Hawks versus Doves: Who Leads American Foreign Policy in the US Congress?

Abstract

The combination of partisan polarization and controversial military engagements has produced contentious debates over US foreign policy in Congress. Who has been winning these debates and exerting greater influence over the development of security and defense bills, hawkish or dovish legislators? The literature offers competing answers—on the one hand, arguing that hawks enjoy policy advantages because of Congress’s commitment to US hegemony and, on the other, claiming that doves gain policy openings because of shifting partisan and security conditions. To determine the influence of hawkish versus dovish legislators, we examine congressional actions on all defense spending bills from 1971 to 2016. Specifically, we track roll call votes to see which legislators enjoy the greatest support for their measures. We find that hawks have disproportionate influence over the content of defense bills, whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, and whether the United States is at war or enjoying relative peace.