Mapping National Security and International Affairs Influence in the US Senate

Background

            The election of Donald Trump to the presidency in November 2016, after an extremely contentious general election and party primaries, put a spotlight on the increasing polarization of the US electorate. The president’s erratic behavior with regard to foreign affairs has also called into question the role of the legislature, particularly the Senate, in overseeing or constraining the executive in its conduct of foreign policy. Since the ratification of the Constitution, the Senate has always been inextricably involved in the foreign affairs of the United States, through its budgetary authority, its authority to advise and consent on the President’s cabinet, and its role in the ratification of treaties.

            The polarization of the political discourse in the US more broadly may be reflected in Senate legislative debates, but the Senate remains a relatively small body of highly influential individuals, who must develop and maintain personal relationships and networks in order to advance their legislative and political agenda. Given the Senate’s constitutional role in US foreign policy, their limited sample size, and likely changes in the composition of the Senate over the next several months, better understanding the social networks within the Senate related to national security and international affairs legislation will be central to understanding how dynamics may play out in the next Congress.  

Hypothesis

            I hypothesize that by conducting a social network analysis of the sponsorship and co-sponsorship networks within the Senate related to national security and international affairs legislation, we will be able to identify not only key legislative leaders, but also the key facilitators who drive support for these bills. I also hypothesize that the changes in the Senate based on the outcome of the November 2018 elections, the retirement of leading Republicans such as Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, and the death of John McCain will significantly change the patterns of influence within the Senate.

Data and Methodology

            Building on the methodology developed by James Fowler in his article “Legislative co-sponsorship networks in the US House and Senate,” this analysis will utilize his database of co-sponsorship in the US Senate to create a directed network. As Dr. Fowler has done, this analysis will use directed ties from co-sponsors to sponsors to show both social ties and policy influence among Senators. This analysis will focus specifically on bills introduced into the Senate and passed out of at least one legislative body focused on national security and international affairs. In the 114^th Congress, this tentatively includes 14 pieces of legislation:

1. S.2845 — Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Extension Act of 2016
2. S.2426 — A bill to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the International Criminal Police Organization, and for other purposes
3. S.2152 — Electrify Africa Act of 2015
4. S.2078 —United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of =
5. S.1875 —Afghanistan Accountability Act of 2015
6. S.1635 —Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017
7. S.1632 — A bill to require a regional strategy to address the threat posed by Boko Haram
8. S.1252 — Global Food Security Act of 2016
9. S.802 — Girls Count Act of 2015
10. S.756 — Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015
11. S.284 — Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
12. S.8 — A bill to provide for the approval of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
13.  S.2943 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
14. S.1356 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Conducting social network analysis on the co-sponsorship data collected by Dr. Fowler can be supplemented with a truly dizzying array of attribute data, and other potential network variables. These attributes can include: State represented, age, gender, party affiliation, district/state data, demographics, committee memberships, and others. Combining these network and attribute data through a social network analysis can provide insight into the Senate’s network related to national security and international affairs legislation that would not be possible through more traditional modes of political analysis. While many of the most prominent members sponsoring legislation may be clear, the connections created by co-sponsors are an important foundation within the Senate that would not be identifiable otherwise. Further, conducting a social network analysis allows for visualizing the network when Senators that have either retired or lost re-elections are removed from the network.