SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Economics and Political Sciences / 2025 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Legitimization and Discourse Continuity in the United States Grand Strategy

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Büyük Stratejisinde Meşrulaştırma ve Söylem Sürekliliği

Atilla Mert Önem(National Defence University)0009-0002-5409-7461
Pages
36–53
Publication Date
2025-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Recognizing these parallels and evaluating developments through this lens is essential for adopting the most appropriate strategic posture in future crises.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The United States has sought to legitimize its policies aimed at securing global hegemony by creating a dichotomy among global actors and presenting itself as the legitimate party.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines how the U.S. constructs a “freedom-oppression” dichotomy at the discursive level to legitimize its global leadership and how this dichotomy is sustained in its foreign policy discourse.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Recognizing these parallels and evaluating developments through this lens is essential for adopting the most appropriate strategic posture in future crises.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Söylem Sürekliliği · George W. Bush · Büyük Strateji

Abstract

The United States has sought to legitimize its policies aimed at securing global hegemony by creating a dichotomy among global actors and presenting itself as the legitimate party. This study examines how the U.S. constructs a “freedom-oppression” dichotomy at the discursive level to legitimize its global leadership and how this dichotomy is sustained in its foreign policy discourse. In this context, the study uses discourse-historical analysis to compare and analyze Harry S. Truman’s discourse against the Soviet Union with George W. Bush’s discourse on terrorism and radical ideologies. The U.S. has constructed a discursive dichotomy by identifying itself with “freedom” and defining its opponents as “oppressive” in order to legitimize its global leadership. The study concludes that the U.S.’ foreign policy discourse positions “others” as “evil” from moral and political perspectives and defines itself “good” and savior over the “evil” nature of the “other”. This traditional method continues to be used. This discursive pattern has been assessed as an institutionalized reflection of exceptionalism in the foreign policy of the U.S. Recognizing these parallels and evaluating developments through this lens is essential for adopting the most appropriate strategic posture in future crises.

Özet

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, küresel hegemonyasını sağlamak yönünde izlediği politikaların meşrulaştırılmasında, küresel aktörler arasında ikililik yaratarak kendini meşru gösterme yolunu izlemiştir. Bu çalışma, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin küresel liderliğini meşrulaştırmak amacıyla söylemsel düzeyde nasıl bir “özgürlük–baskıcılık” ikililiği inşa ettiğini ve bu ikililiğin dış politika söyleminde nasıl bir süreklilik arz ettiğini sorgulamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, çalışmada Harry S. Truman’ın Sovyetler Birliği’ne yönelik söylemleri ile George W. Bush’un terör ve radikal ideolojilere ilişkin söylemleri karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, küresel liderliğini meşrulaştırmak amacıyla kendisini “özgürlük” ile özdeşleştirirken, karşıt aktörleri “baskıcılık” üzerinden tanımlayarak söylemsel bir ikililik kurmuştur. Çalışma sonucunda, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin dış politika söyleminde “öteki” unsurları ahlaki ve siyasi açıdan “kötü” olarak konumlandırarak, kendini “ötekinin” “kötülüğü” üzerinden “iyi” ve kurtarıcı olarak tanımladığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu gelenekselleşmiş yöntem kullanılmaya devam edilmektedir. Söz konusu söylemsel kalıp, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin dış politikasında istisnacılığın kurumsallaşmış bir tezahürü olarak değerlendirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Önem, A. M. (2025). Legitimization and Discourse Continuity in the United States Grand Strategy. Journal of Economics and Political Sciences, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 36–53. https://ajindex.com/articles/1618466

