Severe party conflict, not a high-minded suspension of politics, now prevails “at the water’s edge.” Democrats and Republicans fight pitched battles over foreign affairs. But are the two parties polarized in their substantive preferences on foreign policy, or mainly jockeying for partisan advantage? Are they polarized on foreign policy less sharply than on domestic policy? What are the sources of party polarization over foreign policy? Using a new measure of senatorial foreign-policy preferences from 1945-2010, we explore party polarization over foreign policy. We find that foreign-policy preferences have had varying relationships with party politics and general ideology. Since the 1960s, however, the parties have become increasingly polarized on foreign policy. Using a multilevel analysis, we show that foreign-policy polarization has developed in response to partisan electoral rivalry, foreign-policy events, and general ideological polarization. The analysis indicates an increasing influence of domestic politics on foreign policy.
AldrichJ. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BeinartP. (2007). When politics no longer stops at the water’s edge: Partisan polarization and foreign policy. In NivolaP. (Ed.), Red and blue nations? Vol. 2. Consequences and correction of America’s polarized politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
3.
BonicaA. (2014). The punctuated origins of senate polarization. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 5-26.
4.
Canes-WroneB.HowellW.LewisD. (2007). Toward a broader understanding of presidential power: A reevaluation of the two presidencies thesis. Journal of Politics, 69, 1-16.
5.
CarrollR.LoJ.LewisJ.PooleK.RosenthalH. (2009). Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of difference and Monte Carlo tests. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 555-591.
6.
ChaudoinS.MilnerH.TingleyD. (2010). The center still holds: Liberal internationalism survives. International Security, 35, 75-94.
7.
ClausenA. (1973). How congressmen decide: A policy focus. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
8.
ClintonJ.JackmanS. (2009). To simulate or NOMINATE?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 593-621.
9.
ClintonJ.JackmanS.RiversD. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review, 98, 355-370.
10.
CoxG.McCubbinsM. (2006). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CroninP.FordhamB. (1999). Timeless principles or today’s fashion? Testing the stability of the linkage between ideology and foreign policy in the senate. Journal of Politics, 61, 967-998.
12.
DionD. (1997). Turning the legislative thumbscrew: Minority rights and procedural change in legislative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
FennoR. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
14.
GrynaviskJ. (2010). Partisan bonds: Political reputations and legislative accountability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
HolstiO.RosenauJ. (1996). Liberals, populists, libertarians, and conservatives: The link between domestic and international affairs. International Political Science Review, 17, 29-54.
16.
HowellW.PevehouseJ. (2007). While dangers gather: Congressional checks on presidential war powers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
JacobsonG. (2000). Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In BondJ. R.FleisherR. (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
JeongG. (2016). Measuring foreign policy positions of members of the US Congress. Political Science Research and Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.3
19.
KarolD. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KrinerD. (2010). After the Rubicon: Congress, presidents, and the politics of waging war. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
KupchanC.TrubowitzP. (2007). Dead center: The demise of liberal internationalism in the United States. International Security, 32, 7-44.
22.
LaymanG.CarseyT.HorowitzJ. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110.
23.
LaymanG.CarseyT.GreenJ.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346.
24.
LeeF. (2008). Dividers, not uniters: Presidential leadership and senate partisanship, 1981-2004. Journal of Politics, 70, 914-928.
25.
LeeF. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
LevenduskyM. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LowryW.ShipanC. (2002). Party differentiation in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27, 33-60.
29.
MartinA.QuinnK. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
30.
McCartyN.PooleK.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
McCormickJ. (1985). The changing role of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1970s and 1980s. Congress and the Presidency, 12, 1-20.
32.
McCormickJ.WittkopfE. (1990). Bipartisanship, partisanship, and ideology in congressional-executive foreign policy relations, 1947-1988. Journal of Politics, 52, 1077-1100.
33.
MeernikJ. (1993). Presidential support in congress: Conflict and consensus on foreign and defense policy. Journal of Politics, 55, 569-587.
34.
MilnerH.TingleyD. (2015). Sailing the water’s edge: The domestic politics of American foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
NincicM.RamosJ. (2010). Ideological structure and foreign policy preferences. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15, 119-141.
36.
PooleK.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
PrinsB.MarshallB. (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, 660-679.
38.
QuirkP. (2013). Polarized populism: Masses, elites, and ideological conflict. In LaRajaR. (Ed.), New directions in American politics (pp. 183-208). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
ReichardG. (1975). The reaffirmation of Republicanism: Eisenhower and the Eighty-Third Congress. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
40.
SchulmanB. (1991). From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal policy, economic development, and the transformation of the south, 1938-1980. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
ScottJ.CarterR. (2002). Acting on the Hill: Congressional assertiveness in U.S. foreign policy. Congress & the Presidency, 29, 151-169.
42.
SigelmanL. (1979). A reassessment of the two presidencies thesis. Journal of Politics, 41, 1195-1205.
43.
TheriaultS. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
TheriaultS.RohdeD. (2011). The Gingrich senators and party polarization in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Politics, 73, 1011-1024.
45.
WildavskyA. (1966). The two presidencies. Transaction, 4, 7-14.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
