/
Introduction
One of the most deeply ingrained views in the conventional wisdom on U.S. politics is
that uses of force have a powerful – and unique – ability to increase the public’s support of the
president. Although some academic studies challenge that view, there is still a widespread belief,
even among many scholars, that the use of force makes for good polls and good politics. As a
result, there is much concern about the attractiveness of diversionary war to U.S. presidents,
though fortunately, most studies suggest it is uncommon if not absent altogether.
The appeal of diversionary war would be much lower if presidential actions other than
war can produce the same sorts of increases in presidential support. Not much is known about
the effect of other dramatic presidential activities, yet in theory, force is not the only potential
way to boost presidential ratings. In particular, “peace promoting” activities, such as diplomatic
initiatives, summits, or the de-escalation or termination of wars are headline grabbing,
presidentially-focused events that are likely to be popular with the public. There is every reason
to think that peace activity could help presidents, though few tests of the possibility have been
conducted.
This study argues that dramatic peace-promoting activity is a source support for U.S.
presidents. Major peace events from 1953 to 2000 have caused temporary increases – rallies – in
presidential approval much like those following uses of force. The potential gains are modest,
approximately a 5% initial increase on average decaying over a few months, but that is of the
same scale as reactions to uses of force. Gains can be greater or lower depending on media
coverage and elite opinion.
Presidents do not appear to make use of the peace tool, however. The rate of
peace activity was unaffected by presidential approval, the state of the economy, scandals, or
Convention