Hawks versus Doves: Who Leads on Which Foreign Policy Issues?

• In Event: Law, Legislating, and US Foreign Policy

Abstract

We show in a recent study that, since the early 1970s, hawkish members of Congress have enjoyed much greater legislative success in shaping foreign policy than dovish members have (Bendix and Jeong 2023). Additionally, we find that these results stand whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress, whether Republicans or Democrats hold the White House, and whether the United States is at war or enjoys relative peace. In short, despite fluctuating political and security conditions, hawks in Congress have dominated foreign policymaking for the last five decades. In this paper, and as part of a larger book project, we see whether hawks have a consistent legislative advantage across most foreign policy issues or whether hawks and doves enjoy varying levels of legislative success depending on which issue is under consideration.

The congressional literature has not explored this question to any degree, nor has the comparative literature on other democratic legislatures. To be sure, studies demonstrate that hawkish and dovish lawmakers care about different foreign policy issues, and that they support different foreign policy measures and instruments (see, e.g., Milner and Tingley 2011). But these studies do not consider whether hawks or doves enjoy legislative success on particular types of foreign policy issues, especially those they prioritize. It may be the case that congressional doves have limited success on foreign policy items in general, but that they often prevail on measures that are most important to them, such as foreign assistance and humanitarian interventions. Conversely, doves may face consistent legislative setbacks on their legislative proposals regardless of the issues at stake. The consequences for American foreign policy are enormous depending on what the answer is. It is one thing for Congress to be somewhat biased in a hawkish direction; it is quite another for congressional hawks to determine legislative outcomes across most or all foreign policies.

To see whether doves enjoy marked success on certain issues, we collect data on all foreign policy bills and amendments introduced into Congress between 1965 and 2016. We then code these measures according to substantive focus, identifying whether they concern military issues, foreign assistance, or foreign trade. After collecting sponsorship data for each bill, we conduct regression analyses to see the level of legislative success that hawks and doves enjoy on different foreign policy issues. Findings from this study will reveal the degree to which hawks control the development of US foreign policy.

Authors

• William Bendix, Dakota State University

• Gyung-Ho Jeong, University of British Columbia