War of Words: How Presidential Rhetoric and Anti-War Messages Compete

• In Event: Motivations of Military Intervention

Abstract

U.S. presidents have first-mover and information advantages in the build-up to military intervention. These advantages enables them to set the terms of the debate and block channels for dissent. However, as the president works to bolster support by making the public case for intervention, anti-war organizations and political elites counter and attempt to undermine official justifications for action. To what extent does the president control the narrative of intervention? Under what conditions, if any, can anti-war messages successfully challenge the president’s account of the conflict and block the domestic mobilization of support for military action? We employ a multi-method design, combining analysis of movement statements and presidential justifications in recent interventions with survey experiments to evaluate the effect of official narratives on the salience of anti-war appeals. The results suggest anti-war appeals can influence the public, but the most effective messages do not correspond with those most often deployed by peace organizations. More broadly, the findings highlight the conditions under which the public and civil society can work together to hold the president accountable for foreign policy decisions.

Authors

• Sarah Maxey, Loyola University Chicago

• Stephen Roblin, Cornell University