Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:53:12.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining Cause and Effect: Religion in the Study of United States Foreign Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2017

SANDRA SCANLON
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Getting Religion: A Forum on the Study of Religion and the US
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 226 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and British Association for American Studies 2017 

Religion has clearly played a distinctive, pivotal role in defining the character of the United States of America; such is true in relation to culture, politics, institutions, national identity, and social relations, and indeed with regard to Americans’ relations with the outside world. From the founding of the republic, through the origins and application of Manifest Destiny to the War on Terror, religion has shaped collective American understandings of other states and, perhaps more importantly, the ways in which Americans conceive of their nation's purpose in the world.

Few scholars would argue that individual religious conviction or exposure to certain tenets of religious identity have not significantly influenced policymakers, particularly in moments of crisis. During the last fifteen years, the field of what was once called diplomatic history – and which is now broadly defined as America and the world – has witnessed a dramatic sea change in the extent to which religion is both rigorously examined by younger scholars and respected by senior figures in the field. Yet there is nothing approaching consensus about how religion should be recognized as a constant category of analysis, particularly when trying to understand how policymakers interpreted America's vital interests and security requirements. To put it bluntly, while scholars might broadly accept that American policymakers were influenced by collective convictions based on the nation's Protestant heritage, they do not assume that exposure to particular denominations was important, or that individual or collective religious identity played a determining factor in policy formation. In this sense, policymakers are not assumed to be influenced by faith or religious identity, even in relation to states or peoples that could readily be identified as the “other.” Despite a broader acceptance that gender and race, for instance, matter in the making of foreign policy, religion as a category of analysis is by no means constant.Footnote 1

Writing in the year 2000, Andrew Rotter challenged diplomatic historians to recognize that religion was vital to understanding interstate relations. He argued, specifically, that American affinity with monotheistic Islam conditioned policymakers’ attitudes to Pakistan's ability to withstand Communist influence during the early Cold War. Hinduism, on the other hand, appeared entirely alien. Rotter argued “that religious thinking infuses states, in this case the United States, India, and Pakistan; that perceptions of others are shaped, in part, by how we understand others’ religions; and that religious thinking in all three nations influenced the policies formulated regarding the others in the critical period 1947–1954.” In direct response, Robert Buzzanco presented a cutting indictment of religion as a category of analysis. “There is little with which I would disagree with Andrew Rotter's article,” commented Buzzanco, “yet just as little that I find historically important.” Buzzanco questioned the functional utility of the methodologies that cultural historians employed, and asked, “What about the impact of the Cold War? Neutralism? Nationalism? South Asian geopolitics? Trade and military aid? In what kind of larger context do religious symbols and beliefs take on a larger meaning?” He contended that while it might be “refreshing” to include religious or cultural concepts, it was “distressing” to witness the corresponding exclusion of concepts of power and what one could broadly describe as realist perspectives on interstate relations.Footnote 2

Yet as Andrew Preston noted in 2006, the problem with studies of religion and foreign relations in large part stemmed from the fact that the disciplines of religion and foreign relations were rarely bridged:

diplomatic historians will often briefly, idiosyncratically, and opportunistically highlight the role of certain individuals and incidents – say, foreign missionaries or the religious faith of certain American leaders – but specific, singular case studies apart, they have not, in general, deployed religion as an overall theory or method to examine American's role in the world.Footnote 3

Power was not, therefore, to be excluded from studies of foreign relations, but rather its meaning to policymakers was to be better understood by examining the function – individual, collective, institutional, and civil – of religion in American life. Religion cannot explain US foreign relations or international engagement, but as recent scholarship demonstrates it offers the opportunity for important synergies between “diplomatic” historians and cultural scholars with significant implications for the field of US foreign relations as a whole.

