U.S. Senators’ Support for Israel Examined Through Sponsorship/Cosponsorship Decisions, 1993-2002: The Influence of Elite and Constituent Factors

Abstract

This paper explores Senate policy‐making toward Israel from 1993–2002. Previous scholarship suggests that congressional policymaking toward Israel is heavily influenced by the ethnic and religious identification of both legislators and their constituents, not simply by legislators’ abstract perceptions of the national interest. Other literature de‐emphasizes the likelihood that constituent interests will affect Congressional foreign policy making. We test for an impact of both elite and constituent characteristics on Congressional support for Israel, using sponsorship–cosponsorship decisions in the 103rd–107th Congresses. Israel’s strongest supporters in this period are shown to be Jewish, conservative, Republican, and evangelical senators. Notably, elite characteristics (partisanship, ideology, and religion) matter more than constituency factors, with the exception of the Jewish population in senators’ home states. While Jewish and conservative senators have long been vocal supporters of Israel, evangelical and Republican senators have not historically taken such a strong pro‐Israel stance; hence they are relatively new additions to the active pro‐Israel coalition. Thus the pro‐Israel coalition shows both continuity and change as it has broadened to include new partners. However, we suggest that this coalition is not necessarily stable and may undergo further evolution in the future.

Religious Representation and Animal Welfare in the U.S. Senate

“…This is exactly where researchers should investigate religion's influence. Looking just at the U.S. Senate, scholars have done excellent work investigating religion's import vis‐à‐vis abortion (McTague and Pearson‐Merkowitz ), traditional values (Smith, Olson, and Fine ), and the status of Israel (Rosenson, Oldmixon, and Wald ). Building on this work, this article provides a strong test of religion's influence on the policy process by looking beyond the usual suspects.…”

“…Following Blackstone and Oldmixon (2015), Newman et al (2016), and Rosenson, Oldmixon, and Wald (2009), affiliation data are derived from the latter source, though both are highly reliably and routinely utilized. Senators are then classified by religious tradition following Steensland et al (2000) and Guth et al (2006).…”

“…But, as Fastnow, Grant, and Rudolph convincingly argue, "[r]eligious faith does not fall neatly onto such an ordinal scale"(1999:690). See alsoOldmixon (2009) on this point. Thus, we take the more direct and increasingly common tack of classifying denominations into larger traditions based on history, theology, organizational arrangements, and liturgical practices.…”

“…Focusing on U.S. senators serving between 2005 and 2014, this article analyzes Humane Society scorecards to assess whether senators are influenced by their personal religious identities. It builds on a growing body of scholarship that establishes the influence of religion on policy making in the U.S. Senate (McTague and Pearson-Merkowitz 2013;Rosenson, Oldmixon, and Wald 2009;Smith, Olson, and Fine 2010). 1 The findings indicate that religion shapes animal welfare activity.…”

Guns, Butter, and Human Rights—The Congressional Politics of U.S. Aid to Egypt

“…Second, it builds on studies of the domestic determinants of U.S. foreign aid allocations (Fleck & Kilby, 2006;Milner & Tingley, 2010 and assessments of Congressional voting on Israel (Oldmixon, Rosenson, & Wald, 2005;Rosenson, Oldmixon, & Wald, 2009) to add a rare quantitative perspective to the ongoing debate about the influence of lobbies that try to shape U.S. Middle East policies (Marrar, 2009;Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007).…”