IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v29y1985i2p225-251.html

Arms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senate

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Whelon Wayman

    (Political Science Department, University of Michigan, Dearborn)

Abstract

This article examines the basis of U.S. Senate support for defense spending and arms control from 1967 to 1983. Some of the findings include the following: Those senators still in office at the end of the 1970s voted the same way on SALT II as they had on ABM limitation in the late 1960s, so no long-term change occurred in the senators' positions on these arms control issues. In contrast, the considerable freedom that senators have to stake out a position of their choice on the hawk/dove continuum can be seen in the weak coefficients of determination between a senator's position and those of his or her predecessors and contemporary fellow senator from the same state. As for the military-industrial complex, traces of its influence are, during the 1970s, at best weakly associated with a senator's hawkishness or dovishness. There are indications of a modest effect of defense-related PACs on roll-call voting in the early 1980s. Although this is cause for concern about the future, other evidence in the article undermines belief in the military-industrial complex model.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Whelon Wayman, 1985. "Arms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senate," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 225-251, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:29:y:1985:i:2:p:225-251
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002785029002004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002785029002004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002785029002004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miller, Warren E. & Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 45-56, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan E. Wiseman, 2006. "A Theory of Partisan Support and Entry Deterrence in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 123-158, April.
    2. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    3. Thomas J. Hayes, 2014. "Do Citizens Link Attitudes with Preferences? Economic Inequality and Government Spending in the “New Gilded Age”," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(2), pages 468-485, June.
    4. Mark Souva, 2005. "Foreign Policy Determinants: Comparing Realist and Domestic-Political Models of Foreign Policy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 149-163, April.
    5. Xiao Tang & Weiwei Chen & Tian Wu, 2018. "Do Authoritarian Governments Respond to Public Opinion on the Environment? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2025. "Analysis of the 2025 Bundestag elections. Part 3 of 4: The third vote perspective Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 169, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Ftergioti, Stamatia, 2017. "Neighbors and Friends: The Effect of Globalization on Party Positions," MPRA Paper 76662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Sarah Harrison, 2020. "Democratic Frustration: Concept, Dimensions and Behavioural Consequences," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    10. Jeffrey A. Fine & James M. Avery, 2014. "Senate Responsiveness to Minority Constituencies: Latino Electoral Strength and Representation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1172-1188, December.
    11. Garrick L. Percival, 2010. "Ideology, Diversity, and Imprisonment: Considering the Influence of Local Politics on Racial and Ethnic Minority Incarceration Rates," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1063-1082, December.
    12. Kevin Arceneaux & Johanna Dunaway & Stuart Soroka, 2018. "Elites are people, too: The effects of threat sensitivity on policymakers’ spending priorities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-8, April.
    13. Scott Sigmund Gartner & Gary M. Segura & Michael Wilkening, 1997. "All Politics Are Local," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 669-694, October.
    14. Jamie L. Carson & Gregory Koger & Matthew J. Lebo & Everett Young, 2010. "The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 598-616, July.
    15. Richard J. McAlexander & Johannes Urpelainen, 2020. "Elections and Policy Responsiveness: Evidence from Environmental Voting in the U.S. Congress," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 39-63, January.
    16. Franklin G. Mixon & Chandini Sankaran & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2019. "Is Political Ideology Stable? Evidence from Long-Serving Members of the United States Congress," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, May.
    17. James L. Regens & Ronald Keith Gaddie & Brad Lockerbie, 1995. "The Electoral Consequences of Voting to Declare War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(1), pages 168-182, March.
    18. Kim Quaile Hill & Tetsuya Matsubayashi, 2008. "Church Engagement, Religious Values, and Mass‐Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in Local Communities," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 570-584, July.
    19. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    20. Kevin M. Quinn & Burt L. Monroe & Michael Colaresi & Michael H. Crespin & Dragomir R. Radev, 2010. "How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 209-228, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:29:y:1985:i:2:p:225-251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.