Given the prominence of presidential history in the study of diplomatic history, it is unsurprising that certain Presidents – particularly George W. Bush and Dwight Eisenhower – have been the subjects of several recent analyses. Bush and Eisenhower offer distinctive perspectives on the role of religion in foreign relations, with the former's presidency characterized by much proclaimed personal piety, and the latter's defined by the emergence of a distinct civil religion. Bush's early use of religious rhetoric is examined in Lauren Turek's work, which concludes that there was no evidence that “Bush held messianic views about America's role in the world during his time campaigning for and serving as governor of Texas.”Footnote 4 Although he consistently presented himself as an individual of deep religious faith, Bush did not begin his career as an overtly Christian politician and over the course of his governorship became increasingly accustomed to using religious language to appeal to voters and thereby build political support for his brand of “compassionate conservatism.” International events – namely 9/11 – further shaped Bush's religious views, with significant implications for US foreign policy. Studies examining the faith of individual policymakers, especially Presidents, have thereby deliberately avoided reducing Presidents’ expressions of religious faith to political ploys. The underlying religiosity of Presidents can influence, in particular, how they perceive America's mission. As Jason Berggren and Nicol C. Rae comment, “the presidential style and foreign policies of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush cannot be fully understood unless the personal religious dimension has been taken into account.”Footnote 5 The authors emphasize that Carter and Bush's evangelical outlook influenced how they presented policy, but they also establish that leaders of similar faith have interpreted foreign-policy priorities in starkly different ways, a view that is broadly shared by scholars in the field.

If the specific influences of personal faith – including Bush's – can be difficult to gauge, there is less controversy surrounding the significance of public religiosity in popular understandings of international events, especially the Cold War. William Inboden's study of religion and foreign policy during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations firmly establishes the importance of civil religion in defining the meaning of the conflict with the Soviet Union and in unifying Americans of diverse religious affiliations. Inboden observes that only “by summoning the American people to a religious crusade could U.S. leaders maintain domestic support for the extraordinary measures needed to fight the Cold War.” Religion thereby served as both “a cause and an instrument.”Footnote 6 The Cold War was not, of course, the first instance of civil religion, and studies such as Anders Stephanson's Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right squarely place religion as a determining force in nineteenth-century American identity and foreign engagement.Footnote 7 But Inboden emphasizes that for Truman the conflict was “nothing less than a religious war,” while he also pays considerable attention to the ways in which religious denominations, particularly mainline Protestants, adjusted to the new international environment, a theme that has received widespread attention.Footnote 8

Within the subfield of religion and warfare, therefore, considerable attention has been paid to how religious communities engaged with individual conflicts. David Settje and George Bogaski's works focussed primarily on Christian communities’ engagement with foreign policy during the Vietnam War. While highlighting divergences in the ways in which Christians interpreted the war, and contributing to our understanding of the domestic debates surrounding the conflict, these works only indirectly speak to the question of how religion interacted with policy formation.Footnote 9 Similarly, David Zietsma's work on US foreign policy between 1937 and 1941 presents a systematic interpretation of how religion and national identity affected, and in turn were shaped by, the coming of the Second World War.Footnote 10 Cara Burnidge's work on the First World War deals more directly with American engagement – and US policy in its aftermath – as religiously motivated, but it too exemplifies the significance of religion in popular interpretations of America's wars.Footnote 11 This reflection on popular opinion or collective identity certainly contextualizes the environment in which policymakers operated, and they demonstrate – if further evidence was required – the significance of religion in American life. In terms of defining the role of religious influences in setting policy, considerably more work is required.

The most extensively examined area of religion and American engagement abroad relates to American missionaries. The study of US relations with China during the nineteenth century has been, indeed, dominated by examinations of missionary activity in the region.Footnote 12 Such works highlight how missionaries influenced American understandings of Asia, and indeed the ways in which American engagement affected the areas in which missionaries operated. A recent study of early US–China relations proclaims, for instance, “It is also safe to assume that the Taiping Rebellion … either would not have happened or would not have assumed its quasi-Christian form without the involvement of American missionaries.”Footnote 13 Such studies emphasize the ways in which missionaries had an impact on policy, in no small part by helping to shape popular ideas about little-known cultures, but also by instituting conversion to American ideals as part of the national agenda.Footnote 14 Given the limited degree of US diplomatic engagement with many states in Asia during the nineteenth century, missionary influence was significant in shaping foreign notions of the US, but also in shaping American characterizations of the “other.” Building on Rotter's early analysis of India and Pakistan,Footnote 15 scholars have more recently examined how American interpretations of Islam have helped form policy in diverse situations throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.Footnote 16

In something of a departure, recent studies have increasingly focussed on the twentieth century, thereby highlighting the diversity but continued influence of religious communities’ international engagement. Scholars have, in particular, examined Christian evangelicals’ internationalism, revealing not only the effects of evangelicals’ missionary activism, but also how international issues have shaped evangelical communities in the United States. Not only did missionaries serve as proto-diplomats in areas of the world that became strategically important to the United States during the Cold War, but they also reinforced ideas spawned by Truman and Eisenhower's civil religion about the meaning of the conflict with the Soviet Union.Footnote 17 The rise of the New Right during the 1970s, furthermore, enhanced evangelical lobbying in Washington, thereby extending the influence of religious communities in terms of directly affecting policy.Footnote 18 Scholarship currently being undertaken further engages with the question of transnational networks, and takes account not only of missionary organizations but also of peace and human rights groups motivated by religious views of American purpose.Footnote 19 These works greatly extend our knowledge of American engagement with the world, but the question of agency in terms of United States foreign policy remains significant, and cannot be comprehended by focussing on religion alone.

