Many analysts believe that the end of the cold war will spark greater conflict between Congress and the president on foreign issues, thus further undermining the nation's political mythology that politics stops at the water's edge. The authors test that hypothesis using House of Representatives' support of presidents' foreign policy bids on prerogative power and defense budgeting issues during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Congresses (1983-1996). They also examine the votes of members of Congress whose careers bridged the cold war divide, asking whether the cold war's end shocked them into new forms of behavior. The authors conclude that conflict between Congress and the president has heightened in the post-cold war era, but the impact of the cold war's end is a less important explanation of executive-congressional contestation than members' role responsibilities and ideological preferences. Thus, the agenda of foreign policy issues may have changed with the end of the cold war, but the process of policy making has not.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bond, Jon R. , and Richard Fleisher. 1990. The president in the legislative arena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Brody, Richard A. 1991. Assessing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Corwin, Edward S. 1948. The president: Office and powers. New York: New York University Press.
4.
Cox, Gary W. , and Samuel Kernell. 1991. Conclusions. In The politics of divided government, edited by Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell, 244-245. Boulder, CO: Westview.
5.
Deutsch, Karl W. 1966. External influences on the internal behavior of states. In Approaches to comparative and international politics, edited by R. Barry Farrell, 5-26. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
6.
Deutsch, Karl W. , and Richard L. Merritt. 1965. Effects of events on national and international images. In International behavior, edited by Herbert C. Kelman, 132-187. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7.
Dixon, William J. , and Stephen M. Gaarder. 1992. Presidential succession and the cold war: An analysis of Soviet-American relations, 1948-1988. Journal of Politics54:156-175.
8.
Edwards, George C. III . 1980. Presidential influence in Congress. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
9.
Edwards, George C. III . 1989. At the margins: Presidential leadership in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1973. Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
11.
Hill, Kim Quaile , Stephen Hanna, and Sahar Shafqat. 1997. The liberal-conservative ideology of U.S. senators: A new measure. American Journal of Political Science41:1395-1413.
12.
Holsti, Ole R. , and James N. Rosenau. 1999. Internationalism: Intact or in trouble? In The future of American foreign policy, edited by Eugene R. Wittkopf and Christopher M. Jones. 3d ed., forthcoming. New York: Worth St. Martin's.
13.
Lindsay, James M. 1999. End of an era: Congress and foreign policy after the cold war. In The domestic sources of American foreign policy: Insights and evidence, edited by Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick. 3d ed., forthcoming. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
14.
Lowi, Theodore J.1964. American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics16:677-715.
15.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1967. Making democracy safe for the world. In Domestic sources of foreign policy, edited by James N. Rosenau, 295-331. New York: Free Press.
16.
McCormick, James M.1985. The changing role of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1970s and 1980s. Congress & the Presidency12:1-20.
17.
McCormick, James M. , and Eugene R. Wittkopf. 1990a. Bipartisanship, partisanship, and ideology in congressional-executive foreign policy relations, 1947-1988. Journal of Politics52:1077-1100.
18.
McCormick, James M.1990b. Bush and bipartisanship: The past as prologue?Washington Quarterly13:5-16.
19.
McCormick, James M. , Eugene R. Wittkopf, and David M. Danna. 1997. Politics and bipartisanship at the water's edge: A note on Bush and Clinton. Polity30:133-149.
20.
Meernik, James . 1993. Presidential support in Congress: Conflict and consensus on foreign and defense policy. Journal of Politics55:569-587.
21.
Murray, Shoon Kathleen . 1996. Anchors against change: American opinion leaders' beliefs after the cold war. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential power. New York: Free Press.
23.
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. , and Dennis M. Simon. 1989. The man in the teflon suit: The environmental connection, political drama, and popular support in the Reagan presidency. Public Opinion Quarterly53:353-387.
24.
Poole, Keith T. , and Howard Rosenthal. 1991. Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science35:228-278.
25.
Poole, Keith T. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Rosner, Jeremy D. 1995. The new tug-of-war: Congress, the executive branch, and national security. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
27.
Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. 1973. The imperial presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
Silverstein, Gordon . 1997. Imbalance of powers: Constitutional interpretation and the making of American foreign policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Stockton, Paul N. 1993. Congress and defense policy-making in the post-cold war era. In Congress resurgent: Foreign and defense policy on Capitol Hill, edited by Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay, 235-259. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
Stockton, Paul N.1995. Beyond micromanagement: Congressional budgeting for a post-cold war military. Political Science Quarterly110:233-259.
