Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 September 2022
The last two Republican presidents’ hostility to multilateralism has produced striking departures from postwar American foreign policy, but this position is not as new as it sometimes appears. It has deep historical roots in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Using data on congressional voting and bill sponsorship, we show that Republicans, especially those from the party's conservative wing, have tended to oppose multilateral rules for more than a century. This position fit logically into the broader foreign policy that Republican presidents developed before World War I but posed problems in light of the changing conditions during the mid-twentieth century. The importance of multilateral cooperation for U.S. national security during the Cold War and the growing international competitiveness of American manufacturing split the party on multilateral rules, but it did not reverse the conservative wing's longstanding skepticism of them. Congressional leaders’ efforts to keep consequential choices about multilateral rules off the legislative agenda for most of the postwar era contributed to the persistence of this position. This move spared conservative members of Congress from confronting the costs of opposing multilateral institutions, giving them little incentive to challenge ideological orthodoxy.
1 Quoted in Samantha Power, “Boltonism,” The New Yorker, March 21, 2005, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism.
2 Ruggie, John Gerard, “Multilateralism: Anatomy of an Institution,” International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 561–98, 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 See, e.g., Busby, Joshua W. and Monten, Jonathan, “Republican Elites and Foreign Policy Attitudes,” Political Science Quarterly 127, no. 1 (2011): 105–42Google Scholar; Chaudoin, Stephen, Milner, Helen V., and Tingley, Dustin H., “The Center Still Holds: Liberal Internationalism Survives,” International Security 35, no. 1 (2010): 75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hurst, Stephen and Wroe, Andrew, “Partisan Polarization and U.S. Foreign Policy: Is the Centre Dead or Holding?” International Politics 53, no. 5 (2016): 666–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kupchan, Charles A. and Trubowitz, Peter L., “Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States,” International Security 32, no. 2 (2007): 7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kupchan, Charles A. and Trubowitz, Peter L., “The Illusion of Liberal Internationalism's Revival,” International Security 35, no. 1 (2010): 95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Moravcsik, Andrew, “The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy,” in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, ed. Ignatieff, Michael (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 147–97Google Scholar; Ruggie, John Gerard, “American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism, and Global Governance,” in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, ed. Ignatieff, Michael (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 304–38Google Scholar.
5 See, e.g., Dueck, Colin, Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dueck, Colin, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mead, Walter Russell, “The Jacksonian Revolt,” Foreign Affairs 96, no. 2 (2017): 2–7Google Scholar; Monten, Jonathan, “Primacy and Grand Strategic Beliefs in U.S. Unilateralism,” Global Governance 13, no. 1 (2007): 119–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Hinich, Melvin J. and Munger, Michael C., Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Bernstein, Robert A. and Anthony, William W., “The ABM Issue in the Senate, 1968–1970: The Importance of Ideology,” American Political Science Review 68, no. 3 (1974): 1198–206, 1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Thérien, Jean-Philippe, “Debating Foreign Aid: Right Versus Left,” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 3 (2002): 449–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Thérien, Jean-Philippe and Nöel, Alain, “Political Parties and Foreign Aid,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 1 (2000): 151–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Broz, J. Lawrence, “The United States Congress and IMF Financing, 1944–2009,” Review of International Organizations 6, no. 3–4 (2011): 341–68, 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Carney, Dana R., Jost, John T., Gosling, Samuel D., and Potter, Jeff, “The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind,” Political Psychology 29, no. 6 (2008): 807–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 834.
