Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 305–325 | Cite as

The public images of Britain, Germany, and France in the United States

  • Kai OppermannEmail author
Article

Abstract

The article traces the images of America’s three foremost European allies in US public opinion over the course of the Presidency of George W. Bush. Public country images are seen to consist of a valence and a salience dimension. Employing a mix of opinion polls and media content data, the article locates the country images under study within this two-dimensional space. It finds that US relations with Britain, Germany and France rest on rather different foundations in the American public: the British image displays both the most positive valence and the highest salience; the valence of the German image is the second most positive but its image is the least salient; the French image has the least positive valence, and its salience takes on a middle position.

Keywords

country images US public opinion salience Britain Germany France 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Liberal International Relations Theory. A Scientific Assessment’, in Progress in International Relations Theory. Appraising the Field, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 159–204.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See John H. Aldrich, Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, and Kristin Thompson Sharp, ‘Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection’, Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006): 477–502Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Douglas Foyle, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and Globalization: Public Opinion, World Opinion, and the Individual’, International Studies Review 5, no. 2 (2003): 163–70.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Carl Cavanagh Hodge, ‘Old Wine and Old Bottles: Anti-Americanism in Britain, France and Germany’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 7, no. 2 (2009): 148–62Google Scholar
  5. 3a.
    Giacomo Chiozza, ‘A Crisis Like No Other? Anti-Americanism at the Time of the Iraq War’, European Journal of International Relations 15, no. 2 (2009): 257–89.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    See, however, Paul R. Brewer, Kimberly Gross, Sean Aday and Lars Willnat, ‘International Trust and Public Opinion About World Affairs’, American Journal of Political Science 48, no. 1 (2004): 93–109; for an analysis of both European public opinion on the US and American public opinion on Europe, seeGoogle Scholar
  7. 4a.
    Ronald Asmus, Philip P. Everts and Pierangelo Isernia, Across the Atlantic and the Political Aisle. The Double Divide in U.S.European Relations (Washington, DC: German Marshall Fund, 2004).Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Richard K. Herrmann and Michael P. Fischerkeller, ‘Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model: Cognitive-Strategic Research after the Cold War’, International Organization 49, no. 3 (1995): 415.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Michael D. Young and Mark Schafer, ‘Is There Method in Our Madness? Ways of Assessing Cognition in International Relations’, Mershon International Studies Review 42, no. 1 (1998): 79–84Google Scholar
  10. 6a.
    Pamela J. Conover and Stanley Feldman, ‘How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model’, American Journal of Political Science 28, no. 1 (1984): 96–98.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Kenneth E. Boulding, ‘National Images and International Systems’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 3, no. 2 (1959): 120–23.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Jarol B. Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 131–35.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    Richard K. Herrmann, Perceptions and Behavior in Soviet Foreign Policy (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985), 32; Herrmann and Fisherkeller, ‘Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model’, 426.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    See Nicole Gnesotto, ‘EU, US: Visions of the World, Visions of the Other’, in Shift or Rift: Assessing US-EU relationships after Iraq, ed. Gustav Lindstrom (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, 2003), 21–42Google Scholar
  15. 10a.
    Susanne Gehrig, ‘Too Focused on the Past? Die Wahrnehmung und Beschreibung Europas in den politischen Diskursen der Vereinigten Staaten’, in Von welchem Europa reden wir? Reichweiten nationaler Europadiskurse, ed. Frank Baasner (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008), 203–37.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    See Patrick Chamorel, ‘Anti-Europeanism and Euroskepticism in the United States’, in Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future of Transatlantic Relations, ed. Thomas L. Ilgen (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 163–91Google Scholar
  17. 11a.
    Simon Serfaty, ‘Anti-Europeanism in America and Anti-Americanism in Europe’, in Visions of America and Europe. September 11, Iraq, and Transatlantic Relations, ed. Christina V. Balis and Simon Serfaty (Washington, DC: CSIS Press), 3–20.Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    Christopher Wlezien, ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem’”, Electoral Studies 24, no. 4 (2005): 556–61Google Scholar
  19. 12a.
    Stuart N. Soroka, ‘Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8, no. 1 (2003): 28–29.Google Scholar
  20. 13.
    Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, Social Cognition (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984), 11–12.Google Scholar
  21. 14.