The numbers of papers dealing with religion and US foreign relations at recent meetings of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations testifies to the importance that scholars in this field attach to the cultural sources of policymakers’ perspectives on the world, attitudes, goals, and assessments of US interests. While personal piety remains a controversial subject, the wider implications of religion in relation to national identity, views of the “other,” and nongovernmental agency have been rigorously assessed, and confirmed, by scholars. In turn, international events and especially wars have greatly affected the character and domestic strength of individual religious communities. The work currently being undertaken by graduate students offers new perspectives on the function of religion in defining America's varied purposes abroad, but it also further demonstrates the significance of the outside world in shaping American culture, institutions, and government. As earlier works have shown, however, these scholarly endeavors will be most successful when the fields of religious studies and US foreign relations are interwoven, a demand that requires extensive knowledge and training in both areas. This is not a straightforward proposition for many students, but one that offers considerable scope and promise.

References

1 Writing in the year 2000, Patricia Hill concluded that religion “cannot easily be abstracted as a structural component of social order. It cannot therefore be deployed as a category of analysis in the same ways that scholars have wielded gender, class, and race … Our inability to do so reflects an intuitive, linguistic awareness of the distinction between religion and those other structural categories … religion may not always be a variable that matters as we now assume race, class, and gender must always be understood as constituents of any society or state.” Hill did not deny that religion might have been important to individuals at particular moments, but she clearly questioned its function in determining policy at a collective level. Hill, Patricia, “Commentary: Religion as a Category of Diplomatic Analysis,” Diplomatic History (Fall 2000), 633–40Google Scholar, 633.

2 Rotter, Andrew J.. “Gender Relations, Foreign Relations: The United States and South Asia, 1947–1964,” Journal of American History, 81, 2 (Sept. 1994), 518–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Buzzanco, Robert, “Where's the Beef? Culture without Power in the Study of U.S. Foreign Relations,” Diplomatic History, 24, 4 (Fall 2000), 623–32Google Scholar, 623. Six years later, Nick Cullather penned a review of Jacobs's, Seth book America's Miracle Man in Vietnam: Ngo Dinh Diem, Religion, Race, and U.S. Intervention in Southeast Asia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which responded to Buzzanco's challenge: Cullather, Nick, “Here's the Beef: Religion, Culture, and Ngo Dinh Diem,” Diplomatic History, 30, 3 (June 2006)Google Scholar.

3 Preston, Andrew, “Bridging the Gap between the Sacred and the Secular in the History of American Foreign Relations,” Diplomatic History, 30, 5 (Nov. 2006) 786–87Google Scholar. There were signs that religion and religious identity were being recognized as increasingly important to understanding areas of US diplomatic history; besides Jacobs's study of Diem, Nho Dinh, Chernus's, Ira “Operation Candor: Fear, Faith, and Flexibility,” Diplomatic History, 29, 5 (Nov. 2005), 779–809 Google Scholar, hinted at the central importance of faith in defining popular responses to Cold War policies. Preston's, Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (New York: Random House, 2012)Google Scholar offers the most comprehensive analysis of religion and US foreign relations.

4 Turek, Lauren F., “Religious Rhetoric and the Evolution of George W. Bush's Political Philosophy,” Journal of American Studies, 48 (2014), 975–98Google Scholar, 976. For studies of Bush's religiosity see Bruni, Frank, Ambling into History: The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush (New York: HarperCollins, 2002)Google Scholar; Smith, Rogers M., “Religious Rhetoric and the Ethics of Public Discourse: The Case of George W. Bush,” Political Theory (April 2008), 272–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aikman, David, A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush (Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 2004)Google Scholar; Mansfield, Stephen, The Faith of George W. Bush (New York: Penguin, 2003)Google Scholar; Singer, Peter, The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush (New York: Dutton, 2004)Google Scholar; Daalder, Ivo H. and Lindsay, James M., America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003)Google Scholar; and Judis, John B., The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar. See also Holmes, David L., The Faiths of the Postwar Presidents: From Truman to Obama (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 Berggren, D. Jason and Rae, Nicol C., “Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 4 (Dec. 2006), 606–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 606. For further analysis of the role of religion in Carter's foreign policy see Auten, Brian J., Carter's Conversion: The Hardening of American Defense Policy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2008)Google Scholar. For the clearest explication of Woodrow Wilson's religiosity and its influence on foreign policy see Magee, Malcolm, What the World Should Be: Woodrow Wilson and the Crafting of a Faith-Based Foreign Policy (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

