3
damage). Results from the 1972 case study are compared with previous findings, employing the same
methodology, from an examination of Lyndon Johnson’s foreign policy in 1964 and 1968 (Foyle 2002).
Previous Research on Electoral Effects
Previous scholarly analyses have suggested contradictory findings regarding the influence of
elections on foreign policy choice. Some have suggested that elections cause pacific action while others
have pointed to aggressive tendencies and still others have pointed to a conditional influence. No doubt,
part of this divergence results from differences across studies in the dependent variable (e.g., war, uses of
force, crisis initiation, crisis escalation), data sources, and analytical methods (Mitchell and Moore, 2002).
These findings can be grouped within several competing perspectives most of which suggest that leaders
manipulate foreign policy for political benefit.
Some scholars have found that approaching elections foster more peaceful choices (peace and
prosperity). Kurt Taylor Gaubatz (1999) argued that less wars occur as elections approach, but more wars
occur in the years immediately after an election which implies that leaders attempt to move politically
dangerous foreign policies to the period after elections. Others have found that leaders make more
concessions in arms control negotiations when an approaching election occurs during poor economic
conditions (Morrow, 1991), the U.S. pursues less interventions in the developing world during election
years (Yoon, 1997), and presidents tend not to use force when the nation is already at peace (Stoll, 1984).
The assumption behind these findings is that since the public favors "peace," elected officials will attempt
to provide that outcome at least in the immediate period preceding the election.
Others have argued that elections cause increased uses of force. Perhaps the most commonly
known view, popularized by the coincidence of August 1998 revelations in the Monica Lewinsky scandal
and the December 1998 House impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton and American attacks
on Iraq, is the diversionary theory of war or force (Hendrickson, 2002). This approach suggests that
leaders will make foreign policy, use force, or create crises in the face of domestic turmoil in hopes of:
(1) distracting the public from domestic problems (and indirectly building public support) (Levy, 1989;
Gelpi, 1997); (2) justifying unpopular policies (Rotte, 1998); or (3) causing the public to "rally" around
Convention