opposed to individuals (2007). The authors assume states function as a collective and that their actions reflect the attitudes of the public and not the attitudes of specific individuals. However, Katzenstein and Keohane do leave room for a constructive argument for their anti-Americanism typologies. The anti-American sentiment within a state can be defined using multiple typologies at once (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). This indicates that groups with varied opinions and political sentiments could live within the same state and give the state multiple layers of anti-American sentiment, which is exhibited in different ways. Liberal anti-Americanism sits at the lowest end of the spectrum. In this case, states similar to America dislike the U.S. for not “living up to its own ideals” (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Social anti-American states dislike the U.S.’s lack of social welfare; Keohane recognizes that many states in this group are European Christian democracies, like Germany (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Sovereign-nationalists may not be concerned with the U.S.’s ideology, but they feel America is disrupting their own national goals and ambitions (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). An example of a sovereign-nationalist state is Iran. On the other end is Radical anti-Americanism, where groups with very different ideologies from that of America take issue with the U.S. as a perceived threat to their ideological cause (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Keohane’s conceptualization of anti-Americanism is particularly good at distinguishing between different causes of anti-American sentiment. While Chiozza shows how it can be hard to connect anti-American sentiment with specific reasons for the disdain, Keohane explains that differences in ideology could actually make a base for Ideological differences may not be the origins of anti-American sentiment
opposed to individuals (2007). The authors assume states function as a collective and that their actions reflect the attitudes of the public and not the attitudes of specific individuals. However, Katzenstein and Keohane do leave room for a constructive argument for their anti-Americanism typologies. The anti-American sentiment within a state can be defined using multiple typologies at once (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). This indicates that groups with varied opinions and political sentiments could live within the same state and give the state multiple layers of anti-American sentiment, which is exhibited in different ways. Liberal anti-Americanism sits at the lowest end of the spectrum. In this case, states similar to America dislike the U.S. for not “living up to its own ideals” (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Social anti-American states dislike the U.S.’s lack of social welfare; Keohane recognizes that many states in this group are European Christian democracies, like Germany (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Sovereign-nationalists may not be concerned with the U.S.’s ideology, but they feel America is disrupting their own national goals and ambitions (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). An example of a sovereign-nationalist state is Iran. On the other end is Radical anti-Americanism, where groups with very different ideologies from that of America take issue with the U.S. as a perceived threat to their ideological cause (Katzenstein & Keohane 2007). Keohane’s conceptualization of anti-Americanism is particularly good at distinguishing between different causes of anti-American sentiment. While Chiozza shows how it can be hard to connect anti-American sentiment with specific reasons for the disdain, Keohane explains that differences in ideology could actually make a base for Ideological differences may not be the origins of anti-American sentiment