Ambivalent America argues that understanding long-term trends is just as important as understanding short-term trends in United States foreign policy. Building upon the works of Frank L. Klingberg (1952) and his 1985 book, Holmes argues that United States foreign policy mood has been, and continues to be, an important key to understanding American foreign policy. The period covered by the analysis starts in 1776 and continues to the present. Moods are impacted by interests and world trends to determine United States foreign policy. It is hoped that extremes in American policy can be brought under control, and that prospects for understanding American policy can be improved in the process. Given the role of United States foreign policy in international relations, this work challenges both professionals and general public observers to enrich their understanding of American foreign policy.

In 1952, Frank L. Klingberg's article on introvert and extrovert American foreign policy moods projected an American turn toward introversion in the late 1960s. After this came to pass, Jack Holmes began to develop a theory of how these moods might work in a more specific sense. His mood/interest theory points to a basic conflict between politico-military interests and the foreign policy moods of the American electorate. Holmes presents a pioneering account of the over-whelming impact of public moods on foreign policy. Policy-making structures, executive-legislative relations, presidential personality, pragmatism, moralism, elitism, conservatism, international economics, and humanitarianism are related to the mood/interest pattern. Major points are illustrated with examples from 1776 to the present. Holmes's analysis indicates that American moods are continuing unabated according to past patterns, so that American foreign policy may undergo some surprising changes in the next decade. One of the author's hopes is that emphasis on the importance of national moods will help avoid future extremes. This book is bold in its assertions and points to major problems in the analysis of American foreign policy. Whether or not the reader agrees with the entire analysis, he or she will be challenged to think about American foreign policy in new and perhaps revealing ways.