    Bryan. D. Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 65.Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    See, for example, Kai Oppermann and Henrike Viehrig, ‘The Public Salience of Foreign and Security Policy in Britain, Germany and France’, West European Politics 32, no. 5 (2009): 925–42Google Scholar
  23. 15a.
    Catherine E. De Vries, ‘Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections’, European Union Politics 8, no. 3 (2007): 363–85.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    George C. Edwards, William Mitchell and Reed Welch, ‘Explaining Presidential Approval: The Significance of Issue Salience’, American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 1 (1995): 108–34Google Scholar
  25. 16a.
    Mark N. Franklin and Christopher Wlezien, ‘The Responsive Public: Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Unification’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9, no. 3 (1997): 347–63.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    Christopher Wlezien, ‘The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending’, American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 (1995): 981–1000.Google Scholar
  27. 18.
    Shelly E. Taylor and Susan T Fiske, ‘Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top-of-the-head phenomena’, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 11, ed. Leonard Berkowitz (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1978), 249–88.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    Philip J. Powlick and Andrew Z. Katz, ‘Defining the American Public Opinion/Foreign Policy Nexus’, Mershon International Studies Review 42, no. 1 (1998): 31–39.Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    Jorgen Rasmussen and James M. McCormick, ‘British Mass Perceptions of the Anglo-American Special Relationship’, Political Science Quarterly 108, no. 3 (1993): 516–521.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    Alex Danchev, ‘On Specialness’, International Affairs 72, no. 4 (1996): 737–50.Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    See John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship. Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006).Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead and Conrad Smewing, Public Diplomacy (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2002).Google Scholar
  33. 24.
    Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy, 134–35.Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    The precise question wording is ‘Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. First, is your overall opinion of [RANDOM ORDER] very favourable, mostly favourable, mostly unfavourable, or very unfavourable? How about [INSERT NEXT ITEM]?’ The only gap in the available data is for France in the year 2000. The full set of Country Ratings is available on: https://doi.org/www.gallup.com/poll/1624/Perceptions-Foreign-Countries.aspx (accessed 20 May 2010).
  35. 26.
    The exact survey question is ‘Please rate your feelings toward some countries and peoples, with one hundred meaning a very warm, favorable feeling, zero meaning a very cold, unfavorable feeling, and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to one hundred, the higher the number the more favorable your feelings are toward that country or those people.’ For the complete data set, see: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, ‘Global Views 2008. U.S. Public Topline Report, July 2008’, https://doi.org/www.ccfr.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline%20Reports/POS%202008/2008%20Public%20Opinion_US%20Topline.pdf, 42–49 (accessed 20 May 2010).
  36. 27.
    Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal, ‘Measuring Issue Salience’, American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 1 (2000): 72–77.Google Scholar
  37. 28.
    Paul R. Brewer, Joseph Graf and Lars Willnat, ‘Priming or Framing. Media Influence on Attitudes toward Foreign Countries’, Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 65, no. 6 (2003), 493–508.Google Scholar
  38. 29.
    Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 63–72Google Scholar
  39. 29a.
    Joanne M. Miller and Jon A. Krosnick, ‘Anatomy of News Media Priming’, in Do the Media Govern? Politicians, Voters, and Reporters in America, ed. Shanto Iyengar and Richard Reeves (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997), 258–75.Google Scholar
  40. 30.
    Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media’, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1972): 176–87Google Scholar
  41. 30a.
    George C. Edwards, William Mitchell and Reed Welch, ‘Explaining Presidential Approval: The Significance of Issue Salience’, American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 1 (1995): 112–13; Soroka, ‘Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy’, 42–44.Google Scholar
  42. 31.
    Wayne Wanta, Guy Golan and Cheolhan Lee, ‘Agenda Setting and International News: Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 2 (2004): 371–75.Google Scholar
  43. 32.
    Teun A. van Dijk, ‘Opinions and Ideologies in the Press’, in Approaches to Media Discourse, ed. Allan Bell and Peter Garrett (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 21–63.Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    I owe this point to an anonymous reviewer.Google Scholar
  45. 34.
    The significance of these caveats has been brought to my attention by an anonymous reviewer.Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    W. Lance Bennett, ‘The News about Foreign Policy’, in Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War, ed. W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 12–40Google Scholar
  47. 35a.
