Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion: The Battle Continues

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

  • 353 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter captures and analyzes the results from the original case studies developed for this study. It conducts a structured, focused comparison of the data in relation to propositions from our model of minority influence, and we draw implications for theories of factionalism and foreign policy. The chapter then discusses insights in relation to the broader literature on partisanship, polarization, and minority influence, and identifies avenues for further exploration.

Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation. Parties with fixed ideological programs lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress.

—Governor George Romney (R-MI) (1964)

Let me tell you that the delight of political life is altogether in opposition. Why, it is freedom against slavery, fire against clay, movement against stagnation!

—Joshua Monk, Phineas Finn (1867)

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Presidential candidate Donald Trump, a fringe player in the Republican Party in 2015, also espoused dangerous nationalist rhetoric that bordered on racism and xenophobia.

  2. 2.

    This contestation process may be the most transparent in democratic states, where accountability and power-sharing necessitates the open and constructive exchange of ideas among leaders.

Bibliography

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bell, D. S., & Shaw, E. (1994). Introduction. In D. S. Bell & E. Shaw (Eds.), Conflict in Western European Social Democratic Parties (pp. 1–9). London: Pinter.

    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 

  • 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. (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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Article  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

  • 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 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantis, J. S. (2016). Arms and Influence: US Technology Innovations and the Evolution of International Security Norms. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantis, J. S. (2019). Foreign Policy Advocacy and Entrepreneurship: How a New Generation in Congress Is Shaping U.S. Engagement with the World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  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., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Social Influence II: Minority Influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    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 

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

    Book  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 

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • 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/

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

    Article  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. (2008). Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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 

  • Wallner, J. (2017). Intraparty Caucus Formation in the U.S. Congress. In J. R. Straus & M. E. Glassman (Eds.), Party and Procedure in the United States Congress (2nd ed., pp. 261–278). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, G. (2010). Legislative Entrepreneurship in the US House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTAS: Support for President Donald J. Trump’s Decision to End United States Participation in the Iran Deal. (2018, May 9). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/wtas-support-president-donald-j-trumps-decision-end-united-states-participation-iran-deal/

  • 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). Conclusion: The Battle Continues. In: The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30171-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation