{"title":"Hawks versus Doves: Who Leads American Foreign Policy in the US Congress?","authors":"W. Bendix, Gyung-Ho Jeong","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍：
Reflecting the diverse, comparative and multidisciplinary nature of the field, Foreign Policy Analysis provides an open forum for research publication that enhances the communication of concepts and ideas across theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary boundaries. By emphasizing accessibility of content for scholars of all perspectives and approaches in the editorial and review process, Foreign Policy Analysis serves as a source for efforts at theoretical and methodological integration and deepening the conceptual debates throughout this rich and complex academic research tradition. Foreign policy analysis, as a field of study, is characterized by its actor-specific focus. The underlying, often implicit argument is that the source of international politics and change in international politics is human beings, acting individually or in groups. In the simplest terms, foreign policy analysis is the study of the process, effects, causes or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a comparative or case-specific manner.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
