IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v13y2025i3p645-662_8.html

Polarization versus professionalism: military and civilian views on the domestic use of the military

Author

Listed:
  • Hanson, Kolby
  • Knuppe, Austin J.

Abstract

Scholars and policymakers warn that with rising affective polarization, politicians will find support from the public and permission from military professionals to use military force to selectively crack down on political opponents. We test these claims by conducting parallel survey experiments among the US public and mid-career military officers. We ask about two hypothetical scenarios of domestic partisan unrest, randomly assigning the partisan identity of protesters. Surprisingly, we find widespread public support for deploying the military and no significant partisanship effects. Meanwhile, military officers were very resistant to deploying the military, with nearly 75 percent opposed in any scenario. In short, there is little evidence that public polarization threatens to escalate domestic disputes, and strong evidence for military opposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanson, Kolby & Knuppe, Austin J., 2025. "Polarization versus professionalism: military and civilian views on the domestic use of the military," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 645-662, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:645-662_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847024000414/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:645-662_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.