Demand for justifications

Abstract Chapter 4 tests the demand side of the domestic coalition argument, providing empirical evidence that a substantial portion of the US public is made up of traditional doves who respond positively to humanitarian justifications for war. National survey experiments examine how different justifications for war resonate with different groups, revealing that no single justification can convince all members of the public. Isolationists are generally skeptical of military interventions. Hawks and doves, however, can both be convinced to support military action under the right circumstances. Hawks respond to all justifications while doves are wary warmongers, fully joining domestic coalitions only when humanitarian explanations are present. The highest possible support from doves and, as a result, the broadest internationalist coalition creates a demand for humanitarian justifications in security crises. The chapter also investigates the distribution of political partisanship across different foreign policy constituencies and confirms that doves respond to humanitarian justifications because this language makes them think more about foreign civilians than national security.