The International and Domestic Sources of Bipartisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy

• Author: Michael E. Flynn
• Date: 01 June 2014
• Published date: 01 June 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912914521898
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly

2014, Vol. 67(2) 398 –412

© 2014 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912914521898

prq.sagepub.com

Article

In the summer of 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt

asked Henry L. Stimson to be his Secretary of War.

Stimson, a seventy-three-year-old lawyer from New

York, had a lengthy history of government service.

Having previously served as Governor General of the

Philippines, Secretary of State, and a previous tour as

Secretary of War, Stimson was unquestionably qualified

for the position. His acceptance was conditional upon two

things. First, that Roosevelt’s nominee for secretary of

the navy, Frank Knox, also accepts his own nomination.

Second, Stimson should retain the power to appoint his

own subordinates in the War Department.1 These condi-

tions having been met, Stimson began one last tour of

government service. Beyond his rich experience in gov-

ernment, the most important of Stimson’s features was

that he was a Republican. Like Stimson, Frank Knox and

Stimson’s eventual subordinates—Robert Lovett and

John McCloy—were all Republicans and were all

appointed to administer a major war effort in a Democratic

administration.

Although the importance of bipartisanship in foreign

policy has long been highlighted by scholars, little sys-

tematic work on the subject exists. This study expands

upon previous work in three key ways. First, while many

of the most important episodes of bipartisanship in for-

eign policymaking have involved executive appointees,

we still know little about how presidents use such appoint-

ments in a systematic sense. Stimson’s appointment in

particular is viewed by many scholars as marking the

beginning of an era characterized by especially high

levels of bipartisan cooperation in foreign policy.2 Such

appointments functioned as important tools in shaping

executive relations with Congress and the public during

World War II and the early years of the Cold War. Stimson

and many other appointees helped to create the founda-

tions for the liberal internationalist policies that formed

the basis of American foreign policy for decades.

Appointees like Robert Lovett, John McCloy, and Dean

Acheson all helped to secure domestic political support

for policies that marked a dramatic turn in U.S. foreign

policy. The use of bipartisan appointments in this process

was key—Kupchan and Trubowitz (2007, 13) state that

President Roosevelt “sought to make Republicans stake-

holders in his foreign policy by appointing members of

the opposition to important foreign policy posts.”

Accordingly, this study has clear implications for better

understanding the strategies that presidents can employ to

affect executive–legislative relations.

Second, our understanding of bipartisanship is largely

rooted in the foreign policy literature, and most studies on

the subject typically fall into two groups. The first is more

qualitative, relying on anecdotal evidence rather than

systematic analyses. This group also places substantial

521898PRQXXX10.1177/1065912914521898Political Research QuarterlyFlynn

research-article2014

1University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michael E. Flynn, Department of Political Science, University of

Alabama, Box 870213, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.

Email: meflynn@as.ua.edu

The International and Domestic Sources

of Bipartisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy

Michael E. Flynn1

Abstract

Foreign policy scholars have long emphasized bipartisanship in foreign policymaking, particularly in the context of

presidential appointments to the foreign policy bureaucracy, emphasizing the role of international crises and national

security in affecting bipartisanship. In spite of their enduring nature, few systematic analyses of these claims exist. This

study addresses these gaps using new data on appointees to the foreign policy bureaucracy. The results challenge the

conventional wisdoms emerging from the foreign policy literature regarding the importance of factors like war, instead

pointing to the importance of domestic political factors in affecting bipartisanship in appointments to the foreign policy

bureaucracy.

Keywords

foreign policy, bipartisanship, bureaucracy, Cold War consensus