    Terrence H. Qualter, ‘The Role of the Mass Media in Limiting the Public Agenda’, in Manipulating Public Opinion. Essays on Public Opinion as a Dependent Variable, ed. Michael Margolis and Gary A. Mauser (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1989), 145–48Google Scholar
  48. 35b.
    Benjamin I. Page, Robert Y. Shapiro and Glenn R. Dempsey, ‘What Moves Public Opinion?’, American Political Science Review 81, no. 1 (1987): 39.Google Scholar
  49. 36.
    Epstein and Segal, ‘Measuring Issue Salience’, 72–73.Google Scholar
  50. 37.
    Eugene R. Wittkopf, Charles W. Kegley Jr. and James M. Scott, American Foreign Policy. Pattern and Process, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003), 301–03Google Scholar
  51. 37a.
    Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 7th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006), 91, 319–20.Google Scholar
  52. 38.
    The precise search terms were ‘Tony Blair’ (until 26 June 2007) and ‘Gordon Brown’ (since 27 June 2007) for Britain; ‘Gerhard Schroder’ or ‘Gerhard Schroeder’ (until 21 November 2005) and Angela Merkel’ (since 22 November 2005) for Germany; and ‘Jacques Chirac’ (until 15 May 2007) and ‘Nicolas Sarkozy’ (since 16 May 2007) for France.Google Scholar
  53. 39.
    Two points of clarification are in order. First, the in-depth searches proved much more cumbersome than the first set of general searches. It was considered expedient, therefore, to restrict them to the New York Times. Second, the week preceding the selected events was included in the analysis only if the events were at least partly to be anticipated and therefore already under discussion in the media. Obviously, the week prior to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 is therefore not covered by the searches.Google Scholar
  54. 40.
    In the first step, all articles were selected which contained at least one of the following keywords: ‘Britain’, ‘British’ or ‘Blair’ for articles on Britain; ‘German’, ‘Germany’, or ‘Schroder’/‘Schroeder’ for articles on Germany; and ‘France’, ‘French’ or ‘Chirac’ for articles on France: every article which referred either to the name of the country in question or to the surname of its acting chief executive was considered in the second step of the analysis. The search terms employed on this occasion are deliberately less restrictive than the ones used in the more general searches. Since the content of every article was double-checked by hand, there was no danger in this case of mistakenly including irrelevant articles.Google Scholar
  55. 41.
    I am indebted to Danae Ankel and Linda Müller for their assistance in conducting the second set of specific LexisNexis searches.Google Scholar
  56. 42.
    According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ 2002 ‘Thermometer of World Leaders’, the US public at the time viewed Tony Blair by far more positively than any other leader of a foreign country, including Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac. See The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, ‘Worldviews 2002. American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy’, https://doi.org/www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline%20Reports/POS%202002/2002_US_Report.pdf (accessed 20 May 2010).
  57. 43.
    John Dumbrell, ‘The US-UK Special Relationship: Taking the 21st-Century Temperature’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11, no. 1 (2009): 65–68.Google Scholar
  58. 44.
    William Wallace and Christopher Phillips, ‘Reassessing the Special Relationship’, International Affairs 85, no. 2 (2009): 263.Google Scholar
  59. 45.
    Kerry Longhurst, Germany and the Use of Force: The Evolution of German Security Policy 1990–2003 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 82–86.Google Scholar
  60. 46.
    Tuomas Forsberg, ‘German Foreign Policy and the War on Iraq: Anti-Americanism, Pacifism or Emancipation?’, Security Dialogue 36, no. 2 (2005): 217–21.Google Scholar
  61. 47.
    Peter Rudolf, ‘The Myth of the ‘German Way’: German Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Relations’, Survival 47, no. 1 (2005): 138–39Google Scholar
  62. 47a.
    Dieter Mahncke, ‘The United States, Germany and France: Balancing Transatlantic Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11, no. 1 (2009): 80–82.Google Scholar
  63. 48.
    Simon Serfaty, ‘Terms of Estrangement: French-American Relations in Perspective’, Survival 47, no. 3 (2005): 73.Google Scholar
  64. 49.
    The ‘US Allies Index’ is made up of Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, and Pakistan. The favourability ratings for Britain and Germany were well above the index throughout the period under study. For the full data on the index, see: https://doi.org/www.gallup.com/poll/115258/Canada-Remains-Americans-Favored-Nation. aspx (accessed 20 May 2010).
  65. 50.
    Jeremy Shapiro, The Role of France in the War on Terrorism (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2002).Google Scholar
  66. 51.
    Serfaty, ‘Terms of Estrangement’, 77–81.Google Scholar
  67. 52.
    Frèdèric Bozo and Guillaume Parmentier, ‘France and the United States: Waiting for Regime Change’, Survival 49, no. 1 (2007): 182–87Google Scholar
  68. 52a.
    Michael Moran, French Military Strategy and NATO Reintegration (New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations, 2009).Google Scholar
  69. 53.
    Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, 98–102; Johan Galtung and Mari H. Ruge, ‘The Structure of Foreign News. The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Foreign Newspapers’, Journal of Peace Research 2, no. 1 (1965): 66–68.Google Scholar
  70. 54.
    John Kampfner, Blair’s Wars (London: Free Press, 2003), 129–32.Google Scholar
  71. 55.
    It is plausible to assume that media fascination with the personality of Nicolas Sarkozy and his private life has contributed to the upswing of media reporting on France in particular during the early months of the Sarkozy presidency. The ‘personality’ factor may also have contributed to the greater interest of US media in British politics when Tony Blair was Prime Minister than during the Brown premiership. I owe this point to an anonymous reviewer.Google Scholar
  72. 56.
    Anne-Marie Le Gloannec, ‘Sarkozy’s Foreign Policy: Substance or Style?’, The International Spectator 43, no. 1 (2008): 18–19.Google Scholar
  73. 57.
    Jolyon Howorth, ‘France, Britain and the Euro-Atlantic Crisis’, Survival 45, no. 4 (2003): 176–79.Google Scholar
  74. 58.
    These data tie in with the results of a 2003 survey among 71 US journalists: 50% of those interviewed declared that they have reported most extensively on the Iraq policy of France; 34% opined that they have focused more on the British stance towards the issue and only 13% claimed to have reported mainly on Germany’s Iraq policy. Also, 74% of the interviewees judged that it was the French position on Iraq which attracted the most attention in the US, and only 10% thought that the German position had been most prominent in the American debate. See Alexander Hübecker, ‘Deutsche Public Diplomacy in den USA vor dem Irakkrieg 2003’, in Die amerikanische Regierung gegen die Weltöffentlichkeit? Theoretische und empirische Analysen der Public Diplomacy zum Irakkrieg, ed. Thomas Jäger und Henrike Viehrig (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2008), 215–36.Google Scholar
  75. 59.
    B. Gregory Marfleet and Colleen Miller, ‘Failure after 1441: Bush and Chirac in the UN Security Council’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1, no. 3 (2005): 336–40.Google Scholar
  76. 60.
    Eric A. Anchimbe, ‘Veto the War but let no French Head Fall: Linguistic Avoidance Strategies in Jacques Chirac’s Pre-Iraq War Interview Transcripts’, Journal of Language and Politics 7, no. 1 (2008): 162–68.Google Scholar
  77. 61.
    Bennett, ‘The News about Foreign Policy’, 23–29; John Zaller and Dennis Chiu, ‘Government’s Little Helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1946–1999’, in Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, ed. Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro and Pierangelo Isernia (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), 81–84.Google Scholar
  78. 62.
    John J. Miller and Mark Molesky, Our Oldest Enemy. A History of America’s Disastrous Relationship with France (New York, NY: Random House, 2004).Google Scholar
  79. 63.
    Thomas L. Friedman, ‘Our War with France’, New York Times, 18 September, 2003: 31.Google Scholar
  80. 64.
    Rainer Baumann and Gunther Hellmann, ‘Germany and the Use of Military Force: “Total War”, the “Culture of Restraint”, and the Quest for Normality’, German Politics 10, no. 1 (2001): 62–63.Google Scholar
  81. 65.
    Longhurst, Germany and the Use of Force, 83–87.Google Scholar
  82. 66.
    Hübecker, ‘Deutsche Public Diplomacy in den USA vor dem Irakkrieg 2003’, 227–29.Google Scholar
  83. 67.
    David Hastings Dunn, ‘The Double Interregnum: UK-US Relations beyond Blair and Bush’, International Affairs 84, no. 6 (2008), 1131–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Political Science and European AffairsUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations