Beyond the Water's Edge

SEPTEMBER 2018 Beyond the Water’s Edge Measuring the Project Directors Internationalism Kathleen H. Hicks of Congress Louis Lauter Lead Author Colin McElhinny Contributing Authors Kathleen H. Hicks Louis Lauter Michael Matlaga Simone Williams Cassidy Chiasson Ariel Fanger Christian Healion Stephanie Pillion Senior Adviser G. Kim Wincup A report of the CSIS International Security Program and Congressional and Government Affairs SEPTEMBER 2018 Beyond the Water’s Edge Measuring the Internationalism of Congress Project Directors Michael Matlaga Kathleen H. Hicks Simone Williams Louis Lauter Cassidy Chiasson Lead Author Ariel Fanger Colin McElhinny Christian Healion Stephanie Pillion Contributing Authors Kathleen H. Hicks Senior Adviser Louis Lauter G. Kim Wincup A report of the CSIS International Security Program and Congressional and Government Affairs Lanham • Boulder • New York • London PAGE II BEYOND THE WATER’S EDGE About CSIS. Acknowledgments. For over 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International This report is a product of a year of research by a CSIS Studies (CSIS) has worked to develop solutions to the International Security Program and Congressional and world’s greatest policy challenges. Today, CSIS scholars Government Affairs study team. For contributing vital are providing strategic insights and bipartisan policy research throughout the project, the authors thank Anthony solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward Bell, Jess Mahoney, Andrew Linder, and Zachary Marshall. a better world. Greg Sanders and Samantha Cohen provided critical CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in support in analyzing and displaying the data collected from Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and member ratings and constructing archetypes. large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and The authors are indebted to the support of the project’s analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the advisory board, which assisted in case study and member future and anticipate change. selection for the project, provided valuable insights Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire throughout the course of the study, and offered feedback and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding on the report’s findings. Advisory board members ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a included Michael Allen, Brian Diffell, Talia Dubovi, James force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become W. Dyer, Mieke Eoyang, Tressa Guenov, Lester Munson, one of the world’s preeminent international institutions Tommy Ross, Nilmini Rubin, Stephanie Sanok Kostro, focused on defense and security; regional stability; and Mariah Sixkiller, Dr. Charles Stevenson, and Kim Wincup. transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate Excluded from this list are advisory board members who to global health and economic integration. prefer to keep their participation anonymous. Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS The study team also thanks the numerous congressional Board of Trustees in November 2015. Former U.S. deputy staff that provided critical insights via interviews and secretary of defense John J. Hamre has served as the CSIS experts Kimberly Flowers, Scott Miller, William Center’s president and chief executive officer since 2000. Reinsch, Dan Runde for their input. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, Rebecka Shirazi and the CSIS Dracopoulos iDeas Lab all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this provided valuable assistance in the publication and layout publication should be understood to be solely those of of this report. the author(s). Finally, the study team thanks the Smith Richardson Foundation (SRF), which sponsored this work. The © 2018 by the Center for Strategic and International content and recommendations presented remain solely Studies. All rights reserved. those of the authors. ISBN: 978-1-4422-8087-8 (pb); 978-1-4422-8088-5 (e-book) Center for Strategic and International Studies Rowman & Littlefield 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706 202-887-0200 | www.csis.org 301-459-3366 | www.rowman.com PAGE III Contents. II Acknowledgments 1 Executive Summary 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 10 Chapter 2: Congress, Foreign Policy, and the Public 19 Chapter 3: Case Studies of Congressional Foreign Policy Debates 27 Chapter 4: Congressional Perspectives, Archetypes, and Motivations 51 Chapter 5: Conclusion—Congress and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy 56 Appendix A: Case Study—The Politics of the Use of Force, 2011–2017 87 Appendix B: Case Study—The Politics of Russia Policy, 2008–2015 124 Appendix C: Case Study—The Politics of Trade Policy, 2007–2016 154 Appendix D: Case Study—The Politics of Foreign Aid, 2013–2016 184 Appendix E: Advisory Board Members 186 About the Authors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 1 Executive Summary. The populist politics that emerged in the 2016 presidential election raised new questions at home and abroad about the durability of the U.S. commitment to global leadership and support for the liberal world order. The election popularized the narrative of rising public isolationism, culminating with the election of a president who was willing to challenge the conventional wisdom of U.S. foreign policy. As the political institution with the most direct line of communication to the peo- ple of the United States, how does Congress reflect this national discourse? Scholarship and punditry abound on the formation and This report aims to help close the gap in our understanding nature of contemporary public and presidential foreign of Congress’s foreign policy views. The CSIS study policy views. Yet there is remarkably little new research team reviewed the existing literature, assessed major on the foreign policy views and motivations of the U.S. recent foreign policy debates, and measured the views Congress. On the surface, the rise of vocal deficit hawks of a carefully selected group of 50 members in the 115th seeking to curtail foreign policy and defense spending Congress. The resulting analysis provides insights on or the seeming broad aversion to new trade agreements the core motivations of contemporary members of support the view of a Congress turning away from Congress and proposes archetypes to help characterize internationalism. Yet members of Congress inhabit an major streams of observed foreign policy views within unprecedentedly globalized world, in which classical the institution. The study team also recommends notions of isolationism seem implausible. The terms opportunities for strengthening bipartisan cooperation traditionally used to describe congressional views on and congressional foreign policy leadership. foreign policy—internationalist or isolationist; hawk or dove—can fail to capture the complexity of members’ perspectives on the U.S. role in the world. PAGE 2 BEYOND THE WATER’S EDGE The study team assessed congressional views on a range of foreign policy issues Congressional to highlight areas of bipartisanship and develop a better understanding of the Perspectives and worldviews present in the current Congress. Many of the areas studied, including threat perceptions of adversaries, support for alliances and multilateralism, and Foreign Policy support for foreign aid, evinced strong degrees of bipartisan support. Partisan Archetypes. gaps were most noticeable on questions of trade policy and approaches to North Korea and Iran. The 50 members studied by the CSIS team fell into the following archetypes that may be suggestive of more enduring patterns: Order-Driven Values-Driven Limits-Driven Defending and leading the liberal Promoting U.S. values abroad was The final grouping of members was international order is the core the core motivation of the second defined by a relatively circumscribed foreign policy preference driver major grouping identified. Members assessment of national interests and a for the first and largest grouping of in this group do not necessarily desire to minimize the risks and costs members identified by this analysis. share the same values. For example, associated with U.S. international Viewing the set of alliances and human rights took center stage for engagement. Although members in international institutions developed some; others were motivated by this grouping may support elements after World War II as pillars of democracy promotion. Religious of the post–World War II international U.S. national interest, adherents to views appeared formative for some order and may desire to spread U.S. this viewpoint tend to be the most but not for all. What they share, values in some contexts, their core supportive among the archetypes however, is the grounding of calls foreign policy motivation is to limit of employing military force in for U.S. international engagement potential costs and entanglements defense of the international order. in statements of guiding values and abroad. Therefore, they tend to These members tend to view Russia principles. These members tended oppose the use of military force (especially) and China as threats and to be foremost advocates for U.S. and foreign assistance and can be seek to confront their policies on the foreign aid programs, including particularly critical of alliances and global stage. Strengthening alliances humanitarian, development and multilateral institutions. was also a driving motivation for global health assistance, and working Emblematic members of this archetype these

Load more