Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy pp 1–27Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Introduction: Congress, Factions, and the Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 570 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores how members of Congress strategize to win the battle over U.S. foreign policy. While traditional scholarship focuses on establishment party leaders and majority rule, we argue that the study of factions flows naturally from theories of democratic representation. Exploration of the role of sub-groups within parties as agents of change helps overcome some systemic biases in the political science scholarship, as well as in popular culture, regarding the role of factions.

This nation is never beyond remedy, it is never beyond hope, it is never too broken to fix. We will be here, and we are going to rock the world.

—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (2018)

You cannot compound a successful government out of antagonisms.

—Woodrow Wilson (1908)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2000a). The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government. In J. R. Bond & R. Fleisher (Eds.), Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era (pp. 31–72). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2000b). The Republican Revolution and the House Appropriations Committee. Journal of Politics, 62, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, D. P., & Campbell, C. C. (Eds.). (2012). Congress and the Politics of National Security. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azari, J. (2016, May 19). A for Effort? Republican Elites Tried to Coordinate but Never Quite Got There. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/5/19/11712612/republican-elites-coordination

  • Beinart, P. (2018, September 16). America Needs an Entirely New Foreign Policy for the Trump Age. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/shield-of-the-republic-a-democratic-foreign-policy-for-the-trump-age/570010/

  • Belloni, F. P., & Beller, D. C. (Eds.). (1978). Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettcher, K. E. (2005). Factions of Interest in Japan and Italy: The Organizational and Motivational Dimensions of Factionalism. Party Politics, 11(1), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianco, W. T., & Bates, R. H. (1990). Cooperation by Design: Leadership, Structure, and Collective Dilemmas. American Political Science Review, 84(1), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. A. (1999). Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–1996. American Political Science Review, 93, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. A. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, J. R., & Fleisher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in the Partisan Era. Washington, DC: CQ Press College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucek, F. (2009). Rethinking Factionalism Typologies, Intra-Party Dynamics and Three Faces of Factionalism. Party Politics, 15(4), 455–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucek, F. (2012). Factional Politics: How Dominant Parties Implode or Stabilize. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., Ezrow, L., & McDonald, M. D. (2010). Ideology, Party Factionalism, and Party Change: An Integrated Dynamic Theory. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 781–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C. C., Karol, D., Kazin, M., & Lee, F. (2018). Are the Parties Dying? Democracy Journal 48. Spring. https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/48/are-the-parties-dying/

  • Campbell, J. E. (2018). Making Sense of a Divided America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. C., Rae, N. C., & Stack, J. F., Jr. (2003). Congress and the Politics of Foreign Policy. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canes-Wrone, B., Howell, W. G., & Lewis, D. E. (2008). Executive Influence in Foreign Versus Domestic Policy Making: Toward A Broader Understanding of Presidential Power. Journal of Politics, 1, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J. M. (2009). Competing Principles, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Z. (2018, November 15). These House Committees Could Make or Break a Progressive Agenda. Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-committees-incoming-progressive-democrats_us_5bee0964e4b0510a1f2f25ee

  • Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Choosing to Lead: Understanding Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2010). Understanding Congressional Foreign Policy Innovators: Mapping Entrepreneurs and Their Strategies. The Social Science Journal, 47(2), 418–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2013). Hitting the Reset Button: Why Is Cooperation So Hard? In R. G. Carter (Ed.), Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Terrorism to Trade (pp. 167–199). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2017). Choosing to Lead in a Shrinking Space: Partisanship, Polarization, and Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurship. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. G., Scott, J. M., & Rowling, C. (2004). Setting a Course: Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs in Post-World War II U.S. Foreign Policy. International Studies Perspectives, 5(3), 280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaramonte, A., & Emanuele, V. (2017). Party System Volatility, Regeneration and De-institutionalization in Western Europe (1945–2015). Party Politics, 23(4), 376–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chryssogelos, A. S. (2010). Undermining the West From Within: European Populists, the US and Russia. European View, 2, 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. J. (2017). The House Freedom Caucus: Extreme Faction Influence in the U.S. Congress (PDF file). Retrieved from http://www.democratic-anxieties.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Clarke_Berlin2017.pdf

  • Cole, B. R. (2018). Democratization and the Mischief of Faction. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, E. S. (1957). The President: Office and Powers, 1787–1957. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2002). Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877 to 1986. In D. Brady & M. D. McCubbins (Eds.), Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crabb, C., & Holt, P. (1992). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President, and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, J. M. (2015). Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewan, T., & Squintani, F. (2016). In Defense of Factions. American Journal of Political Science, 4, 860–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, D. (1997). Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, D. (2009). Party Factions in Congress. Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies, 36(1), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, D. (2010). The Politics of a Party Faction: The Liberal-Labor Alliance in the Democratic Party, 1948–1972. The Journal of Policy History, 22(3), 269–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, D. (2012). Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868-2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, L. C., & Oppenheimer, B. I. (2013). Congress Reconsidered. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, L. C., & Schraufnagel, S. (2013). Party Polarization and Policy Productivity in Congress: From Harding to Obama. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress Reconsidered (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage/Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dueck, C. (2010). Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edsall, T. B. (2018, October 18). The Democrats’ Left Turn Is Not an Illusion. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. (1980). What Happened to the British Party Model? American Science Review, 74, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessenden, H., & Cochran, J. (2003, March 22). Congress Seeks to Find Its Voice as Iraq War Rages. CQ Weekly, 676–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, C. J., & Rohde, D. W. (2008). War for the Floor: Partisan Theory and Agenda Control in the US House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 35–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P., & Mayhew, D. R. (1996). Divided Government (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gailmard, S., & Jenkins, J. A. (2007). Negative Agenda Control in the Senate and House: Fingerprints of Majority Party Power. Journal of Politics, 3, 689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (1998). Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, B., & I. L. Morris. (2015, December 4). Tea and Coffee: The Ideological Implications of the Tea Party Movement in the House of Representatives. Paper Presented at the American Politics Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti, D., & Benoit, K. (Eds.). (2009). Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, L. (1990). Qualitative Assessment. The Counseling Psychologist, 18(2), 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldwin, R. A., & Licht, R. A. (1990). Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Washington DC: AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. N. (2015). Underdog Politics: The Minority Party in the U.S. House of Representatives. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M., & Bee, B. (2017). Keeping the Team Together: Explaining Party Discipline and Dissent in the U.S. Congress. In J. R. Straus & M. E. Glassman (Eds.), Party and Procedure in the United States Congress (2nd ed., pp. 41–62). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2015). Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R. Y. (2000). Intraparty Politics and Peacemaking in Democratic Societies: Israel’s Labor Party and the Middle East Peace Process 1992–1996. Journal of Peace Research, 37(3), 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R. Y. (2003). Does Cohesion Equal Discipline. Journal of Legislative Studies, 4, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R. Y. (2006). Israel’s ‘Big Bang’: The Parliamentary Elections of 2006. Representations, 42(3), 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K., & Koole, R. A. (2000). Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies: Political Parties Behind Closed Doors. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine, D. (1982). Factionalism in West European Parties: A Framework for Analysis. West European Politics, 5(1), 36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, R. (1969). A Constitution Against Parties: Madisonian Pluralism and the Anti-Party Tradition. Government and Opposition, 3, 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, W. G., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2007a). While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, W. G., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2007b). When Congress Stops Wars. Foreign Affairs, 4, 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Issacharoff, S. (2016). Outsourcing Politics: The Hostile Takeovers of Our Hollowed Out Political Parties. Houston Law Review, 54:4, NYU School of Law Public Law Research Paper, 16–52. Available as SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2888064

  • Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janda, K. (1979). Comparative Political Parties Data 1950–1962. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. A., & Monroe, N. W. (2012). Buying Negative Agenda Control in the U.S. House. American Journal of Political Science, 4, 897–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, G.-H., & Quirk, P. (2019). Division at the Water’s Edge: The Polarization of Foreign Policy. American Politics Research, 47(1), 58–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. O. (1970). The Minority Party in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karol, D. (2009). Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (2019, January 15). Research Suggests Trump’s Election Has Been Detrimental to Many Americans’ Mental Health. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/news/research-suggests-trumps-election-has-been-detrimental-to-many-americans-mental-health

  • Kernell, S. (1997). Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V. O., Jr. (1942). Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V. O., Jr. (1949). Southern Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koger, G., Masket, S., & Noel, H. (2010). Cooperative Party Factions in American Politics. American Politics Research, 38(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohno, M. (1992). Rational Foundations for the Organisation of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. World Politics, 44(1), 369–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köllner, P., & Basedau, M. (2005, December). Factionalism in Political Parties: An Analytical Framework for Comparative Studies. German Overseas Institute Research Program on Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems no. 12. Retrieved from www.duei.de/workingpapers

  • Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kriner, D. L. (2018). Congress, Public Opinion, and an Informal Constraint on the Commander-in-Chief. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(1), 52–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C. A., & Trubowitz, P. L. (2007). Grand Strategy for a Divided America. Foreign Affairs, 4, 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Immediate Future of Research Policy and Method in Political Science. American Political Science Review, 45(1), 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., & Schofield, N. (1998). Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LeLoup, L. T. (1993). Congress and the President: The Policy Connection. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, R., & Wertman, D. A. (1989). Italian Christian Democracy: The Politics of Dominance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, C. S. (2007). Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist Radical Right. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddiard, P. (2018, December). Are Political Parties in Trouble? Woodrow Wilson Center History and Public Policy Program. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/are-political-parties-trouble

  • Lindsay, J. M. (1994). Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, J. M., & Ripley, R. B. (1992). Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the 1990s. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 3, 417–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1943). U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, D. L., & Deutchman, I. E. (2007). The Ideology of Moderate Republicans in the House. The Forum, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, J. (1787). Federalist Paper No.10: The Same Subject Continued: The Unions as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. New York Daily Advertiser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malnes, R. (1995). ‘Leader’ and ‘Entrepreneur’ in International Negotiations: A Conceptual Analysis. European Journal of International Relations, 1(1), 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, K., & Lantis, J. S. (2018). Are All Foreign Policy Innovators Created Equal? The New Generation of Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurship. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(2), 116–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B. W., & Prins, B. C. (2011). Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 3, 521–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1986). Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1991). Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1994). US Policy Wanes in Comparative Context. In L. C. Dodd & C. Jillson (Eds.), New Perspectives on American Politics (pp. 325–340). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (2002). Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, I. (1991). Party Adaptation and Factionalism Within the Australian Party System. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 206–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, Z. A. (2017). Keeping Your Friends Close: How the House Freedom Caucus Organized for Survival. M.A. Thesis. The University of Texas at Austin: Austin (Author’s copy).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, W. R. (2011). The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, W. R. (2017, January 20). The Jacksonian Revolt: American Populism and the Liberal Order. ForeignAffairs.com

  • Medvic, S. K. (2007). Old Democrats in New Clothing? An Ideological Analysis of a Democratic Party Faction. Party Politics, 5, 587–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (2019, February 28). Party Unity on Congressional Votes Takes a Dive. CQ Vote Studies. RollCall.com. https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/party-unity-congressional-votes

  • Miller, G., & Schofield, N. (2008). The Transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the US. Perspectives on Politics, 6(3), 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2015). Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal, 4, 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2013). Three Decades of Populist Radical Right Parties in Western Europe: So What? European Journal of Political Research, 1, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noel, H. (2013). Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Noel, H. (2016, September). Ideological Factions in the Republican and Democratic Parties. Annals, AAPSS 667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2008). The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2009). It’s Even Worse Than It Looks. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peake, J. S. (2002). Coalition Building and Overcoming Legislative Gridlock in Foreign Policy, 1947–98. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peake, J. S., Krutz, G. S., & Hughes, T. (2012). President Obama, the Senate, and the Polarized Politics of Treaty Making. Social Science Quarterly, 93(5), 1295–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragusa, J. M., & Gaspar, A. (2016). Where’s the Tea Party? An Examination of the Tea Party’s Voting Behavior in the House of Representative. Political Research Quarterly, 2, 361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun, B. (2013). Steeped in International Affairs? The Foreign Policy Views of the Tea Party. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, H. L. (2001). The Building of a Bifactional Structure: The Democrats in the 1940s. Political Science Quarterly, 116(1), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, H. L. (2004). Factional Persistence Within Parties in the United States. Party Politics, 10(3), 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S. A. (1928). Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roback, T. H., & James, J. L. (1978). Party Factions in the United States. In F. P. Belloni & D. C. Beller (Eds.), Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective (pp. 329–355). Santa Barbara: ABC Clio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R. B. (2017). Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rudalevige, A. (2008). The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power After Watergate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party Government. London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, A. M. (1973). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward A Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government. The American Political Science Review, 86(3), 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, K. A. (2018). Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy. The Washington Quarterly, 40(4), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sin, G. (2015). Separation of Powers and Legislative Organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B. (1997). Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindler, A. P. (1955). Bifactional Rivalry as an Alternative to Two-Party Competition in Louisiana. American Political Science Review, 49(3), 641–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitaraman, G. (2019, April 15). The Emergence of Progressive Foreign Policy. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/the-emergence-of-progressive-foreign-policy/

  • Smyth, R. (2006). Strong Partisans, Weak Parties? Party Organizations and the Development of Mass Partisanship in Russia. Comparative Politics, 2, 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, C. (2013). How Effects on Party Unity Vary Across Votes. Party Politics, 21(5), 791–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S. C. (1999). Political Parties and Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 243–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stonecash, J. M., et al. (2018). Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, J. R., & Glassman, M. E. (Eds.). (2017). Party and Procedure in the United States Congress (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, D. M. (2017). Joining Patterns Across Party Factions in the US Congress. The Forum, 15(4), 741–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, B., & Zaslove, A. (2015). The Impact of Populist Radical Parties on Foreign Policy: The Northern League as a Junior Coalition Partner in the Berlusconi Governments. European Political Science Review, 4, 525–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissman, S. R. (1995). A Culture of Deference. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1966). The Two Presidencies. Trans-Action, 2, 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensberger, D. R. (2002). The Return of the Imperial Presidency? Wilson Quarterly, 26, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensberger, D. R. (2018). Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshinaka, A. (2015). Crossing the Aisle: Party Switching by U.S. Legislators in the Postwar Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zariski, R. (1960). Party Factions and Comparative Politics: Some Preliminary Observations. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 4(1), 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Dominican University, River Forest, IL, USA

    Patrick Homan

  2. Department of Political Science, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH, USA

    Jeffrey S. Lantis

Authors
  1. Patrick Homan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey S. Lantis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Homan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Homan, P., Lantis, J.S. (2020). Introduction: Congress, Factions, and the Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy. In: The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30171-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation