Uncooperative leadership: US public opinion and limited commitments to region building

ABSTRACT

Some research indicates that regional integration is more likely when power asymmetry exists among neighbouring states. Theoretically, preponderant powers can act as regional leaders because they can promote the development of collective goods that will entice others into partnerships. Other scholars argue that power asymmetry is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for integration. The preponderant power is to be willing to lead efforts. We argue that the US cannot lead North American regional integration when the voting public consumes negative messages concerning its least developed partner, Mexico. Negative portrayals of Mexico, whether justified or not, lower US public support and contribute to limiting the US political capacity to foster region building. The data analysis of a national representative sample (N = 1,133) using an online survey experiment confirms our hypotheses while controlling for various demographic factors and candidate support during the 2016 party election primaries.

KEYWORDS:

• North America
• populism
• US public opinion
• regional integration
• rhetoric
• regional leaders

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 It is also important to note that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had also been critical of NAFTA in the 2008 primaries in response to the left’s criticism of the agreement.

2 Fictitious stories rely on what Yuval Harari labels as fictive language, which is language and symbols used to describe beliefs that cannot be proven (2011, pp. 22–44). A pragmatic narrative, therefore, relies on pragmatic language, which is based on beliefs that can be tested and observed with the senses (Vierra, 2016, p. 17, 98).

3 Other theories of regional integration, such as neo-functionalism or institutionalism, do focus on the role regional institutions play in developing integration. However, adaptations of power transition theory point to the need of a regional leader at the start of such institutional development.

4 MTurk is a valid platform for studies involving ideology since the sampling method produces results similar to traditional face-to-face sampling methods (Clifford et al., 2015).

5 The highlights were not present in the survey experiment.

6 A summary table of the variables included in this study, as well as their expected effects, is located in the Appendix.

7 The figures display a rerun of the regressions using an interaction term (i.e. a multiplication of the treatment stories with different levels of self-reported ideology) Due to space limitations, the tables for the rerun regressions are omitted.

8 See endnote 7.

9 See endnote 7.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gaspare M. Genna

Gaspare M. Genna is a professor in the department of political science and public administration and director of the North American Studies Program at The University of Texas at El Paso. He is also an associate research fellow at the United Nations University Institute on comparative regional integration studies, a pastor scholar at American University's North America Research Initiative, a senior research Fellow at the TRC Institute and an associate editor of the journal politics and policy. His research explores the development and impact of regional integration around the world both economically and politically. His work to date involves analysing state incentives and capabilities for integration as well as domestic public support.

P. J. Vierra

P. J. Vierra is a senior writer and historian with Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso. A researcher on the cognitive origins of rhetoric, he is also a frequent contributor of book reviews and a peer reviewer on the history of higher education for Southwestern Historical Quarterly. His research takes him to the intersection of rhetoric and historiography as he explores how humans define reality.