IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v42y1998i5p544-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Rational Is “The Rational Public†?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey W. Knopf

    (Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies)

Abstract

Specialists on U.S. public opinion and foreign policy have rejected the Almond-Lippmann consensus, which implied public attitudes were dangerously erratic, and have moved in varying degrees toward a view of public opinion as rational. Consensus on this new view would be premature. The revisionists have not yet addressed all elements of the traditional critique of the American public. In particular, they have overlooked the thesis of postwar foreign policy realists that the public reacts to foreign threats too slowly and then too strongly. This article presents a preliminary test of the classical realist hypotheses, through an analysis of public opinion on military spending from 1965 to 1991. On balance, the results favor the rational public perspective. Some caveats, however, suggest the need for further research before the traditional, negative view of the public should be rejected.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey W. Knopf, 1998. "How Rational Is “The Rational Public†?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(5), pages 544-571, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:42:y:1998:i:5:p:544-571
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002798042005002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002798042005002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002798042005002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caspary, William R., 1970. "The “Mood Theory†: A Study of Public Opinion and Foreign Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 536-547, June.
    2. Hartley, Thomas & Russett, Bruce, 1992. "Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 905-915, December.
    3. Levy, Jack S., 1994. "Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 279-312, April.
    4. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    5. McGinnis, Michael D. & Williams, John T., 1989. "Change and Stability in Superpower Rivalry," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1101-1123, December.
    6. Hurwitz, Jon & Peffley, Mark, 1987. "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1099-1120, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sencer Ecer & Nicholas J. Veasey, 2015. "The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 75-88, February.
    2. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    3. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    4. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by German parties at the 2017 federal election," Working Paper Series in Economics 107, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Representing Defense," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(4), pages 399-422, August.
    6. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by the 2017 Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 108, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    8. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2019. "Combining the third vote with traditional elections," Working Paper Series in Economics 132, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    9. Laron K. Williams, 2019. "Guns Yield Butter? An Exploration of Defense Spending Preferences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1193-1221, May.
    10. Travis Sharp, 2019. "Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 367-396, September.
    11. William R. Thompson, 1995. "Principal Rivalries," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(2), pages 195-223, June.
    12. Petrov, Petar, 2010. "Early Institutionalisation of the ESDP Governance Arrangements: Insights From Operations Concordia and Artemis," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 14, August.
    13. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    14. Glenn Palmer & Archana Bhandari, 2000. "The Investigation of Substitutability in Foreign Policy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(1), pages 3-10, February.
    15. Florin ŞUHAN, 2019. "Study On Defense Expenditure And Its Financing," EURINT, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 6, pages 256-268.
    16. Eric Tremolada Álvarez (editor), 2015. "La arquitectura del ordenamiento internacional y su desarrollo en materia económica," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, edition 1, number 785, October.
    17. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    18. Hessami, Zohal, 2014. "Political corruption, public procurement, and budget composition: Theory and evidence from OECD countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 372-389.
    19. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    20. Beth Simmons & Jens Hainmueller, 2005. "Can Domestic Institutions Explain Exchange Rate Regime Choice? The Political Economy of Monetary Institutions Reconsidered," International Finance 0505011, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sae:jocore:v:42:y:1998:i:5:p:544-571. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.