| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Numerous works have studied the relationship between public approval and the propensity of United States presidents to use force abroad. One of these (Morgan and Bickers 1992 ) relies upon a refined view of internalization-externalization processes to reformulate the diversionary theory of conflict. The authors postulate that, as presidents are concerned with maintaining popularity among individuals upon whose support their continued power rests, they are more inclined to use diversionary force when approval among members of their party declines. Using more extensive and comprehensive measures of militarized actions, we find no support for Morgan and Bickers' original hypothesis, indicating that the results of one of the very few works that finds any evidence of diversion from low public approval may not be valid. In fact, event count analyses reveal that precisely the opposite relationship is operative. Additionally, Morgan and Bickers' formulation fails to account for potential differences in conflict propensity stemming from differences in political parties. We hypothesize that presidents whose partisan supporters are expected to react favorably to "hawkish" actions (Republicans) are more likely to use force abroad when faced with declining partisan support than those leaders whose partisan supporters are generally "dovish" (Democrats). Our results yield little support for this hypothesis. We conclude the article by exploring some possible explanations for our findings.
|