Status Threat, Campaign Rhetoric, and US Foreign Policy

Candidates for office frequently warn that the United States is falling behind its rivals. How does this rhetoric affect voters’ perceptions of their commitment to action and, in turn, potential foreign policy outcomes? The study of status in international politics has blossomed over the past decade, including a recent turn to the origins and consequences of domestic concerns over national status and decline. I contribute to this research, arguing that candidates frequently employ status-threatening rhetoric on the campaign trail due to its emotional and identity-threatening appeal, but this rhetoric in turn significantly increases the public’s expectation of action. As a result, status-threatening campaign rhetoric allows candidates to define issues as arenas for status competition but simultaneously increases pressure on leaders to follow through once in office with policies they can justify as status-saving. I support this theory with two survey experiments and a case study examining how Kennedy attached space exploration to status in the 1960 campaign, increasing domestic pressure to act once in office.