| Summary/Abstract |
Although lethal drone strikes have become a central component of the U.S. campaign against international terrorism, the program remains a low salience issue with considerable bi-partisan consensus and a supportive U.S. general public. This article explains American attitudes toward lethal drone strikes by testing arguments based on partisanship and ideology, core values and abstract beliefs, and elite cues. Results suggest that respondent core values and governmental cues offer important insights. Consequently, the political environment under certain conditions may not frame important issues in such a way that the general public is likely to gain a knowledgeable understanding of the alternatives.
|