V práci je provedena analýza hospodářské politiky vlády amerického prezidenta v 80. letech. Především se jedná o nastínění změny směru vedení hospodářské politiky z dříve prosazované keynesiánské na novou politiku teoreticky podporovanou monetarismem a školou strany nabídky. Analýza hospodářské politiky jednoho z nejvýznamnějších amerických prezidentů by nemohla být provedena bez toho, aniž by nebyla blíže vysvětlena Reaganova osobnost, jeho přesvědčení a schopnost zrealizovat konkrétní politické kroky. Ekonomické oživení v první polovině 80. let bylo zapříčiněno výraznou daňovou reformou a podporou strany nabídky. Stejně tak, jako Reagan oživil ekonomiku, povzbudil v Američanech národní hrdost a to především fiskální podporou sektoru národní obrany. Umění vládnout Ronalda Reagana bylo jednou z hlavních příčin ukončení studené války a vzniku samostatných států ve střední a východní Evropě.

This study examines how the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan responded to the widespread human rights abuses committed by the Argentine military during the country's Dirty War between 1977 and 1982. The objective is to gain a broader understanding of the policies pursued by both administrations. Under Carter, who brought human rights to the forefront of American foreign policy, Argentina was heavily targeted and sanctioned with the anticipation that such measures would enhance the human rights status in Argentina. Ultimately, such policies resulted in open hostility in bilateral relations, culminating in Argentina's refusal to support Carter's proposed grain embargo on the Soviet Union in 1980. Reagan moved to restore relations until Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in April, 1982. The works of many authors were consulted in conjunction with newspapers, journal articles, government proceedings and declassified documents obtained from the National Security Archives.

No description available.

Från Reagan till Trump: Populistiska uttryck inom det republikanska partiet 1980–2017 är en kandidatuppsats av Angelica Carlsson. Syftet med studien är att förklara förekomsten av populistiska uttryck inom det republikanska partiet i USA under tidsperioden 1980–2017. Populistiska uttryck i politiska tal av presidenterna Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush och Donald Trump undersöks och graderas utifrån Kirk A. Hawkins sex kriterier över populism. Talen analyseras också utifrån de teoretiska begreppen tunn respektive tjock populism. För att förklara de populistiska uttrycken beaktar studien den historiska kontexten och utvecklingslinjer inom det republikanska partiet. Utifrån studiens resultat kan konstateras att de populistiska uttrycken är högst i Reagans och Trumps tal, medan Bushs tal har en lägre grad av populism. I studien förklaras detta utifrån den historiska kontexten, där 1980 och 2016 präglades av mer politisk instabilitet än 2000. Studien belyser hur populism inte uppstår ur tomma intet utan ska förstås i relation till kontexten i vilken den uttrycks. / From Reagan to Trump: Populist expressions within the Republican Party 1980–2017 is a bachelor thesis by Angelica Carlsson. The aim of the thesis is to explain populist expressions within the Republican Party in the United States during the period 1980–2017. Populist expressions in political speeches by the presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump are investigated and graded based on Kirk A. Hawkin's criteria of populism. The thesis is also taking the theoretical terms thin and thick populism into consideration. In order to explain the populist expressions the historical context and the historical development of the Republican Party is taken into account. The main findings of the thesis is that Reagan's and Trump's speeches has the highest degree of populist expressions, while Bush's speeches has a lower degree of populist expressions. The study explains this from the historical context, where 1980 and 2016 were characterized by more political instability than 2000. The study illustrates how populism does not arise from nothing and should be understood in relation to the historical context.

The United States, during both the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan administrations, pursued humanitarian relief in the Horn of Africa and East Africa with an eye towards Cold War politics. During the Carter administration the focus was on Ethiopia and the regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam, while during the Reagan administration the United States’ efforts were mainly targeted towards Sudan and the regime of Gaffar Nimeiry. In both instances, the United States was concerned with the politics of the Cold War, trying to create a more positive image of the U.S. abroad by relieving world hunger, while also propping up governments that supported U.S. interests during the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The distribution of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch in the realm of foreign policy is a delicate balance and one that has been debated since the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The debate has gotten no less intense and no less crucial in the modern, nuclear age, and it remains unresolved. The Reagan administration's foray into Nicaragua during the 1980's and its confrontations with Congress during that time period illuminate the complexities of the power-sharing arrangement in foreign policy and offer the ideal case study of executive-legislative war power. The lessons to be drawn from America's involvement in Nicaragua are that the expanded Presidential power in the realm of foreign policy are necessary for the safety of the country in today's world, but dangerous without the vigorous oversight and ultimate check by Congress.

自一九四八年以色列建國以來, 美國和以色列便已建立外交關係,從布魯 門到布希, 先後歷經九位總統, 美以雙方在彼此認定的利益上,建立了錯 縱複雜的雙邊關係。用傳統的權力理論, 並無法解釋美以關係作為分析美 以關係的軸線, 用美以關係的發展為背景, 探討美國對以色列政策的演變 。除了對杜魯門到卡特時期略作分析之外, 本文特別將重點放在美以關係 最密切的雷根政府時期與最疏遠的布希政府時期。

Thesis (M.A.)--Brandeis University, 2008. / Title from IR (viewed on May 29, 2009). Includes bibliographical references.

abstract: The historiography of the Vietnam War's effect on American society and culture often focuses on the public image of its veterans. Historians and other scholars credit liberal and apolitical Vietnam veterans for reshaping Americans' opinions of those who served. These men deserve significant recognition for these changes; however, historians consistently overlook another aspect this topic. Conservative Republicans in the mid-1970s through the early 1990s made a concerted effort to alter how Americans viewed Vietnam veterans and their performance in the conflict. The few scholars who have examined this issue suggest conservatives wanted to quell Americans' distaste for military endeavors after the loss in Southeast Asia, a concept known as the Vietnam Syndrome. This dissertation argues conservatives' efforts were more complex than simply wanting to break down the syndrome. The war and its loss threatened their understandings of the exceptional nature of the United States. This notion of exceptionalism stemmed from the immense success of the country territorially, economically, and in the international system, accomplishments realized with the assistance of the American military. The performance of the military establishment and its soldiers in the Vietnam War and the negative international and domestic opinions of the country in the wake of this loss threatened those elements of American success that conservatives viewed as imperative to maintaining the idea of exceptionalism and the power of the United States. As a result, a disparate group of conservative Republicans in the post-Vietnam era attempted to alter American understandings of the nation's martial tradition and the concept of martial masculinity, both ravaged by the war. This dissertation adds another layer to the historiography of the effects of the Vietnam War by arguing that conservatives not only shored up Americans' belief in the martial tradition and reshaped the definition of martial masculinity, but that they also significantly influenced Americans' newfound positive opinions of Vietnam veterans. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation History 2014

Even though the Cold War ended almost 30 years ago, it has been one the most discussed phenomenon not only among IR scholars but also within the public. The whole Cold War discourse addresses many controversial question and who ended the Cold War is one of these questions. Basically, there are two schools of thought, one of which gives the credit to General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and his reform policies. The second one perceives the US President Ronald Reagan and his unapologetic foreign policy as the most decisive factor in the End of the Cold War. By employing the methodology of analysis, this thesis aims to assess the impact of Ronald Reagan and his foreign policy on the End of the Cold War. This thesis tests the hypothesis that Ronald Reagan and his foreign policy were the most decisive factor in the End of the Cold War.