12 Hirsh, Jacob B., Deyoung, Colin G., Xu, Xiaowen, and Peterson, Jordan B., “Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness with Political Ideology and Moral Values,” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 36, no. 5 (2010): 655–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
13 Rathbun, Brian C., “The ‘Magnificent Fraud’: Trust, International Cooperation, and the Hidden Domestic Politics of American Multilateralism after World War II,” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 1 (2011): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Irwin, Douglas A. and Kroszner, Randall S., “Interests, Institutions, and Ideology in Securing Policy Change: The Republican Conversion to Trade Liberalization After Smoot-Hawley,” Journal of Law and Economics 42, no. 2 (1999): 642–74Google Scholar; Fordham, Benjamin O., “Economic Interests and Congressional Voting on American Foreign Policy,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52, no. 5 (2008): 623–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Ellis, Christopher and Stimson, James A., Ideology in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Ibid., 8–10; Rotunda, Ronald D., The Politics of Language (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1986)Google Scholar.
17 Widenor, William C., Henry Cabot Lodge and the Search for an American Foreign Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 61–62Google Scholar.
18 Ellis and Stimson, Ideology in America, 2.
19 Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 35Google Scholar.
20 We have explored the logic of this foreign policy and the sources of political support for it in greater depth elsewhere; see Michael E. Flynn and Benjamin O. Fordham, “Economic Interests and Threat Assessment in the U.S. Congress, 1890–1914,” International Interactions 43, no. 5 (2017): 744–70; Fordham, Benjamin O., “Protectionist Empire: Trade, Tariffs, and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890–1914,” Studies in American Political Development 31, no. 2 (2017): 170–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fordham, Benjamin O., “The Domestic Politics of World Power: Explaining Debates over the United States Battleship Fleet, 1890–1900,” International Organization 73, no. 2 (2019): 435–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Palen, Marc-William, “The Imperialism of Economic Nationalism, 1890–1913,” Diplomatic History 39, no. 1 (2015): 157–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Viner, Jacob, “The Most-Favored-Nation Clause in American Commercial Treaties,” Journal of Political Economy 32, no. 1 (1924): 101–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Campbell, John P., “Taft, Roosevelt, and the Arbitration Treaties of 1911,” Journal of American History 53 no. 2 (1966): 279–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Kuehl, Warren F., Seeking World Order: The United States and International Organization to 1920 (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), 137–39Google Scholar.
24 Roosevelt, Theodore, “The Arbitration Treaty with Great Britain,” Outlook 98, no. 3 (1911): 97–98, 98Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., 97.
26 Mahan to Roosevelt, December 2, 1911, Subject File, 1797–1915—Theodore Roosevelt, Mahan Papers, Library of Congress.
27 For Lodge's remarks, see Congressional Record, February 29, 1912, p. 2603. For Hayburn's, see Congressional Record, March 5, 1903, p. 2821. For Smith's see Congressional Record, March 5, 1912, p. 2823.
28 James E. Hewes Jr., “Henry Cabot Lodge and the League of Nations,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 114, no. 4 (1970): 245–55, 246; see also Boyle, Francis Anthony, Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations, 1898–1922 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), 141–42Google Scholar.
29 Irwin and Kroszner, “Interests, Institutions, and Ideology.”
30 Fordham, Benjamin O., “The Evolution of Republican and Democratic Positions on Cold War Military Spending: A Historical Puzzle,” Social Science History 31, no. 4 (2007): 603–35Google Scholar.
31 There are many historical accounts of the issues at stake, including Cooper, John M., Breaking the Heart of the World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Knock, Thomas J., To End All Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Widenor, Henry Cabot Lodge, 300–48.
32 Cooper, Breaking the Heart of the World, 8.
33 John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, “Political Party Platforms of Parties Receiving Electoral Votes,” The American Presidency Project, accessed August, 12, 2019, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/324129.
34 The appendix provides a complete list of the Lodge reservations.
35 Lodge, Henry Cabot, The Senate and the League of Nations (New York: Scribner's, 1925), 147–48Google Scholar.
36 The fixed-effect dummies allow the probability of opposing the Court's jurisdiction to vary in each roll call. It is set to the value of the closest vote for computing the predicted probabilities in Figures 1–3. This biases the figures against the relationship we propose. The standard errors used to produce the confidence intervals in the figures are adjusted for clustering on the individual member. We have treated the few senators from third parties as Democrats in this and subsequent analyses. To the extent that this treatment is incorrect, it should bias our findings toward smaller partisan and ideological differences. Numerical results of this and other models used in the article are included in the appendix.
