Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances

Abstract

Do elite cues exert extensive, conditional or minimal influence on public support for military alliances in the United States? I assess the boundaries of elite leadership on public opinion towards alliances by dividing partisan respondents into wings based on isolationism and militant assertiveness. If co-partisan elite cues change public attitudes across three or four wings within their party, elites exert extensive influence. Elite cues exert conditional influence if they reach two party wings, and minimal influence if they impact one or no wings. Using two conjoint survey experiments to examine public attitudes towards forming and maintaining international alliances, I find that elite cues exert extensive influence, but some individuals hold rigid alliance attitudes. Staunch alliance supporters in the Democratic party and consistent alliance skeptics in the Republican party both discount elite cues. Therefore, elites can lead most party wings with alliance cues, but intra-party divisions can constrain their influence.

How membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization transforms public support for war

“…The alliance effect in our experiment was much larger among NATO supporters than among NATO skeptics. Rhetoric disparaging NATO could, therefore, weaken its influence ( 32 , 37 ): if voters doubt NATO's value, they will be less motivated to take costly actions that sustain the alliance. And if potential aggressors believe that electorates are unwilling to defend allies, the threat of retaliation will become less credible, emboldening aggressors to attack ( 38–40 ).…”

“…A range of political actors have engaged in anti-NATO political rhetoric, including extreme parties in Europe (such as the National Rally in France and Die Linke in Germany), former US President Donald Trump, and Russian leaders and operatives ( 41 ). Moreover, recent studies have shown that elite rhetoric affects public opinion about the benefits and obligations of alliances ( 32 , 42 ). Our findings suggest that if criticisms of NATO are persuasive, they could erode the public's willingness to defend NATO allies and thereby encourage adversaries to attack with less fear of consequences.…”

“…Having promised to defend members of the alliance, citizens may feel an ethical duty to act. Finally, alliances could provide simple cues or cognitive heuristics to uninformed voters about whether to intervene ( 32–34 ).…”