Reasons for restraint

Abstract Chapter 5 tests the restraint side of the domestic coalition argument, revealing that broad coalitions increase opportunities for the public to hold leaders accountable for their statements. Evidence from national survey experiments shows that humanitarian appeals are both more powerful and less problematic than conventional wisdom expects. The reason is that the same doves who respond positively to humanitarian claims also limit their effectiveness. Doves pay close attention to information about humanitarian goals and withdraw their support for intervention if the humanitarian claims appear insincere. This political backlash from doves cautions leaders against stretching claims too far. Hawks offer similar backlash in response to insincere security justifications. Instead of making the public easier to manipulate, broad domestic coalitions create more opportunities for political backlash. The chapter also investigates whether presidents’ strategic use of humanitarian language undermines support for future interventions to stop mass atrocities, finding reason for cautious optimism.