Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factionalism and Foreign Policy: A Model of Minority Influence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy

  • 408 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews theories of political party influence in the U.S. foreign policy process, with particular attention to studies of polarization and partisanship in the contemporary scene. The chapter details our new factional model of minority influence in U.S. foreign policy decision-making by drawing from social psychology. It argues that factions can have outsized influence through persuasion, deviance, and nonconformity, and that their views often address the solvency debate in U.S. foreign policy. The chapter also outlines the research design and methodology for the larger project and previews the plausibility probe using case studies.

The dissenting spirit stands with the party of things-as-they-might-become….Dissent is what rescues democracy from a quiet death behind closed doors.

—Lewis H. Lapham (2005)

The time is long overdue for a vigorous discussion about our foreign policy, and how it needs to change in this new era.

—Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (October 9, 2018)

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational Factors in Conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, Belief Similarity, and Intergroup Discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 971–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 5, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.

    Article  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

  • Beasley, R. (1998). Collective Interpretations: How Problem Representations Aggregate in Foreign Policy Groups. In D. Sylvan & J. Voss (Eds.), Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • Bernheim, B. D. (1994). A Theory of Conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 5, 841–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordens, K., & Horowitz, I. A. (2002). Social Psychology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 591–621.

    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

  • 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 

  • Crabb, C., & Holt, P. M. (1980). Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President, and Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    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 

  • Delahunty, R. J. (2001). Federalism Beyond the Water’s Edge: State Procurement Sanctions and Foreign Affairs. Stanford Journal of International Law, 37(1), 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. (2001). Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation. London: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Studies and Theory in Political Science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Vol. 7, pp. 79–139). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enten, H., & Azari, J. (2017, March 26). The Two Cracks in the Republican Party. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-cracks-in-the-republican-party/

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 4, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, A., & Bennett, S. (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decisionmaking. Advances in Information Processing in Organization, 2(1), 21–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J., & Cojocaru, L. (2016). Selecting Cases for Intensive Analysis: A Diversity of Goals and Methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 45, 392–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godbout, J.-F., & Hoyland, B. (2011). Legislative Voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. N. (2019). Legislative Hardball: The House Freedom Caucus and the Power of Threat-Making in Congress (Elements in American Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge 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 

  • Haas, P. M. (2001). Policy Knowledge: Epistemic Communities. In N. J. Smelser & B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 11578–11586). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J. D., Everts, P. P., Fukui, H., & Stempel, J. D. (2001). Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy. International Studies Review, 3, 169–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hager, G. L., & Talbert, J. C. (2000). Look at the Party Label: Party Influences on Voting in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, C., & Poole, K. T. (2014). The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics. Polity, 46(3), 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, C., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2014). Polarization in Congress Has Risen Sharply: Where Is It Going Next? Washington Post, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2015). Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herndon, A. W. (2019, May 31). Biden’s Appeal to Political Center Tests Power of Democrats’ Left Wing. The New York Times. A11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., & Noury, A. (2016). Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymans, J. E. C. (2006). The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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

