Skip to main content

The Determinants of US Public Opinion Towards Democracy Promotion

Political Behavior volume 36, pages 705–730 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper, I evaluate two competing perspectives regarding what underlies the public’s support for democracy promotion—a democratic values-based perspective positing that the public’s support for democracy promotion is based on a principled desire to spread American values, beliefs, and ideologies to other countries, and a national interests-based perspective claiming that it is based on a rational desire of Americans to advance the US’ political and economic interests abroad. Using a survey experiment, I find that, in general, Americans are not driven by either democratic values or national interests to support democracy promotion even though they believe that democracy promotion is in the interests of both the recipient country and the United States. Only a subset of the population is motivated to support democracy promotion for the sake of democratic values. This subset of the population is driven by cosmopolitanism—that is, a sense of concern for the welfare of those living in other countries and a sense of moral responsibility to promote democracy abroad derived from the US’ position as a world leader, not national pride.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Woodrow Wilson: Address at Boston, Massachusetts, February 24, 1919. Available from The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and Museum.

  2. The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund,Worldviews 2002, June 1–30, 2002.

  3. Pew Research Center America’s Place in the World, December 2009. A 2005 poll by The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the CCFR found that only 27 % of those polled said “helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations,” was “very important” and 19 % said that it was “not at all important”. See: PIPA/CCFR “Americans on Promoting Democracy,” September 2005.

  4. Pew Center Research, “Public Remains Opposed to Arming Syrian Rebels”, June 17, 2013.

  5. PIPA/CCFR“Americans on Promoting Democracy” September 2005.

  6. German Marshall Fund, “Transatlantic Trends”, June 6–24, 2006.

  7. Pew Research Center,“Public Wary of Military Intervention in Libya,” March 14, 2011.

  8. Pew Research Center, “Public Remains Opposed to Arming Syrian Rebels,” June 17, 2013.

  9. See: America’s Place in the World“; Worldviews 2002.

  10. PIPA/CCFR “Americans on Promoting Democracy,” September 2005; Pew Research Center “Public Wary of Military Intervention in Libya,” March 14, 2011; Megan Thee-Brenan, “Poll Shows Isolationist Streak in Americans,” New York Times, April 30, 2013.

  11. Examples: (Haiti): Gallup, September 23–25, 1994; (Kosovo): Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll, March 30–31,1999; (Iraq): CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, March 22–23, 2003 and Libya (2011) Gallup, March 21, 2011. (Syria): Pew, June 12–16, 1993.

  12. Woodrow T. Wilson. “U.S. Declaration of War with Germany,” April 2, 1917. See: http://firstworldwar.com. Date Accessed: September 13, 2011.

  13. George W. Bush. “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union,” January 28, 2003. See: The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/. Date Accessed: September 13, 2011.

  14. Richard M. Nixon. Cambodian Incursion Address, Washington DC, April 30, 1970. See: The American Rhetoric, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncambodia.html. Date Accessed: September 13, 2011.

  15. William J. Clinton. “Address to the Nation on Haiti”, Washington, DC. September 15, 1994. See: The American Presidency Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ Date Accessed: September 13, 2011.

  16. George W. Bush. Inaugural Address, Washington, DC, January 20, 2005. See: The American Presidency Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ Date Accessed: September 13, 2011.

  17. Pew Global Attitudes Project: Spring 2007, June 27, 2007. Question 34: “And which comes closer to describing your view? The United States promotes democracy wherever it can, or the United States promotes democracy where it serves its interests.”

  18. Democracy is defined here as countries scoring a five or above on the Polity II Index. See: Monty G. Marshall, Keith Jaggers, and Ted Robert Gurr. 2011. Polity IV Project: Dataset Users Manual. Center for Systemic Peace: Polity IV Project.

  19. Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2011.

  20. TAPS is administered by Knowledge Networks on behalf of Washington University in St. Louis. The American Panel Survey (TAPS). Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1027, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899. http://taps.wustl.edu/.

  21. The number of participants in each of the experimental conditions was as follows: treatment 1 (recipient country benefit) = 392; treatment 2 (moral responsibility) = 384; treatment 3 (national interests) = 434; control = 392. See below for a description of the experimental conditions.

  22. People’s responses to these questions were not significantly different across experimental conditions according to χ2 tests.

  23. A chi-square test is a goodness-of-fit test, which compares observed frequency distributions with the theoretical or expected frequency distribution to determine whether the deviations between the observed and the expected counts are too large to be attributed to chance. It generalizes the Z test, which is appropriate when only two proportions are being compared in the data.

  24. If I interact these demographic characteristics with each of the treatment conditions, the interaction effects do not have statistically significant effects on support for democracy promotion.

  25. People can recommend more than one type of action.

  26. Pew Center Polls. Pew Global Attitudes Project: Spring 2007, June 27, 2007.

  27. The public opinion polls on which this statement is based are as follows: (1): “As a rule US foreign policy should pursue US interests, which sometimes means promoting democracy and sometimes means supporting non-democratic governments.” Responses: 54 % agree, 38 % disagree and 8 % no answer; (2) “Do you think the US should or should not support a country becoming a democracy if there is a high likelihood that the people will elect an Islamic fundamentalist leader?” Responses: 54 % should not; 32 % should; 15 % no answer. See: PIPA/Chicago Council Polls, September 15–21, 2005.

References

  • Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from world war II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). The polls—Review public opinion research and support for the Iraq war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Downs, G. W. (2006). Intervention and democracy. International Organization, 60(3), 627–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (2006). The backlash against democracy promotion. Foreign Affairs, 85(2), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, T. R., & Lynn-Jones, S. M. (1987). Citty upon a hall. Foreign Policy, 66(Spring), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBartolo, D. M. (2008). Perceptions of US democracy promotion, part two: American views. Washington DC: Project on Middle East Democracy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desch, M. C. (2008). America’s liberal illiberalism: The ideological origins of overreaction in U.S. foreign policy. International Security, 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(4):1151–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. W. (2008). The realist tradition in American public opinion. Perspectives on Politics, 6(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, T. (2004). Conditioning the effects of aid: Cold war politics, donor credibility, and democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58(Spring), 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckles, D. L., & Schaffner, B. F. (2011). Risk tolerance and support for potential military intervention. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg, R. C. (2003). Gender differences in public attitudes toward the use of force by the United States, 1990-2003. International Security, 2(1), 110–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber, H. S., & Gowa, J. (1995). Politices and peace. International Security, 20(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. E., Green, A., Pérez-Liñán, A., Seligson, M., & Tate, C. N. (2008). Cross-national research on USAID’s democracy and governance programs: Codebook (phase ii). http://www.pitt.edu/politics/democracy/.../Codebook_Phase_2.pdf.

  • Fite, D., Genest, M., & Wilcox, C. (1990). Gender differences in foreign policy attitudes: A longitudinal analysis. American Politics Research, 18(4), 492–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gause III, F. G. (2005) Can democracy stop terrorism? Foreign Affairs, 84(5), 62–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelpi, C., Feaver, P. D., & Reifler, J. (2005/2006). Success matters: Casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq. International Security, 30(3), 7–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. (1998). A sober second thought: An experiment in persuading Russians to tolerate. American Journal of Political Science, 42(July), 819–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (1992). Earth in balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes towards highly skilled and low skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H., Ellingsen, T., Gates, S., & Gleditsch, P. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace: Democracy, political change and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscox, M. J. (2006). Through a glass and darkly: Framing effects and individuals’ attitudes towards international trade, international organization. International Organization, 60(3), 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, N. M., & Young., D. J. (2008). A violent future? Political risk insurance markets and violence forecasts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(4), 527–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P. J., & Keohane, R. O. (2007). Anti-Americanisms in world politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, C. (2004). Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The selling of the Iraq war. International Security, 29(1), 5–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. (2004). Does foreign aid promote democracy?. International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (2002/2003). On American exceptionalism. Stanford Law Review, 55, 1479–1527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, A., & Stokes, B. (2006). America against the world: How we are different and why we are disliked. New York: Owl Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2000). Free to trade: Democracies, autocracies, and international trade. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. L. (1995). Democratization and the danger of war. International Security, 20(1), 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFaul, M. (2004). Democracy promotion as a world value. The Washington Quarterly, 28(1), 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midlarsky, M. (1998). Democracy and the environment: An empirical assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. V., & Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in developing countries. International Organization, 50(1), 107–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. (2005). The Iraq syndrome. Foreign Affairs, 84, 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. E. (1971). Trends in popular support for the wars in Korea and Vietnam. The American Political Science Review, 65(2), 358–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narang, V., & Nelson, R. M. (2009). Who are these belligerent democratizers? Reassessing the impact of democratization on war. International Organization, 63(2), 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, M., Hurwitz, J., & Sniderman, P. M. (1997). Racial stereotypes and whites’ political views of blacks in the context of welfare and crime. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 30–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei, M. (2003). The paradoxes of American nationalism. Foreign Policy, 136, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, J., & Peceny, M. (2006). Forging democracy at gunpoint. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theory and facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. (2006). Is democracy good for the poor? American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 860–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheve, K., Lu, X., & Slaughter, M. (2012). Inequity aversion and the international distribution of trade protection. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 638–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. M., & Steele, C. A. (2011). Sponsoring democracy? The United States and democracy aid to the developing world 1988–2001. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2005). Partisan conflict, public opinion and US foreign policy. Paper presented at the Inequality and Social Policy Seminar, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • Snyder, J. L. (2000). From voting to violence: Democratization and nationalist conflict. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, R. (2000). To intervene or not to intervene in Bosnia: That was the question for the United States and Europe. In R. Y. S. Brigette Lebens Nacos, & P. Isernia (Eds.), Decisionmaking in a glass house: Mass media, public opinion, and American and European foreign policy in the 21st century (pp. 111–132). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S., & Boix, C. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55(4), 517–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrall, T. A., & Cramer, J. K., (Eds.) (2009). American foreign policy and the politics of fear: Threat inflation since 9/11. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomz, M. (2007). Domestic audience costs in international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization, 61(4), 821–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tures, J. (2007). The democracy-promotion gap in American public opinion. Journal of American Studies, 41(3), 557–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(1), 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S., & Jentleson, B. W. (2010). The end of arrogance: America in the global competition of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollack, K. (2008). Democracy promotion: Serving U.S. values and interests. Northwestern University Law Review, 102(1), 433–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, D. (2005). Poll positions: What Americans really think about US foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 84(5), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Steve Smith and the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis for their support in conducting the survey experiment, as well as Ingrid Anderson, Ian MacMullen, and Bob Shapiro for their helpful comments and advice on this project. This project was funded by a Weidenbaum Center grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Dawn Brancati

Authors
  1. Dawn Brancati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn Brancati.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brancati, D. The Determinants of US Public Opinion Towards Democracy Promotion. Polit Behav 36, 705–730 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9256-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9256-y

Keywords

  • Democracy promotion
  • Public opinion
  • Survey experiment