Origins of the EU 53 positions that would lose in a single-issue vote.Especially in some combination of these conditions-three alternatives on one issue,and in multidimensional issue space-individual leaders may enjoy broad autonomy to build the majorities they prefer. There is nothing inherently ideational about such leadership.Game-theoretic analyses tend to picture leaders using this leverage for personal material gain.When connected to ideational variation at the individual level,however,these dynamics can tie variation in ideas alone to variation in strategies and outcomes.The cross-cutting debates described earlier not only highlight ideational variation at the individual level;they also create broad patterns of divided preferences and rich possibilities for issue linkages.Leaders may then enjoy opportunities to choose among"multiple equilibria"on the basis of their personal ideas.Showing that this happened requires three kinds of evidence:that individual ideas varied over distinct alternatives (as described earlier),that divided preferences or issue linkages made those alternatives viable options,and that leaders indeed asserted their personal views and used agenda-setting power and issue linkages to assemble coalitional support behind them.Given such evidence,we can say that leaders'ideas,as autonomous factors,caused one strategy across the range of active alternatives.By contrasting the outcome to the counterfactual consequences of alternatives,we can specify a range of variation in outcomes caused by variation in ideas alone. Less abstractly.how would this process look?As a new cross-cutting debate emerged,top leaders'views on that issue would disconnect from their previous coalitional support.Support for various strategies would be scattered across parties and other organizations.As long as a leader retained office and agenda-setting power due to support on other (non-cross-cutting)issues,the leader could build majorities for any of several choices on the cross-cutting issue.Note that this does not require that the cross-cutting issue be obviously less important than the non-cross-cutting issue.In democracies,voters may be less informed or concerned (or both)about certain debates than policymakers.This seems particularly common in the domain of foreign policy.22 Electoral coalition building and office holding can continue to operate along the "normal"issues resonant with voters,even though policymakers perceive a new debate as crucial.This disconnect can allow a leader to retain control of the agenda during a major cross-cutting debate.We would see the leader's choices contested by elites who shared the leader's main coalitional. party,bureaucratic,and economic positions,differing only in holding other ideas in the cross-cutting debate.But the leader's agenda-setting power,or use of pressure or payoffs on other issues,would decide the outcome. The next section argues that French policymaking in early European institution building illustrates this process.Across three strategies that were viable domesti- cally and internationally,leaders built majority support for their own ideas. 22.See Rosenau 1961:Margolis and Mauser 1989;and the annual Index to International Public Opinion.positions that would lose in a single-issue vote. Especially in some combination of these conditions—three alternatives on one issue, and in multidimensional issue space—individual leaders may enjoy broad autonomy to build the majorities they prefer. There is nothing inherently ideational about such leadership. Game-theoretic analyses tend to picture leaders using this leverage for personal material gain. When connected to ideational variation at the individual level, however, these dynamics can tie variation in ideas alone to variation in strategies and outcomes. The cross-cutting debates described earlier not only highlight ideational variation at the individual level; they also create broad patterns of divided preferences and rich possibilities for issue linkages. Leaders may then enjoy opportunities to choose among “multiple equilibria” on the basis of their personal ideas. Showing that this happened requires three kinds of evidence: that individual ideas varied over distinct alternatives (as described earlier), that divided preferences or issue linkages made those alternatives viable options, and that leaders indeed asserted their personal views and used agenda-setting power and issue linkages to assemble coalitional support behind them. Given such evidence, we can say that leaders’ ideas, as autonomous factors, caused one strategy across the range of active alternatives. By contrasting the outcome to the counterfactual consequences of alternatives, we can specify a range of variation in outcomes caused by variation in ideas alone. Less abstractly, how would this process look? As a new cross-cutting debate emerged, top leaders’ views on that issue would disconnect from their previous coalitional support. Support for various strategies would be scattered across parties and other organizations. As long as a leader retained office and agenda-setting power due to support on other (non-cross-cutting) issues, the leader could build majorities for any of several choices on the cross-cutting issue. Note that this does not require that the cross-cutting issue be obviously less important than the non–cross-cutting issue. In democracies, voters may be less informed or concerned (or both) about certain debates than policymakers. This seems particularly common in the domain of foreign policy.22 Electoral coalition building and office holding can continue to operate along the “normal” issues resonant with voters, even though policymakers perceive a new debate as crucial. This disconnect can allow a leader to retain control of the agenda during a major cross-cutting debate. We would see the leader’s choices contested by elites who shared the leader’s main coalitional, party, bureaucratic, and economic positions, differing only in holding other ideas in the cross-cutting debate. But the leader’s agenda-setting power, or use of pressure or payoffs on other issues, would decide the outcome. The next section argues that French policymaking in early European institution building illustrates this process. Across three strategies that were viable domesti￾cally and internationally, leaders built majority support for their own ideas. 22. See Rosenau 1961; Margolis and Mauser 1989; and the annual Index to International Public Opinion. Origins of the EU 53