The Evils of Foreign Policy Bipartisanship

The policies that should be challenged and questioned the most tend to be the ones that enjoy broad bipartisan support.

Jordan Tama reviews the history of bipartisanship and its absence in U.S. foreign policy debates:

Inconsistent U.S. bipartisanship brings both disadvantages and less obvious advantages. On the one hand, the prevalence of domestic divisions over foreign policy prevents the United States from acting effectively to address many key global challenges, diminishes the credibility of U.S. overseas commitments, and reduces the incentive for other countries to cooperate. On the other hand, vigorous internal debate has long been a strength of the U.S. system, facilitating greater deliberation before important decisions and providing much-needed course corrections when things go awry.

The value of bipartisanship in foreign policy is greatly overrated. In principle, building a consensus that unites Americans of different political stripes should be desirable for securing the country’s interests, but we know in practice that members of both parties often rally behind the worst ideas. The policies that should be challenged and questioned the most tend to be the ones that enjoy broad bipartisan support, and the policies that deserve broad support are often the ones that become the targets of cynical partisan attacks.