Book Reviews : Foreign Policy and Party Politics — Pearl Harbor to Korea. By H. BRADFORD WESTERFIELD. (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1955. Pp. x, 448. $6.00.)

• DOI: 10.1177/106591295600900140
• Date: 01 March 1956
• Author: Anthony L. Milnar
• Published date: 01 March 1956
• Subject Matter: Articles

209

There

is

value,

however,

in

so

emphatic

a

statement

of

something

many

of

us

have

been

inclined

to

overlook.

Spinoza

unquestionably

deserves

more

intense

study

on

the

part

of

students

of

politics,

and

wider

recognition

for

his

defense

of

democracy

and

freedom.

Professor

Dunner’s

concluding

chapter

constitutes

a

stimulating

indication

of

the

kind

of

light

Spinoza

might

cast

on

the

present

crisis.

University

of

Massachusetts.

GLENN

TINDER.

Foreign

Policy

and

Party

Politics

—

Pearl

Harbor

to

Korea.

By

H.

BRAD-

FORD

WESTERFIELD.

(New

Haven:

Yale

University

Press.

1955.

Pp.

x,

448.

$6.00.)

The

subject

of

this

excellent

work

is

the

problem

of

conducting

foreign

affairs

in

relation

to

the

party

structure.

The

author

rejects

partisan

support

as

being

not

dependable

in

the

face

of

possible

changes

in

administrations,

with

the

result

that

foreign

powers

could

not

count

on

a

consistent

Ameri-

can

policy.

Other

arguments

against

partisan

support

are

the

lack

of

flexi-

bility

in

the

day-to-day

problems

and

the

need

for

America

to

appear

united

before

the

world.

Also

examined

and

rejected

is

bipartisanship

as

a

stated

practice

because

of

the

party

structure

which makes

it

difficult

for

consistent

opposition

support

of

the

administration.

Bipartisanship

would

also

limit

the

administration

in

its

use

of

adequate

and

proper

instruments

to

conduct

foreign

affairs.

As

a

substitute,

Dr.

Westerfield

advocates

the

use

of

extrapartisanship.

This

he

defines

as

the

seeking

&dquo;to

associate

in active

collaboration

with

his

administration’s

conduct

of

foreign

relations

enough

influential

members

of

the

opposition

party

to

prevent

its

lines

from

solidifying

against

basic

ad-

ministrative

foreign

policies&dquo;

-

while

at

the

same

time

the

President’s

position

as

leader

of

his

own

party

is

used

to

mobilize

support

for

those

policies

to

the

limited

extent

that

it

can

safely

be

done

without

causing

the

opposition

party

to

consolidate

in

consternation.

A

lasting

policy

of

extra-

partisanship,

the

author

feels,

would

result

in

firmer

party

alignments

by

ending

a

source

of

intra-party

discord.

An

extrapartisan

policy

is

only

formulated

when

there

is

strong

private

support

for

the

administration

by

opposition

members,

and

when

public

support

is

behind

the

administration.

In

the

absence

of

these conditions

an

extrapartisan

policy

does

not

thrive,

and

when

any

aspect

of

foreign

policy

can

be

used

to

political

advantage,

extrapartisanship

fails.

In

his

choice

of

examples

Professor

Westerfield

has

shown

the

limitations

of

this

policy.

Dr.

Westerfield’s

use

of

the

term

&dquo;missionary

complex&dquo;

in

regard

to

our

Far

Eastern

affairs

is

very

interesting.

If

it

is

&dquo;missionary&dquo;

to

recognize

the

ineptness

and

corruptness

of

a

regime

and

its

lack

of

popular

support,

then