37 Poole and Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History.
38 e.g., Michael Wolraich, Unreasonable Men (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).
39 The Progressive senators were Hiram Johnson (CA), William Borah (ID), Albert Cummins (IA), William Kenyon (IA), Arthur Capper (KS), George Norris (NE), Asle Gronna (ND), Knute Nelson (MN), Wesley Jones (WA), Miles Poindexter (WA), Robert LaFollette (WI), and Irvine Lenroot (WI). David Brady and David Epstein, “Intraparty Preferences, Heterogeneity, and the Origins of the Modern Congress: Progressive Reformers in the House and Senate, 1890–1920,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 13, no. 1 (1997): 26–49, 45.
40 The appendix presents an empirical analysis of voting on the Lodge reservations supporting this claim. Voting on the Lodge reservations fell nearly perfectly along party lines.
41 The appendix summarizes the context of each debate and lists all of the votes.
42 The measure that reached the floor, S.J. 1, was introduced on 7 January 1953, at the beginning of the 83rd Congress. Bricker had introduced it twice during the 82nd Congress, as S.J. Res. 102 on 14 September 1951, and again as S.J. Res. 130 on 7 February 1952 with fifty-nine cosponsors.
43 See, e.g., Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism,” 305, 323.
44 Nolan, Cathal J., “The Last Hurrah of Conservative Isolationism: Eisenhower, Congress, and the Bricker Amendment,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1992): 337–49Google Scholar.
45 Henkin, Louis, “U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,” American Journal of International Law 89, no. 2 (1995): 341–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 348–49; Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism,” 323–24.
46 The Senate Library and Richard Davis provide lists of proposed constitutional amendments that cover the period from 1926 through 1984. The congress.gov database covers the period from 1973 through the present. Senate Library, United States Senate, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America Introduced in Congress from the 69th Congress, 2nd Session, through the 87th Congress, 2nd Session, December 6, 1926, to January 3, 1963,” Senate Document No. 163 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1963); Senate Library, United States Senate, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America Introduced in Congress from the 88th Congress, 1st Session, through the 90th Congress, 2nd Session, January 9, 1963, to January 3, 1969,” Senate Document No. 91-38 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969); Richard A. Davis, “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America Introduced in Congress from the 91st Congress, 1st Session, through the 98th Congress, 2nd Session, January 1969–December 1984,” CRS Report No. 85-36 GOV (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1985).
47 Mulloy, D. J., The World of the John Birch Society (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014), 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 Fowler, James H., “Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks,” Political Analysis 14, no. 4 (2006): 456–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fowler, James H., “Legislative Cosponsorship Networks in the U.S. House and Senate,” Social Networks 28, no. 4 (2006): 454–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; James H. Fowler, Andrew Scott Waugh, and Yunkyu Sohn, Cosponsorship Network Data, accessed January 15, 2019, http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/cosponsorship.htm.
49 BIC statistics indicate that the nonlinear specification performed far better than an alternative linear model of the roll call vote on the WTO. As one would expect based on the predicted probabilities in Figure 5, a linear specification produced a somewhat better fitting model for the NAFTA vote. For the sake of comparability, Figure 5 reflects nonlinear specifications for both. The appendix reports full model results and comparison statistics.
50 Coble's and Hunter's remarks are both contained in the Congressional Record, November 29, 1994, pages 29598–99 and 29597, respectively.
51 See, e.g., Busby and Monten, “Republican Elites,” 137; Kupchan and Trubowitz, “Dead Center,” 27–28.
52 Bailey, Michael and Brady, David W., “Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade,” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 2 (1998): 524–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Flynn and Fordham, “Economic Interests and Threat Assessment in the U.S. Congress, 1890–1914,” 744–70; Fordham, “Protectionist Empire”; Fordham, “Domestic Politics of World Power.”
