Searching for the Water’s Edge: Polarization and Foreign Policy

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

It is a truism of today’s political climate that polarization produces suboptimal outcomes. Whether measured in terms of affective or ideological distance, polarization is a defining characteristic of contemporary American politics. How does political polarization impact the formation, conduct, and consequences of foreign policy? On the one hand, a research tradition that expects “politics stops at the water’s edge” discounts polarization’s threat to a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. On the other hand, research that envisions the public as a credible input to the policy process, and elites as reflective of societal divisions, sees polarization as a foreign policy liability. These two schools of thought are being put to the test by a growing focus among scholars and policy observers on (1) the U.S.’s response to the China challenge, and (2) concerns that domestic disunity jeopardizes the U.S.’s international credibility. This panel takes up these themes by studying polarization as both a cause and consequence of foreign policy and international crisis dynamics. Papers will feature new theoretical insights into how polarization matters for foreign policy and present new evidence to assess polarization’s effects across diverse policy areas. Taking the recent wave of work on polarization as a starting point, this panel considers ways polarization and international crises might be mitigated and examines the influence of partisan divisions in foreign affairs on electoral competition. Theoretically, the panel contributes to the study of stability and change in public opinion, public constraints (or lack thereof) on an executive-dominated foreign policy process, and the prospects for mitigating international conflict.

Conklin and Yeung examine the effects of factual corrections to misperceptions about an adversary in the context of escalating US-China tensions over Taiwan. Green-Riley, Kertzer, Laird, and Wamble investigate racial gaps in foreign policy preferences, finding that racial gaps are most pronounced over the issue of where U.S. interests are at stake. Lin examines the determinants of public support for ROTC programs and finds that people with favorable attitudes toward ROTC are more supportive of the use of military force. Myrick considers partisan competition over foreign affairs in the context of elections. Quek and Chan propose an interactive theory to explain the ways an accidental crisis could be deescalated, finding that sharing blame for an accidental crisis can reduce the risks of escalation.

Sub Unit

• Division 19: International Security 

Individual Presentations

• Crisis De-escalation amid Misperceptions: Evidence from US-China Relations - Matthew Conklin, University of Chicago; Eddy Yeung, Emory University

• Black and White beyond the Water’s Edge: Racial Gaps in Foreign Policy Attitudes - Naima Green-Riley, Princeton University; Joshua D. Kertzer, Harvard University; Chryl Laird, University of Maryland College Park; Julian Wamble, George Washington University

• Partisanship, Attitudes about ROTC, and Support for US Military Intervention - Jennifer Lin, Northwestern University

• Party Competition, Electoral Cycles, and US Relations with Foreign Adversaries - Rachel Maureen Myrick, Duke University

• Deescalating an Accidental Crisis - Kai Quek, University of Hong Kong; Zenobia Chan, Georgetown University

Chair

• Jordan Tama American University

Discussants

• Carrie A Lee U.S. Army War College

• D.G. Kim Harvard University