pursuing a certain path, decision-makers often have future elections in mind. As a result, public opinion becomes a determining factor in foreign policy-making processes. This paper, however, takes a different perspective. It argues that the media, particularly in the form of think-tank articles written by experts with years of government and private expertise, may facilitate public compliance with official policies via efforts to ensure public consent with the application of a common discursive framework. To be considered as properly specialized on a specific topic, authors should be either members of the elite or closely associated with them. Because of their authors’ expertise, these articles may be very powerful and influential in disseminating information to the public. In times when disseminated information is carefully filtered, this practice provides the legitimation necessary in a liberal democracy. Therefore, official foreign policy texts such as presidential doctrines and think-tank publications written by experts share a textual domain. On that basis, this study explores textual relationships in the United States in the early Cold War era by examining the legitimation process of formal foreign policy declarations of presidents via articles published in Foreign Affairs magazine. A poststructuralist research design is employed to discuss intertextual links between the Truman Doctrine and selected articles from Foreign Affairs within an anti-communist framework. Using Lene Hansen’s Model 2 discourse analysis, this article investigates the discursive domains of these two types of texts. It is concluded that the articles from Foreign Affairs are intertextually linked to the Truman Doctrine and they legitimized official US foreign policy conduct in the eyes of the American public prior to and following the declaration of the doctrine.
Read full abstract