17³Ô¹ÏÔÚÏß

Most Americans are familiar with polarization in US domestic politics, especially during an election year. ÌýJust like domestic politics, US foreign policy has grown increasingly polarized in recent decades, with Democrats and Republicans in Congress voting together less often now than they used to on foreign policy issues.

SIS Professor Jordan Tama’s new co-edited volume, , explores this trend in foreign policy both in Congress and among the US public. The book covers a wide range of topics including ideology and foreign policy, polarization’s impact on the military, and instances of bipartisanship in foreign policy. To learn more, we asked Tama some questions about which foreign policy issues are the most polarized, how polarization affects America’s international standing, and what’s next for his research.

How does the process of editing a book compare to writing (or co-writing) a book?

The short answer is that editing a book is a lot easier than writing one if you select outstanding contributors. In this case, Gordon Friedrichs (my co-editor) and I were able to recruit a terrific set of scholars who not only wrote excellent chapters but also were a pleasure to work with. The most interesting aspect of editing a book is conceptualizing how the expertise of a group of scholars can be melded together in such a way that the whole is greater than the parts. We attempted to do that with this book by framing it around three broad themes: the polarization of foreign policy ideas, the polarization of foreign policy institutions, and the implications of polarization for the conduct and effectiveness of foreign policy. By connecting each of the book’s chapters to one of these themes, we were able to generate takeaways that go beyond the individual contributions.

Which foreign policy issues are more polarized, and which are less polarized? Does it change if you focus on the American public versus elected officials?

Climate change and immigration are two foreign policy issues that are generally marked by high levels of polarization. Compared to Democrats, Republicans are much less supportive of governmental action to address climate change and are much more supportive of immigration restrictions. By contrast, US policy toward China is marked by a high degree of bipartisanship, as most Democrats and Republicans favor policies designed to counter the rise of China or strengthen the US position vis-à-vis China. Still, other issues are marked by strong divisions within, rather than between, the parties. For instance, the Republican Party is divided over US military aid to Ukraine, and the Democratic Party is divided over US military aid to Israel. These political dynamics exist among both the public and elected officials, as the views of voters in each party are heavily influenced by that party’s elites and each party’s elected officials also take cues from their party’s base.

How does polarization affect the conduct of US foreign policy and the international standing of the US?

Polarization is weakening the effectiveness of US foreign policy and harming America’s reputation. The US president needs congressional backing to carry out many aspects of foreign policy. For instance, the president cannot provide aid to other countries or implement a trade agreement unless Congress appropriates needed funds or approves the agreement. When members of Congress oppose a policy for partisan reasons, this makes it more difficult for the United States to act effectively on the world stage.

Polarization also results in greater swings in policy from one president to the next. Consider the dramatic shifts in US policy from Barack Obama to Donald Trump and from Trump to Joe Biden on issues like climate change and international cooperation. These shifts erode the trust of foreign leaders and the public in US commitments, making them more skeptical of the value of working with the US.

Does polarization lead to any positive effects on US foreign policy?

The downsides of polarization greatly outweigh its benefits. That said, clear differences between the parties can be helpful in clarifying what is at stake in policy debates. So long as disagreements are grounded in sincere efforts to make sound policy, they can be helpful and constructive. We would certainly not be well served if everyone simply went along with the majority opinion in the interest of harmony. The problem today is not that the parties often disagree, but rather that their disagreements are often driven by partisan goals, rather than by a desire to do what is best for the country or the world. We saw this recently when Donald Trump urged Republican members of Congress to oppose the border security bill that some Democrats and Republicans had negotiated because he would rather keep immigration as a campaign issue than have the border crisis get addressed.

What further questions did this book leave you with that you’d like to focus your research on next?

The book left me with a number of questions that I’d like to examine in future research. We focused the book on the US, but it’s evident that politics are also becoming more polarized in many other countries. New research could consider to what extent the patterns of foreign policy polarization documented in the book are also marking the foreign policies of other countries. I’m also eager to do more research on remedies to polarization or strategies for fostering bipartisanship. In particular, I’d like to investigate how groups can forge politically diverse coalitions that result in bipartisan action by elected officials. While reversing the overall trend of polarization in American politics may not currently be feasible, it remains possible for groups to build areas of bipartisanship – and I’d like to help others understand how that can be done.