Iran and US General Election Debates (from 2004-2016)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Iranian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, North American Studies, Faculty of World Studies,

3 North American Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

This paper examines US general election debates to discover whether or not the Republican and Democratic candidates equally present Iran as a major US foreign policy issue. Petrocik’s Issue Ownership theory was employed as the theoretical framework of this paper. The Issue Ownership theory asserts that since American voters perceive the Republican and Democratic parties to handle different sets of political, social, and economic issues better than their opponents, each party will highlight and emphasize issues that they are regarded to own during elections. In this regard, Petrocik’s theory predicts that since the Republican party is perceived to handle foreign policy and national security-related issues better than their Democratic opponents by American voters, their candidates are more likely to bring up foreign policy-related issues while Democrats are more likely to avoid such issues during presidential campaigns. Overall, 13 US general election debate transcripts from among the 16 General debates held from 2004 to 2016 were selected for analysis using the Critical Case Sampling approach. The analysis, which utilized the Critical Framework Analysis method, resulted in seven major thematic categories concerning Iran: nuclear program, threat, sanctions, negotiations, war, Iran’s influence, and sponsorship of terrorism. The study finds that although Republican candidates did present Iran as a major foreign policy issue more frequently than their opponents in US general election debates, there was an element of convergence on Iran. Therefore, contrary to what the Issue Ownership theory would have predicted, the Democrats did not typically avoid nor show any hesitancy in talking about Iran. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

ایران و مناظرات انتخاباتی ایالات متحده (2004 تا 2016)

Authors [Persian]

  • ابراهیم محسنی چراغلو 1
  • Zeinab Ghasemi Tari 2
  • علی اکبر عباسی 3
1 گروه مطالعات ایران، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران
2 استادیار گروه مطالعات آمریکای شمالی، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران
3 دانشجوی مطالعات آمریکای شمالی، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران
Abstract [Persian]

این پژوهش مناظره‌های انتخاباتی ایالات متحده را بررسی می‌کند تا دریابد که آیا نامزدهای جمهوری‌خواه و دموکرات موضوع ایران را به عنوان یک مسئله سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده به یک اندازه مطرح می‌کنند یا خیر. نظریه مالکیت مسئله جان پتروسیک (John Petrocik) به عنوان نظریه اصلی این پژوهش انتخاب شده است. این نظریه استدلال می‌کند که از آنجایی که رای‌دهندگان آمریکایی هر یک از احزاب جمهوری‌خواه و دموکرات را برای حل مسائل مختلف سیاسی، اجتماعی و اقتصادی بهتر از مخالفان خود تصور می‌کنند، هر حزب سعی می‌کند موضوعات تحت مالکیت خود را در هر انتخابات بیشتر مورد تاکید قرار دهد. در این راستا، نظریه پتروسیک پیش‌بینی می‌کند که با توجه به اینکه از نگاه رای‌دهندگان آمریکایی، حزب جمهوری‌خواه سیاست خارجی و مسائل مربوط به امنیت ملی را بهتر از حزب دموکرات اداره می‌کند، کاندیداهای آنها به احتمال بیشتری به نسبت دموکرات‌ها مسائل مربوط به سیاست خارجی را مطرح خواهند کرد. این در حالی است که دموکرات‌ها به احتمال زیاد در جریان مبارزات انتخاباتی ریاست جمهوری از بحث در مورد چنین مسائلی خودداری خواهند کرد. این تحقیق با استفاده از روش نمونه گیری موارد بحرانی، 13 متن مناظره انتخاباتی ریاست جمهوری ایالات متحده را از میان 16 مناظره‌ای که از سال 2004 تا 2016 برگزار شد، برای تجزیه و تحلیل انتخاب کرد. با استفاده از روش تحلیل چارچوب بحرانی، این پژوهش به هفت مقوله موضوعی اصلی درباره ایران منجر شد: تسلیحات هسته‌ای، تهدید، تحریم‌ها، مذاکرات، جنگ، نفوذ ایران و حمایت از تروریسم. این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که اگرچه نامزدهای جمهوری‌خواه در مناظره‌های انتخاباتی ریاست جمهوری ایالات متحده بیشتر از مخالفان خود ایران را به عنوان یک موضوع اصلی سیاست خارجی مطرح کردند، اما یک عنصر همگرایی در مورد ایران وجود داشت. بنابراین برخلاف آنچه نظریه مالکیت مسئله پیش‌بینی می‌کرد، دموکرات‌ها از صحبت در مورد ایران اجتناب نکرده و هیچ گونه تردیدی نشان ندادند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • نظریه مالکیت مسئله
  • مناظره‌های انتخاباتی ریاست جمهوری ایالات متحده
  • روش تحلیل چارچوب انتقادی
  • سیاست خارجه
  • ایران

