Advertisement

International Politics

, Volume 53, Issue 5, pp 666–682 | Cite as

Partisan polarization and US foreign policy: Is the centre dead or holding?

  • Steven HurstEmail author
  • Andrew Wroe
Original Article
  • 160 Downloads

Abstract

Scholars generally agree that most congressional decision-making behaviour has become characterized by partisan polarization. One area to which this consensus does not extend, however, is decision-making on foreign and national security issues. While a majority of scholars believe congressional foreign policy voting is now polarized, others insist that bipartisanship remains the norm. Examining roll-call votes in the House of Representatives from 1970 to 2012, this paper brings three new elements to bear on the dispute. Using a more comprehensive range of indicators, we re-examine the longitudinal data previously presented by scholars; we add an analysis of the roll-call data for the 2004–2013 period, and we utilize a static measure of polarization. Our analysis of the data reveals a cyclical trend of increasing and decreasing polarization and we conclude that it is too simplistic to characterize congressional voting on foreign and national security issues since 1970 as either partisan or bipartisan.

Keywords

US congressional voting house of representatives foreign policy national security roll-call data polarization 

References

  1. Abramowitz, A.I. and Saunders, K.L. (2008) Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics 70(2): 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckman, M.N. and Kumar, V. (2011) Opportunism in polarization: Presidential success in key Senate votes, 1953–2008. Presidential Studies Quarterly 41(3): 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busby, J.W. and Monten, J. (2008) Without heirs? Assessing the decline of establishment internationalism in U.S. foreign policy. Perspectives on Politics 6(3): 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busby, J.W. and Monten, J. (2012) Republican elites and foreign policy attitudes. Political Science Quarterly 127(1): 105–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busby, J.W., Monten, J., Tama, J. and Imboden, W. (2013) Congress is already post-partisan: Agreement across the aisle on U.S. foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 28 January, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138791/joshua-w-busby-jonathan-monten-jordan-tama-and-william-inboden/congress-is-already-post-partisan, accessed 19 June 2014.
  6. Busby, J.W., Monten J., Tama, J. and Imboden, W. (2012) American foreign policy is already post-partisan: Why politics does stop at the water’s edge. Foreign Affairs 30 May 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137669/joshua-w-busby-jonathan-monten-and-william-inboden/american-foreign-policy-is-already-post-partisan, accessed 19 June 2014.
  7. Carmines, E.G. and Stimson, J.A. (1989) Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chaudoin, S., Milner, H.V. and Tingley, D.H. (2010) The center still holds: Liberal internationalism survives. International Security 35(1): 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J. and Bryson, B. (1996) Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3): 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiorina, M.P., Abrams, S.A. and Pope, J.C. (2006) Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Fleisher, R. and Bond, J.R. (2000) Partisanship and the President’s quest for votes on the floor of Congress. In R. Fleisher and J.R. Bond (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 154–185). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fleisher, R. and Bond, J.R. (2004) The shrinking middle in the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science 34(3): 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleisher, R., Bond, J.R., Krutz, G.S. and Hanna, S. (2000) The demise of the two presidencies. American Politics Quarterly 28(1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallup. (2012) Obama ratings historically polarized. 27 January, http://www.gallup.com/poll/152222/obama-ratings-historically-polarized.aspx, accessed 14 December 2012.
  15. Hetherington, M.J. (2001) Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review 95(3): 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hetherington, M.J. (2009) Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobson, G.C. (2000) Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In J.R. Bond and R. Fleisher (Eds.), President in a Partisan Era (pp. 9–30). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobson, G.C. (2010) A divider, not a uniter: George W. Bush and the American people. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  19. King, G. and Ragsdale, L. (1988) The elusive executive: Discovering statistical patterns in the presidency. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kupchan, C.A. and Trubowitz, P.L. (2007) Dead center: The demise of liberal internationalism. International Security 32(2): 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kupchan, C.A. and Trubowitz, P.L. (2010) The illusion of liberal internationalism’s revival. International Security 35(1): 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Layman, G.C., Carsy, T.M. and Horowitz, J.M. (2006) Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9(1): 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levendusky, M. (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall, B.W. and Prins, B.C. (2002) The pendulum of congressional power: Agenda change, partisanship and the demise of the post-World War Two foreign policy consensus. Congress and the Presidency 29(2): 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarty, N., Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. McClosky, H., Hoffman, P.J. and O’Hara, R. (1960) Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers. American Political Science Review 54(2): 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCormick, J.M. (2010) American Foreign Policy and Process. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  28. McCormick, J.M. and Wittkopf, E.R. (1990) Bipartisanship, partisanship, and ideology in congressional-executive foreign policy relations, 1947–1988. Journal of Politics 52(4): 1077–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCormick, J.M. and Wittkopf, E.R. (1992) At the water’s edge: The effects of party, ideology and issues on congressional foreign policy voting, 1947-1988. American Politics Quarterly 20(1): 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCormick, J.M., Wittkopf, E.R. and Danna, D.M. (1997) Politics and bipartisanship at the water’s edge: A note on Bush and Clinton. Polity 30(1): 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meernik, J. (1993) Presidential support in Congress: Conflict and consensus on foreign and defense policy. Journal of Politics 55(3): 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newman, B. and Siegle, E. (2010) The polarized presidency: Depth and breadth of public partisanship. Presidential Studies Quarterly 40(2): 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nincic, M. (2008) External affairs and the electoral connection. In E.R. Wittkopf and J.M. McCormick (Eds.), The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy (5th ed., pp. 125–140). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Nincic, M. and Datta, M.N. (2007) Of paradise, power and pachyderms. Political Science Quarterly 122(2): 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1984) The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics 46: 1061–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prins, B.C. and Marshall, B.W. (2001) Congressional support of the president: A comparison of foreign, defense and domestic policy decision making during and after the Cold War. Presidential Studies Quarterly 31(4): 660–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rohde, D.W. (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schraufnagel, S. and Shellman, S.M. (2001) The two presidencies, 1994–1998: A replication and extension. Presidential Studies Quarterly 31(4): 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shapiro, R. and Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2005) Partisan conflict, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Paper presented at the Inequality & Social Policy Seminar, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 12 December http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Shapiro05.pdf, accessed 25 October 2012.
  40. Sinclair, B. (2006) Party wars: Polarization and the politics of national policy-making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stonecash, J.M., Brewer, D. and Mariani, M.D. (2002) Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment and Party Polarization. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  42. Theriault, S.M. (2008) Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trubowitz, P. and Mellow, N. (2011) Foreign policy, bipartisanship and the paradox of post-September 11 America. International Politics 48(2/3): 164–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Voteview.com (2012) An update on political polarization (through 2011). 30 January, http://voteview.com/blog/?p=284, accessed 12 December 2012.
  45. Voteview.com (2014) The polarization of the congressional parties. 19 January, http://voteview.com/political_polarization.asp, accessed 17 February 2014.
  46. Wildavsky, A. (1966) The two presidencies. Trans-Action 4: 7–14.Google Scholar
  47. Wroe, A., Ashbee, E. andd Gosling, A. (2014) The culture war and issue salience: An analysis of American sentiment on traditional moral issues. Journal of American Studies 48(2): 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, Politics and PhilosophyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Politics and IR, Rutherford CollegeUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations