Replication Data for: US Military Intervention and Presidential Communication Frames

Nations militarily intervene in other countries for a variety of reasons—strategic, economic, humanitarian, and more. Not all interventions are equal, and publics do not endorse the risk and expenditure of blood and treasure evenly across instances. Knowing this, democratic leaders are both constrained by and attempt to shape public attitudes. One way that executives can lead the public is in framing the reasons for military action. I argue that executives justify the international use of force in popular schemas even when they do not apply, and censor less popular ones even when they do, to strategically maximize public support. Using quantitative text analysis and regression techniques, this paper examines the congruence between military objectives and communication frames employed in US presidential speeches, remarks, and Congressional announcements to justify international militarized interventions. Results show that presidents carefully craft rhetoric to bolster public buy-in for international uses of force, even at risk of electoral costs for dishonesty if discovered down the line.各国出于战略、经济、人道主义等多重理由对他国实施军事干预。并非所有军事干预都具有同等性质，且公众对不同干预案例中付出的鲜血与资源代价的认可程度并不一致。鉴于此，民主国家的领导人既受公众舆论的约束，也会试图引导公众态度。行政首脑引导公众的方式之一，是对军事行动的理由进行框架建构。笔者认为，行政首脑会借助大众认知框架为国际武力使用辩护——即便这些理由并不贴合实际；同时也会刻意规避不受公众欢迎的理由，哪怕这些理由本身成立——以此从策略层面最大化公众支持。本文采用量化文本分析与回归分析技术，考察美国总统一系列演讲、发言及国会公告中为国际军事干预辩护所用的传播框架，与军事行动目标之间的契合度。研究结果表明，总统会精心雕琢言辞，以强化公众对国际武力使用的认同，即便日后若被发现存在不实表述，可能会为此付出选举代价。