In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq

Chicago Studies in American Politics

by Adam J. Berinsky

From World War II to the war in Iraq, periods of international conflict seem like unique moments in U.S. political history—but when it comes to public opinion, they are not. To make this groundbreaking revelation, In Time of War explodes conventional wisdom about American reactions to World War II, as well as the more recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Adam Berinsky argues that public response to these crises has been shaped less by their defining characteristics—such as what they cost in lives and resources—than by the same political interests and group affiliations that influence our ideas about domestic issues.

 

With the help of World War II–era survey data that had gone virtually untouched for the past sixty years, Berinsky begins by disproving the myth of “the good war” that Americans all fell in line to support after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The attack, he reveals, did not significantly alter public opinion but merely punctuated interventionist sentiment that had already risen in response to the ways that political leaders at home had framed the fighting abroad. Weaving his findings into the first general theory of the factors that shape American wartime opinion, Berinsky also sheds new light on our reactions to other crises. He shows, for example, that our attitudes toward restricted civil liberties during Vietnam and after 9/11 stemmed from the same kinds of judgments we make during times of peace.

 

With Iraq and Afghanistan now competing for attention with urgent issues within the United States, In Time of War offers a timely reminder of the full extent to which foreign and domestic politics profoundly influence—and ultimately illuminate—each other.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics

360 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[AndrewMillerTheSecond · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do voters make rational calculations about the costs and benefits of a conflict when deciding whether or not to support it, or do they just decide randomly? It’s a bit of both, says Adam Berinsky—but it’s mainly about partisanship. I give this book 3.5/5 (but rounded down to 3) because I found some segments boring/repetitive, but the message itself is useful for understanding US politics better. The research on public opinion during WWII in particular is really neat. The research on partisanship during the Iraq war is nothing new in retrospect, and he confirms a mountain of other research that voters “follow their leaders” when new issues arise. Disproving the theory that casualty count makes any difference in perceptions of war success is welcomed though. If you’re interested in public opinion generally I don’t think this book should be super high on your list, but I am the type of person who is willing to go very far down the list.

[Alexander Hart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely enlightening book with some really interesting insights into the determinants of US public opinion on foreign policy.

The basic premise is that the American public determines its stance on wars not through an analysis of events or cost-benefit analysis, but rather through a partisan lens. This means that public opinion on war is determined by the same mechanisms as public opinion on domestic issues, i.e. war is not special.

The author uses"an elite cue theory" to determine the source of public opinion on wars. This theory holds that members of the public follow their partisan leanings in choosing whether or not to support a war. In the absence of any clear cues (e.g. a politician clearly stating their view), members of the public create an opinion based on an imagined cue, whether that means simply opposing the opposite side because they think "their side" will do the same or following the lead of proxies for elites such as group loyalties. In other words, the public bases its own opinion on (1) the perceived opinion of elites (2) their ethnic group and (3) a perceived political community. The author goes on to examine these groups and cues.

The author also utilizes surveys from WW2 to support his argument. This is a rather fascinating portion of the book and goes a long way to disabusing readers who might think the morality or rightness of a war determines its support among the public.

I enjoyed this book immensely. Berinsky writes in an engaging manner, he avoids the dry writing that often plagues academic works so that even non-political scientists can pick this book up and enjoy it. If you understand the data, you'll get more out of it, but Berinsky frames it in such a way that the data is easily understandable even without a background in statistics.