6 Inboden, William, Religion and American Foreign Policy, 1945–1960 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 4 Google Scholar, 2. Scholars have paid more attention to Eisenhower's influence on establishing civil religion, while emphasizing the personal faith of his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. See Immerman, William H., John Foster Dulles: Piety, Pragmatism, and Power in U.S. Foreign Policy (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Books, 1999)Google Scholar.

7 Stephanson, Anders, Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995)Google Scholar; and Bell, James, A War of Religion: Dissenters, Anglicans, and the American Revolution (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)Google Scholar. The role of religion and Christian conversion in shaping American identity and expansion is further explored in Blum, Edward J., Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and American Nationalism, 1865–1898 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005)Google Scholar. See also Mead, Walter Russell, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002)Google Scholar.

8 Inboden, 1. See also Mark Edwards, “God has Chosen Us’: Re-membering Christian Realism, Rescuing Christendom, and the Contest of Responsibilities during the Cold War,” Diplomatic History, 33, 1 (Jan. 2009), 67–94; Leilah Danielson, “Christianity, Dissent, and the Cold War: A. J. Muste's Challenge to Realism and U.S. Empire,” Diplomatic History, 30, 4 (Sept. 2006), 645–69; Jason Stevens, God-Fearing and Free: A Spiritual History of America's Cold War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). Earlier studies alluded to America's collective religious identity in defining the meaning of the Cold War, but did not emphasize particular religious communities, theology, or individual piety: Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); Scott Lucas, Freedom's War: The American Crusade against the Soviet Union (New York: New York University Press, 1999).

9 David Settje, Faith and War: How Christians Debated the Cold and Vietnam Wars (New York: New York University Press, 2011); George Bogaski, American Protestants and the Debates over the Vietnam War: Evil Was Loose in the World (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2014). Earlier studies examined the relationship between individual religious figures and opposition to the war: Mitchell K. Hall, Because of Their Faith: CALCAV and Religious Opposition to the Vietnam War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).

10 Zietsma, David, “‘Sin Has No History’: Religion, National Identity, and U.S. Intervention, 1937–1941,” Diplomatic History, 31, 3 (June 2007), 531–65Google Scholar. Zietsma also examines the function of religion in Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies toward Latin America: “‘Building the Kingdom of God’: Religious Discourse, National Identity, and the Good Neighbor Policy, 1930–1938,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 11, 2 (Summer 2008), 179–214. For further discussion of President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to shape public attitudes among religious leaders for his policies see Andrew Polk, “‘Unnecessary and Artificial Divisions’: Franklin Roosevelt's Quest for Religious and National Unity Leading up to the Second World War,” “Forum: Religion in American Public Life: Presidential Expressions of Christianity,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture (Sept. 2013), 667–77. A more comprehensive study of Christian communities and World War II is provided in Gerald L. Sittser's A Cautious Patriotism: The American Churches and the Second World War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997).

11 Cara Burnidge, “The Business of Church and State: Social Christianity in Woodrow Wilson's White House,” “Forum: Religion in American Public Life: Presidential Expressions of Christianity,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture (Sept. 2013), 659–66; Burnidge, “A Peaceful Conquest: Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations, and the Great War of the Protestant Establishment” (PhD dissertation, Florida State University, 2013). World War I is the most extensively examined individual conflict: Richard M. Gamble, The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books 2003); Andrew Preston, “To Make the World Saved: American Religion and the Great War,” Diplomatic History (Sept. 2014), 813–25.

12 Paul Vang, Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats: The American Protestant Missionary Movement in China, 1890–1952 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958); John K. Fairbank, ed., The Missionary Enterprise in China and America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974); Kenneth Shewmaker, Americans and Chinese Communists, 1927–1945: A Persuading Encounter (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971); William R. Hutchinson, Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987); Jane Hunter, The Gospel of Gentility: American Women Missionaries in Turn-of-the-Century China (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Patricia Neils, ed., United States Attitudes and Politics toward China: The Impact of American Missionaries (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1990); Yu-Ming Shaw, An American Missionary in China: John Leighton Stuart and Chinese–American Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992); Bob Whyte, Unfinished Encounter: China and Christianity (London: William Collins, 1988).

13 John R. Haddad, America's First Adventure in China: Trade, Treaties, Opium, and Salvation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013), 4–5.

14 Joseph L. Gabrill, Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971); John A. Andrew, Rebuilding the Christian Commonwealth: New England Congregationalists and Foreign Missions, 1800–1830 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1976); Kenton Clymer, Protestant Missionaries in the Philippines, 1898–1916 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986); Paul William Harris, Nothing but Christ: Rufus Anderson and the Ideology of Protestant Foreign Missions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Ussama Makdisi, Artillery of Heaven: American Missionaries and the Failed Conversion of the Middle East (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008); Heather J. Sharkey, American Evangelicals in Egypt: Missionary Encounters in an Age of Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008); Christine B. Lindner, Negotiating the Field: American Protestant Missionaries in Ottoman Syria, 1823–1860 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009); Emily Kuntz-Conroy, “The Conversion of the World in the Early Republic: Race, Gender, and Imperialism in the Early American Foreign Mission Movement” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2012); Kuntz-Conroy, “‘Engaged in the Same Glorious Cause’: Anglo-American Connections in the American Missionary Entrance into India, 1790–1815,” Journal of the Early Republic (Spring 2014), 21–44.

15 Major studies of American relations with the Middle East in the twentieth century have certainly considered religion, particularly in relation to American support of Israel. See, for instance, Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945, 3rd edn (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008); Peter Hahn, Crisis and Crossfire: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005).

16 Karine V. Walther, Sacred Interests: The United States and the Islamic World, 1821–1921 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015). For further study of American understandings of the Middle East in the twentieth century see David Farber, The Iran Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006); Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).

17 Philip E. Dow, “Romance in a Marriage of Convenience: The Missionary Factor in Early Cold War U.S.–Ethiopian Relations, 1941–1960,” Diplomatic History, 35, 5 (Nov. 2011), 859–95; Melani McAlister, “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner: American Missionaries, the Problem of Racism, and Decolonization in the Congo,” OAH Magazine of History (Summer 2012), 33–37. For a fuller examination of Evangelicals’ worldview, see Matthew A. Sutton, American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism (Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014); and Molly Worthen, Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). See also Markku Routsila, Origins of Christian Anti-internationalism: Conservative Evangelicals and the League of Nations (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008); Anne C. Loveland, American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military, 1942–1993 (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1996).

18 Lauren F. Turek, “To Support a ‘Brother in Christ’: Evangelical Groups and U.S.–Guatemalan Relations during the Ríos Montt Regime,” Diplomatic History (Sept. 2015), 689–719; Melani McAlister, “What Would Jesus Do? Evangelicals, the Iraq War, and the Struggle for Position,” in David Ryan and Patrick Kiely, eds., America and Iraq: Policy-Making, Intervention and Regional Politics (New York: Routledge, 2009), 123–53. See also Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House (New York: Center Street: 2007); Andrew Preston, “The Politics of Realism and Religion: Christian Responses to Bush's New World Order,” Diplomatic History, 34, 1 (Jan. 2010), 95–118. One area that has received more widespread scholarly attention in terms of the role of lobbying relates to Zionism and Israel: Yaakov Ariel, On Behalf of Israel: American Fundamentalist Attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, and Zionism, 1865–1945 (New York: Carlson Publishing, 1991); Michael Berkowitz, Western Jewry and the Zionist Project, 1914–1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Lee Marsden, For God's Sake: The Christian Right and US Foreign Policy (London: Zed Books, 2008); Paul C. Merkley, The Politics of Christian Zionism, 1891–1948 (New York: Routledge, 1998); Merkley, American Presidents, Religion, and Israel (New York: Praeger, 2004); Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

19 Lauren F. Turek, “To Bring the Good News to All Nations: Evangelicals, Human Rights, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1969–1994” (PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2015); Melissa R. Klapper, Ballots, Babies, and Banners for Peace: American Jewish Women's Activism, 1890–1940 (New York: New York University Press, 2013).