The International and Domestic Sources of Bipartisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy

Abstract

Foreign policy scholars have long emphasized bipartisanship in foreign policymaking, particularly in the context of presidential appointments to the foreign policy bureaucracy, emphasizing the role of international crises and national security in affecting bipartisanship. In spite of their enduring nature, few systematic analyses of these claims exist. This study addresses these gaps using new data on appointees to the foreign policy bureaucracy. The results challenge the conventional wisdoms emerging from the foreign policy literature regarding the importance of factors like war, instead pointing to the importance of domestic political factors in affecting bipartisanship in appointments to the foreign policy bureaucracy.

Polarization and US foreign policy: key debates and new findings

“…In response to congressional polarization, presidents increasingly circumvent a gridlocked legislative branch by exercising executive power unilaterally (see Rudalevige 2005;Hendrickson 2015;Edelson 2016;Burns, 2019). Partisan polarization also influences executive branch appointments, leading presidents to appoint fewer officials from the opposition party to senior positions (Flynn 2014).…”

The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action

“…Under these conditions, even if presidents cannot convince all members of the other party, messages that exclusively target co-partisans leave potential support on the table. Additionally, partisan messages about foreign policy can be politically risky (Flynn 2014, 399), creating opportunities for elite dissent that facilitate the growth of a vocal opposition. Most importantly, partisanship offers little insight into who responds to humanitarian claims or why.…”