nation, to understand and deal with a rapidly changing world" ( Lake et al. 1995, 18).
Finally, these findings raise both methodological and conceptual questions about the domestic politics of foreign affairs for analysts who want to understand better lobbying the White House and other executive agencies. Questions of causality, for example, are difficult here as in any arena of political life. We cannot conclude with certainty which White House or State Department actions were prompted by lobbying or public engagement meetings with outside groups. One would need to develop more detailed case studies of possible influence and impact. For example the twists and turns on Haiti repatriation policy offer fruitful material to trace the impact of such groups as Trans Africa and the hunger strike of its leader, Randall Robinson, on policy outcomes.
There is also interesting work under way on the intersection between public attitudes toward foreign affairs, the behavior of politicians, and policy outcomes ( Kull 1995; Rosner 1995). Beyond research strategies for case studies, questions of methods and models are also relevant here. Are our old pluralist, domestic-oriented models still sufficient in the light of the trends toward greater "intermestic" politics and lobbying? Are our current models sufficiently developed to analyze effectively the domestic politics of foreign policy, or will they need to be adjusted? What is the threshold between the old politics of foreign policy, and the new? What measurable indicators can be selected to show that we have reached a qualitatively different form or intensity of the domestic politics of foreign policy? These are issues that analysts of the domestic politics of foreign affairs should tackle seriously.