54 The size of the manufacturing sector was statistically significant predictor of Republican positions in six of the nine debates we analyzed. It predicted Democratic positions in only one of them. We report the numerical results in the appendix.
55 Eden, Lynn R., “Capitalist Conflict and the State: The Making of United States Military Policy in 1948,” in Statemaking and Social Movements, ed. Bright, Charles and Harding, Susan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984), 233–61Google Scholar; Fordham, Benjamin O., “Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy,” International Organization 52, no. 2 (1998): 359–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 See, e.g., Trubowitz, Peter, Defining the National Interest Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 169–234Google Scholar; Autor, David H., Dorn, David, and Hanson, Gordon H., “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” American Economic Review 103, no. 6 (2013): 2121–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 The nature of the Census data we used to construct these variables raises a technical issue that affects model specification. District-level data before the 109th Congress (2005–07) come from decennial censuses. These data thus do not accurately reflect changes over time, erroneously implying discontinuous shifts in our economic and social indicators as the source of data moves from one census to another. Data from the annual American Community Survey solve this problem after 2006, but it is a serious issue for most of our sample period. To avoid drawing incorrect inferences based on changes from one Congress to another, our models of the sponsorship data all include fixed effects for each Congress. We report the numerical results, with and without controls for race, income, and immigration, in the appendix.
58 See, e.g., Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A., Issue Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schickler, Eric, Racial Realignment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.
59 See, e.g., Irwin and Kroszner, “Interests, Institutions, and Ideology.”
60 See, e.g., Fordham, “Economic Interests and Congressional Voting.”
61 See, e.g., Zaller, John, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 97–117.
62 See, e.g., Mulloy, World of the John Birch Society; Liam Stack, “Globalism: A Far-Right Conspiracy Theory Buoyed by Trump,” New York Times, November 14, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/globalism-right-trump.html.
63 Congressional Record, January 31, 1978, p. 1651.
64 “Bricker Amendment Lives,” The Spotlight, 1997, http://www.libertylobby.org/articles/1997/19970804bricker.html.
65 Randal C. Archibold, “Helen Chenoweth-Hage, 68, Former Representative, Dies,” New York Times, October 4, 2006, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04chenoweth.html.
66 Congressional Research Service, Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2001), 247.
67 Numbers and bill classification drawn from the congress.gov database.
68 Tananbaum, Duane A., “The Bricker Amendment Controversy: Its Origins and Eisenhower's Role,” Diplomatic History 9, no. 1 (1985): 73–93, 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Jana Von Stein, UN Human Rights Agreements, School of Politics & International Relations, Australian National University, updated September 24, 2018, https://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/research/projects/human-rights/un-human-rights-agreements.
70 Gazell, James A., “Arthur H. Vandenberg, Internationalism, and the United Nations,” Political Science Quarterly 88, no. 3 (1973): 375–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 385–86.
71 Grant, Philip A., “The Bricker Amendment Controversy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 15, no. 3 (1985): 572–82Google Scholar, 573–74.
72 See, e.g., Busby and Monten, “Republican Elites”; Chaudoin et al., “The Center Still Holds”; Kupchan and Trubowitz, “Dead Center.”
73 See, e.g., Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism,” 305, 323; Moravcsik, “Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy,” 176–78.
74 See, e.g., for “free floating ideological current,” see Mead, “The Jacksonian Revolt”; for “without a necessary connection to the Republican Party,” see Rathbun, “The ‘Magnificent Fraud’: Trust.”
75 See, e.g., Dueck, Hard Line; Dueck, Age of Iron; Monten, “Primacy and Grand Strategic Beliefs.”
76 Mead, “The Jacksonian Revolt.”
77 Flynn, Michael E., “The International and Domestic Sources of Bipartisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy,” Political Research Quarterly 67, no. 2 (2014): 398–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 Schultz, Kenneth A., “Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy,” The Washington Quarterly 40, no. 4 (2017): 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
Appendix