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Anggarini, Y. & Khoirunnisa, K. (2025) America’s Strategy through the quadrilateral security dialogue (Quad) alliance in countering the chinese threat in the joe biden administration. Politeia: Journal of Public Administration and Political Science and International Relations, 3(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.61978/politeia.v3i3.565
  2. Ataç, K. K. & Çam, M. M. (2020) Soğuk Savaş: Amerikan Büyük Stratejisi, Johnson Doktrini ve Kıbrıs. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 16(35), 595-634. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.807007
  3. Brown, L. M. (2007). The greats and the great debate: President William J. Clinton’s use of presidential examples. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02588.x
  4. Brzezinski, Z. (1997) The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. Basic Books.
  5. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  6. Çam, M. M. (2024). Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Büyük Stratejisi: Soğuk Savaş (1945–1961) [Doctoral dissertation, Milli Savunma Üniversitesi Atatürk Stratejik Araştırmalar ve Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü].
  7. Campbell, D. (1992). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  8. Ceaser, J. W. (2012) The origins and character of American exceptionalism. American Political Thought, 1(1), 3-28.
  9. Churchill, W. (1946, March 5) ‘Iron curtain’ speech. The National Archives. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/iron-curtain-speech/
  10. Clausewitz, C. von. (2011). Savaş üzerine (S. Koçak, Trans.). Doruk Yayımcılık. (Original work published 1832).
  11. Dalby, S. (1990). American security discourse: The persistence of geopolitics. Political Geography Quarterly, 9(2), 171–188.
  12. Edwards, J. A. (2009). Sanctioning foreign policy: The rhetorical use of President Harry Truman. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 454–472.
  13. Gaddis, J. L. (1987). Containment and the logic of strategy. The National Interest, 8(10), 27–38.
  14. Gaddis, J. L. (2018). Büyük strateji (Ö. U. Hoşafçı, Trans.). Epsilon Yayınevi.
  15. Glaser, W. A. (1956). The semantics of the Cold War. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 20(4), 691–716.
  16. Goddard, S. E., & Krebs, R. R. (2015). Rhetoric, legitimation and grand strategy. Security Studies, 24(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2014.1001198
  17. Gomez, A. (2012) Deus vult: John L. O’Sullivan, Manifest Destiny, and American democratic messianism. American Political Thought, 1(2), 236-262.
  18. Hart, B. H. L. (2003). Strateji: Dolaylı tutum (S. Koçak, Trans.). Doruk Yayımcılık.
  19. Hilderbrand, R. C. (1990). Dumbarton Oaks: The origins of the United Nations and the search for postwar security. The University of North Carolina Press.
  20. Huntington, S. P. (2002). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Free Press.
  21. Kissinger, H. (2023). Diplomasi (E. Berktaş, Trans.). Panama Yayıncılık.
  22. Lafeber, W. (2002). The Bush Doctrine. Diplomatic History, 26(4), 543–558.
  23. Liff, A. P., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2014). Racing toward tragedy? China’s rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security, 39(2), 52–91.
  24. Maggio, J. (2007). The presidential rhetoric of terror: The (re)creation of reality immediately after 9/11. Politics & Policy, 35(4), 810–830.
  25. McGhee, G. (1990). The US-Turkish-NATO Middle East connection: How the Truman Doctrine contained the Soviets in the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Mencken, H. L. (1956). Minority report: H. L. Mencken’s notebooks. Alfred A. Knopf.
  27. Mortimer, E. (1991). Christianity and Islam. International Affairs, 67(1), 7–13.
  28. Murray, W. (2011). Thoughts on grand strategy. In W. Murray, R. H. Sinnreich, & J. Lacey (Eds.), The shaping of grand strategy: Policy, diplomacy and war (pp. 1–33). Cambridge University Press.
  29. Pearson, L. B. (1955). Democracy in world politics. Princeton University Press.
  30. Posen, B. R. (1984). The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the world wars. Cornell University Press.
  31. Public Papers of the Presidents: George W. Bush, 2001-Book 1. (2001). Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
  32. Public Papers of the Presidents: George W. Bush, 2002-Book 1. (2002a). Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
  33. Public Papers of the Presidents: George W. Bush, 2002-Book 2. (2002b). Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
  34. Public Papers of the Presidents: George W. Bush, 2003-Book 1. (2003). Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
  35. Rapoport, D. C. (2013). The four waves of modern terror: International dimensions and consequences. In J. M. Hanhimäki & B. Blumenau (Eds.), An international history of terrorism: Western and non-western experiences (pp. 282–311). Routledge.
  36. Schaar, J. (1981). Legitimacy in the modern state. Transaction Publishers.
  37. Schlesinger Jr., A. (1967). Origins of the Cold War. Foreign Affairs, 46(1), 22-52.
  38. Silove, N. (2017). Beyond the buzzword: The three meanings of ‘grand strategy’. Security Studies, 27(1), 27–57.
  39. Sjöstedt, R. (2007). The discursive origins of a doctrine: Norms, identity, and securitization under Harry S. Truman and George W. Bush. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(3), 233–254.
  40. Spalding, E. E. (2006). The first Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, containment, and the remaking of liberal internationalism. University Press of Kentucky.
  41. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
  42. Thibault, P. J. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis: Text, social meaning making, and Nabokov’s Ada. University of Minnesota Press.
  43. Thimm, J. (2007). American exceptionalism: Conceptual thoughts and empirical evidence. Paper presented at the Tagung der Nachwuchsgruppe “Internationale Politik” der DVPW, Darmstadt, Germany.
  44. Throut, B. T. (1975). Rhetoric revisited: Political legitimation and the Cold War. International Studies Quarterly, 19(3), 251–284.
  45. Tilly, C. (2003). The politics of collective violence. Cambridge University Press.
  46. Truman, H. S. (1946, March 6) Address in Columbus at a conference of the Federal Council of Churches. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/52/address-columbus-conference-federal-council-churches (Accessed June 17, 2025)
  47. Truman, H. S. (1947a, January 6) Annual message to the Congress on the State of the Union. Truman Library Institute. https://www.trumanlibraryinstitute.org/1947-state-of-the-union/ (Accessed June 22, 2025)
  48. Truman, H. S. (1947b, March 12) Special message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/56/special-message-congress-greece-and-turkey-truman-doctrine (Accessed June 17, 2025)
  49. Truman, H. S. (1948a, September 18) Address at Dexter, Iowa, on the Occasion of the National Plowing Match. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/195/address-dexter-iowa-occasion-national-plowing-match (Accessed June 22, 2025)
  50. Truman, H. S. (1948b, October 27) Adress at Mechanics Hall in Boston. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/260/address-mechanics-hall-boston (Accessed June 17, 2025)
  51. Truman, H. S. (1948c, June 12) Commencement Address at the University of California. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/129/commencement-address-university-california (accessed July 1, 2025)
  52. Truman, H. S. (1948d, March 17) Special message to the Congress on the threat to the freedom of Europe. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/52/special-message-congress-threat-freedom-europe (accessed June 16, 2025)
  53. Truman, H. S. (1948e, March 17) St. Patrick’s Day address in New York City. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/53/st-patricks-day-address-new-york-city (Accessed June 22, 2025)
  54. Truman, H. S. (1949, January 20) Inaugural address. Truman Library. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/19/inaugural-address (Accessed June 17, 2025)
  55. Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing national interest. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406619600200300
  56. Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  57. Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of language and politics. Routledge.
  58. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.