Foreign Policy and Public Opinion1. Before WWII, most people opposed U.S. involvement in international affairs, but afterwards, the public saw how important it was for the U.S. to take the reigns of foreign policy.
i. This occurred during WWII because the war was practically unopposed, was very successful, had avenged an attack on U.S. soil, and had put the U.S. at the top of the world powers.
ii. Before, most people, Congress included, supported a pacifist, isolationist, non-interventionist policy, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor changed all of that, resulting in near-universal support for the war and active involvement in post-war world affairs (i.e. United Nations).
iii. This persisted until the horror of the Vietnam War quelled that former enthusiasm.
2. The public usually seems to support the president more after major foreign policy events; even after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when J.F.K. accepted responsibility for the mistakes, his popularity rose!
i. However, although a president receives support just after a major international incident, if that incident drags on and stalemates, he will lose support (i.e. Vietnam), so presidents do not always eagerly welcome major international events to approach them.
ii. Interestingly, while the public thinks more bitterly about Vietnam than about Korea, public opinion was the same for both; it was the elite’s opinion that okayed Korea but not Vietnam.
iii. Basically, for presidents, either fight popular, successful battles or engage in short ones.
3. The general public is usually less informed and will tend to support successful campaigns and not support failing efforts.
i. The political elite, however, is more volatile and moralistic (in Vietnam, while average citizens didn’t like the U.S. being so defensive, the elite didn’t like the U.S. being so offensive).
ii. The leaders have a more liberal and internationalist outlook than the general public, which favors protecting local interest and American citizens.