Let’s get to the news and the comments:
In case folks have missed it, there is an upcoming deadline (FRIDAY!) for the 2013 ECPR General Conference in Bordeaux, September 4-7th. Unlike many other conferences, EPCR paper proposals are submitted to already-organized panels. This often results in more cohesive panels and, one hopes, more helpful feedback. Paper proposals are due this coming Friday and can be submitted through the various organized sections listed here. … And the conference is in Bordeaux, which is lovely and features nifty, futuristic trams built by Alain Juppé (pre-scandal).
For those of you who work on political violence, I’ve posted that section’s call below. For those working on intra-state violence, please take a look at the abstract for my own panel, “New Methodological Approaches to Local Context & Violence.”
This is a guest post by Brandon Valeriano and Ryan Maness.
Cyberwar is a pressing international security problem. The news media breathlessly covers any potential attack before the facts are in. Policy briefs and reports are produced on all levels of government and private industry. It would then behoove us to take a step back and examine opinions about the cyber security threat according to perceptions among policymakers, academics, and cyber security experts in order to understand how the threat emanating from the cyber security realm is constructed in the public discourse. Each constituency has its own view on the issue and how these views manifest is critical to perceptions about the wider societal threat coming from cyberspace.
Last May, Jon Monten, Will Inboden and I published on Foreignaffairs.com the results of a survey of about 40 U.S. foreign policy professionals, split equally among Republicans and Democrats with nearly all of them having served in some capacity in the Executive Branch. As I discussed here on the Duck, we found some surprising sources of strength for bipartisan support for certain aspects of international cooperation, namely for Bretton Woods institutions, NATO, and on international trade.
We wondered if Executive Branch folks were somehow different from their peers who served in a similar capacity in support of members of Congress. Congress is seen as having more deep-seated partisan attachments, and we among others have documented the trend of increasing partisan purists as the two parties have become less heterogeneous.
In the lead up to the 2012 elections, the three of us, joined by Jordan Tama, carried out another survey of nearly 90 Congressional staff with responsibility for foreign affairs and national security. With the Obama second term in its early days, Foreignaffairs.com has once again published our write-up of the results of that survey (and applied their own provocative title!). What did we find?