References

Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?” American Political Science Review, 83(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1956437
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership Over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(3), 335. https:// doi.org/ 10.1086/269431
Benoit, W. L. (2018). Issue Ownership in the 2016 Presidential Debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 95–103. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 00028533.2018.1446856
Benoit, W. L. (2014). Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character. Lexington Books.
Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Issue Ownership in Primary and General Presidential Debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2004.11821603
Budge, I. (2015). Issue Emphases, Saliency Theory and Issue Ownership: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis. West European Politics, 38(4), 761–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1039374
Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S. (1994). The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus. Praeger Publishers.
Commission on Presidential Debates. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.debates.org/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2004a). The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/september-30-2004-debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2004b). The Cheney-Edwards Vice-presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https:// www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-5-2004-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2004c). The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates. org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-8-2004-debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2008a). The First McCain-Obama Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/2008-debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2008b). The Second McCain-Obama Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/2008-debate-transcript-2/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2012a). The Third Obama-Romney Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debate/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2012b). The Biden-Ryan Vice-presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-11-2012-the-biden-romney-vice-presidential-debate/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2016a). The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/september-26-2016-debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2016b). The Pence-Kaine Vice-presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-4-2016-debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2016c). The Second Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates. org/ voter- education/ debate- transcripts/ october- 9-2016- debate-transcript/
Commission on Presidential Debates. (2016d). The Third Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www. debates. org/ voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-19-2016-debate-transcript/
Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposeful and Theoretical Sampling; Merging or Clear Boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x
Damore, D. F. (2005). Issue Convergence in Presidential Campaigns. Political Behavior, 27(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3077-6
Egan, P. J. (2008). Issue Ownership and Representation: A Theory of Legislative Responsiveness to Constituency Opinion. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1239464
Epwene, B. N. (2017). Presidential Debates through the Posterity Lens: A Content Analysis of Policy Frames in U.S. Presidential Debates from 1960-2012. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Gadarian, S. K. (2010). Foreign Policy at the Ballot Box: How Citizens Use Foreign Policy to Judge and Choose Candidates. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000526
Gallup Organization. (2020). Iran Gallup Historical Trends. Gallup. https:// news.gallup.com/poll/116236/iran.aspx
Gallup Organization. (2020). Party Images. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/ poll/24655/Party-Images.aspx
Goble, H., & Holm, P. M. (2009). Breaking Bonds? The Iraq War and the Loss of Republican Dominance in National Security. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2), 215-229.
Hickey, C. K., & Gandhi, M. (2019). 11 Charts That Track the Weight of Foreign Policy in U.S. Primary Debates. Foreign Policy, 12.
McKinney, M. S., & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do Presidential Debates Matter? Examining a Decade of Campaign Debate Effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00028533. 2013. 11821800
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669312
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Sampling Designs in Qualitative Research: Making the Sampling Process More Public.  Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238-254.
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). Routledge.
Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. (2004). Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 650–661. https:// doi.org/10.1111/ j. 0092-5853.2004. 00093. x
Simon, A. F. (2002). The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2005). Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection. Ethnobotany Research and applications, 5, 147-158.
Voth, B. (2017). The Presidential Debates 2016. In R. E. Denton Jr (Ed.), The 2016 US Presidential Campaign: Political Communication and Practice (pp. 77–98). Springer.
Weaver, D., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political campaign research (pp. 257–282). Erlbaum.
Wells, W. (1999). An analysis of attacking, acclaiming, and defending strategies in the 1976, 1980 and 1984 presidential election debates. A dissertation was presented to the faculty of the graduate school of Missouri.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 February 2022
  • Accept Date: 23 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics