“Pretty Prudent” or Rhetorically Responsive?

Abstract

In the United States, public support can play a crucial role in the decisions to initiate and terminate military action. Some scholars argue that the public holds “prudent” opinions regarding the use of the military—supporting efforts to stop aggression but not to engage in nation building. We argue that what seems like a “prudent” opinion may be driven more by the White House’s rhetoric. Experimental tests show that the rhetorical complexity has a more powerful impact on the respondent’s support for military action than the actual policy goal, although this result is substantially tempered by political awareness.