Foreign policy free agents: how lawmakers and coalitions on the political margins help set boundaries for US foreign policy

Abstract

Bipartisan consensus on many US domestic and foreign policy priorities has seemingly collapsed in recent decades, and political parties have become qideologically polarized and divided. While some contend that these dynamics are narrowing the space for congressional foreign policy innovation, we argue that factionalism often fosters creativity in the foreign policy process. Specifically, this article explores the role of ‘free agent’ progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans in foreign policy decision-making. These members at the ideological extremes of their parties are finding common ground in anti-establishment views and concerns about executive excess, and they are aligning to challenge traditional foreign policy positions. This paper conducts a plausibility probe of a model of congressional foreign policy free agency based upon roll call voting on war powers-related decisions in the Obama and Trump administrations. During both presidencies, our findings suggest that the free agency model has predictive value for foreign policy maneuvering and offers a non-traditional way of thinking about contemporary US foreign policy development.

Külpolitikai törésvonalak az Amerikai Egyesült Államokban az orosz–ukrán háború kapcsán

“…a 2011-es líbiai és a 2019-es jemeni csapatkivonásról kezdeményezett sikertelen képviselőházi akciójuk során). 41 A pártokon belüli polarizáció -azaz a pragmatikus, az aktuális elnöki adminisztráció irányvonalát követő, illetve a radikálisabb, ideológiailag elkötelezettebb törvényhozók közötti távolság -a 2000-es évek második felétől a 2010-es évek végéig a Republikánus Pártban volt a hangsúlyosabb. Ez az említett időszak első felében a Tea Partyhoz, azt követően pedig a Képviselőházi Szabadság Platform (House Freedom Caucus) tartozó képviselők szavazási magatartásán volt megfigyelhető, miközben a GOP-főáramot képviselő platform (Republican Study Committee) is jobbra tolódott.…”

Polarization and US foreign policy: key debates and new findings

“…At the same time, it remains surprisingly common for Democratic and Republican lawmakers to vote together on foreign policy (Bryan and Tama 2022), and presidents retain the capacity to achieve bipartisan support for certain kinds of military intervention (Maxey 2022). Moreover, on some issues, such as international trade and the scope of executive power, divisions within the parties or between Congress and the executive are at least as salient as divisions between liberals and conservatives (Bryan and Tama 2022;Friedrichs 2022;Homan and Lantis 2022). The upshot is that preference polarization is intensifying in many respects, but not uniformly and not to the exclusion of other political dynamics.…”

“…The increased use by Congress of spending restrictions shows that lawmakers can adapt to political constraints in ways that enable them to maintain policy influence (Carcelli 2022). The role of ideology as a driver of congressional behavior can also enable Congress to act as a source of policy innovation (Bendix and Jeong 2022), while the intraparty divisions that characterize some foreign policy debates can foster the emergence of new ideas, policy entrepreneurs, and cross-cutting coalitions (Friedrichs 2022;Homan and Lantis 2022). Overall, though, the authors provide a variety of important cautionary tales about ways in which polarization can make it more difficult to carry out an effective foreign policy.…”

“…Patrick Homan and Jeffrey Lantis offer a different take on congressional foreign policy views, highlighting the importance of establishment and anti-establishment factions within each party in debates over war powers (Homan and Lantis 2022). While most studies of congressional views hone in on the roles of liberal and conservative ideology, Homan and Lantis underscore differences in the attitudes of legislators regarding the exercise of power in Washington.…”