Historical Analogies and Public Support for Foreign Policy Action

Politicians frequently use historical analogies to justify their preferred foreign policies. However, despite their prevalence, it remains unclear whether, how, and why they shape public opinion. We conduct the most comprehensive experimental test to date of the impact of historical analogies on the U.S. public’s foreign policy preferences and find compelling evidence that analogical appeals increase mass confidence in leaders’ foreign policy decisionmaking. We also illustrate several of the key mechanisms underlying this dynamic and show that historical analogies are more effective at shaping public opinion than (arguably) less rational presidential justifications like “gut” or intuition. Finally, we demonstrate that analogical reasoning is no more effective at moving public opinion than other types of rational justifications leaders use, such as appeals to experts, and that these other communication strategies impact public opinion through similar mechanisms as analogies. This suggests analogies are just one of many potentially effective devices in leaders’ broader rhetorical toolkits. Our results reveal the logic and limitations of an important elite communication strategy in foreign policymaking, and contribute to the growing literature on foreign policy attitudes and political communication.