  • Johnson, L. R., McCray, D., & Ragusa, J. M. (2018). #NeverTrump: Why Republican Members of Congress Refused to Support Their Party’s Nominee in the 2016 Presidential Election. Research and Politics, 5(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. I. (2001). Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 487–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. O. (1982). The United States Congress: People, Place, and Policy. Homewood: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E. (1984). Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. (1996). Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Role of Junior Coalition Partners in German and Israeli Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly, 40(1), 501–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. (2006, April 12). Coalition Politics and Foreign Policy: Project Overview. Invited research presentation, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. (2008). Coalition Cabinet Decision Making: Institutional and Psychological Factors. International Studies Review, 10(1), 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J., & Beasley, R. K. (1999). A Practical Guide to the Comparative Case Study Method in Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 20, 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriner, D. L. (2010). After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lantis, J. S. (2009). The Life and Death of International Treaties: Double-Edged Diplomacy and the Politics of Ratification in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapham, L. H. (2005). On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F. E. (2016). Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (2003). Political Psychology and Foreign Policy. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 253–284). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. (2008). Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R. T. (2014). Purging the Republican Party: Tea Party Campaigns and Elections. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, D. L., & Deutchman, I. E. (2009). Five Factions, Two Parties: Caucus Membership in the House of Representatives, 1994–2002. Congress & The Presidency, 36(1), 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden Impact of Minorities: Fifteen Years of Minority Influence Research. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 428–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., Clark, R. D., & Haberkorn, G. (1982). The Effects of Differential Ascribed Category Membership and Norms on Minority Influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. (1990). Framing the National Interest. World Politics, 43, 77–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, K., & Lantis, J. S. (2016). Are All Foreign Policy Innovators Created Equal? The New Generation of Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurship. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(2), 116–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N. (2016). In Defense of DW-NOMINATE. Studies in American Political Development, 30, 172–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCammond, A. (2018, November 8). The Incumbents Who Lost in 2018. Axios. https://www.axios.com/incumbents-who-lost-reelection-2018-midterm-elections-f4cc0c57-77c3-4952-baa1-7a2e7128568c.html

  • 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

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1965). Liberating Effects of Group Pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(2), 127–134.

    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 

  • Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a Theory of Conversion Behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1985). The Age of the Crowd: A Historical Treatise on Mass Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, A. B. (1980). Studies in Social Influence V: Minority Influence and Conversion Behavior in a Perceptual Task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Response of a Majority in a Color-Perception Task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G. (1975). Negotiations, Image of the Other and the Process of Minority Influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). The Social Psychology of Minority Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). The Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The Trade Offs of Social Control and Innovation Within Groups and Organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 175–210). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastamou, S., & Mugny, G. (1985). Rigidity and Minority Influence of the Social in Social Influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on Minority Influence (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, S. C., & Caldeira, G. A. (1988). Contours of Friendship and Respect in the Legislature. American Politics Research, 16(4), 466–485.

    Article  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 

  • Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2015). The Polarization of the Congressional Parties. Voteview.com. Updated March 21, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.

    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. (1980). Party Factionalism National Conventions in the New Era. American Politics Quarterly, 8(3), 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, H. L. (1998). The Bases of Progressivism Within the Major Parties. Social Science History, 22(1), 83–116.

    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 

  • Rublee, M. R. (2008). Taking Stock of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime: Using Social Psychology to Understand Regime Effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10(3), 420–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, B. (2018, October 9). Sanders Speech at SAIS: Building A Global Democratic Movement to Counter Authoritarianism. School for Advanced International Studies. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-speech-at-sais-building-a-global-democratic-movement-to-counter-authoritarianism

  • Schwartz, M. A. (2010). Interactions Between Social Movements and US Political Parties. Party Politics, 16(5), 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case-Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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 

  • Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2011). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirling, A., & McLean, I. (2007). UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis, 15(1), 85–96.

    Article  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 

  • Sylvan, D. A., & Thorson, S. J. (1992). Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 709–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, D. A., & Voss, J. F. (1998). Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social Influence Model: A Formal Integration of Research on Majority and Minority Influence Processes. Psychology Bulletin, 95(2), 189–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2013). The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress. New York: Oxford 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 

  • Van Dyke, N., & Meyer, D. S. (2014). Understanding the Tea Party Movement. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtler, J. B. (1977). The Effect of Conformity Versus Minority Influence Settings on the Individual’s Ability to Locate Non-obvious Solutions in a Hidden Figures Test. Doctoral Dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., et al. (1994). Minority Influence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Influence Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucco, C., Jr. (2009). Ideology or What? Legislative Behavior in Multiparty Presidential Settings. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1076–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucco, C., Jr., & Lauderdale, B. E. (2011). Distinguishing Between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 363–396.

    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). Factionalism and Foreign Policy: A Model of Minority Influence. In: The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30171-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation