Lesson Report:
### Class Report
#### Title:
**Continuity, Change, and the Pendulum Effect in U.S. Foreign Policy**
**Synopsis:**
In this class, we delved deeper into the themes of continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy, with a focus on examining how the pendulum effect—oscillation between extremes—reflects ideological tensions within American foreign policy decisions. Using historical case studies such as Japanese internment during WWII, McCarthyism and the Red Scare, and the Patriot Act, students explored the balance between freedom and security, the shifting targets of government policies, and the role of public opinion in justifying state actions. This session introduced critical questions about whether these categories of continuity and change are rigid or exist along a spectrum, setting the stage for further theoretical exploration.
—
#### Attendance:
– One student explicitly mentioned participating online (Hamdam).
– No absences were directly noted.
—
#### Topics Covered:
Chronologically detailed below, the class consisted of lecture material, group work, and discussion:
##### 1. **Introduction: Continuity, Change, and the Pendulum Effect (10 min)**
– The class began with a brief recap of previous lessons on the thematic categories of U.S. foreign policy—continental, regional, and global—and how periods of continuity and change reflect underlying patterns.
– Explanation of the **pendulum effect** as a metaphor: Oscillation between extremes, primarily defined in terms of freedom vs. security, and its prominence in American foreign policy.
– Introduction to Geir Lundestad’s work on American foreign policy swings (e.g., Cold War dynamics of engagement vs. withdrawal from the USSR).
– Key argument: The United States’ geographical isolation and superpower status afford it greater flexibility in shifting priorities than other nations.
– Highlighted ideological oscillations between prioritizing “freedom” and “security,” with examples such as surveillance, suppression of speech, and shifts in alliances.
##### 2. **Freedom vs. Security: Constructing a Conceptual Framework (20 min)**
– Developed a comparative framework for freedom and security through classroom discussion:
– **Freedom concerns:** Privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement.
– **Security concerns:** Surveillance, censorship, movement restrictions, broad enforcement measures (e.g., detentions).
– Examples used to clarify concepts:
– Freedom: Personal privacy undercut by government surveillance.
– Security: Efforts to regulate and monitor communication, particularly through speech or cyberspace (e.g., restrictions on political movements).
– Class discussion extended to examples like the NSA and CIA, with nodes toward Edward Snowden, the Patriot Act, and government roles like the FBI.
##### 3. **Case Studies: Group Activity (30 min)**
– Students divided into three groups to analyze historical moments that reflected the pendulum effect between freedom and security. Each group created comparative charts and presented findings.
**Group 1: Japanese Internment during WWII**
– **Security concerns:**
– Executive Order 9066 authorized the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans, citing fears of espionage post-Pearl Harbor attack.
– Noted fears of Japan’s geopolitical threat and connections to balloon attacks during WWII.
– **Freedom concerns:**
– Targeting of Japanese Americans as an ethnic group with no demonstrated individual wrongdoing.
– Displacement through mass incarcerations represented severe violations of human rights.
– Early post-war response deemed this a near-unilateral presidential decision; popular support was high (93% approval).
**Group 2: McCarthyism and the Red Scare (1950s)**
– **Security concerns:**
– Fear of communism infiltrating U.S. institutions (government, media, military).
– McCarthy’s purges targeted individuals believed to threaten government transparency or pass classified information to the USSR.
– Tied directly to Cold War paranoia regarding Soviet espionage (e.g., nuclear weapons).
– **Freedom concerns:**
– Suppression of free speech and association (e.g., censorship, “blacklisting” artists, journalists, and political figures).
– Invasion of privacy with government surveillance of private citizens.
– Conflation of dissent or independence with subversion or treason.
**Group 3: The Patriot Act (2001)**
– **Security concerns:**
– Enacted after 9/11 to strengthen national surveillance programs.
– Gave federal agencies enhanced powers to collect information, including metadata, on potential terrorist activities.
– Included provisions for detaining perceived threats (domestic and foreign) without due process.
– Widespread popular support during its conception due to fears of further catastrophic attacks.
– **Freedom concerns:**
– Erosion of privacy rights and Fourth Amendment protections (unwarranted searches and surveillance).
– Risk of overreaching government policies (e.g., spying programs like PRISM exposed by whistleblowers like Snowden).
– Concerns about targeting demographic/religious minorities like Muslims.
– Judicial and legislative oversight diminished, allowing for largely unchecked surveillance powers.
##### 4. **Discussion: Continuity and Change in Freedom-Security Dynamics (15 min)**
– Class reflected on patterns across case studies, identifying key elements of **continuity**:
– Targets tend to be minorities (ethnic, ideological, or religious).
– Erosion of civil liberties justified temporarily by popular and political demand for security.
– Elements of **change** were also noted:
– Methods of enforcement varied—internment (Japanese), ideological purges (Red Scare), surveillance overreach (Patriot Act).
– Demographics or ideological groups targeted shifted by historical context or perceived threat.
– Introduced the idea of **”continuity within change”** (e.g., certain mechanisms persist while adapting to new contexts).
—
#### Actionable Items:
##### **For Next Class (High Priority)**
– **Readings**: Instructor to finalize and upload supplemental articles on U.S. foreign policy theories (focus on realism, constructivism, and liberalism).
– **Preparation**: Students to review assigned readings and critically consider how theoretical frameworks apply to the case studies from today’s session. Emphasis on whether theoretical constructs sufficiently explain shifts between security and freedom.
##### **Technical (Low Priority)**
– Confirm e-course updates: Ensure last year’s “public policy” course visibility issue is resolved for enrolled students.
—
This session demonstrated strong engagement and critical thinking, especially around drawing patterns and distinctions across U.S. foreign policy actions. The planned theoretical focus next session will help deepen understanding of these dynamics in historical and contemporary policy contexts.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No homework was explicitly assigned during this lesson. The conclusion reiterates that the reading for the next session would be posted later the same day, but no direct homework or specific task was outlined during the class itself aside from completing any upcoming readings.