When is the public more likely to defer to elites on foreign policy? Existing research suggests the public takes its cues from co-partisans, but what happens when co-partisans disagree? We argue that the public defers to elites whose prior experiences signal expertise and favorable intentions. Elites with backgrounds in socially esteemed institutions are thus especially powerful cue-givers, even when the core competencies of those institutions are not directly related to the issue at hand. Using two conjoint experiments, we find that the American public defers to more experienced elites generally, but is especially deferential toward elites with experience in trusted institutions: the public defers more to elites with military backgrounds, even when considering non-military issues. The theory and findings suggest that where elites sat in the past shapes how much power they wield once standing in office.
Tyler Jost https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7432-5022 [email protected] and Joshua D. Kertzer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7358-0638View all authors and affiliations OnlineFirst https://doi.org/10.1177/002200272312035
Tyler Jost is Assistant Professor of Political Science, International & Public Affairs and Watson Institute Assistant Professor of China Studies. His research focuses on national security decision-making, bureaucratic politics, and Chinese foreign policy. Dr. Jost’s current book project examines domestic institutions designed to decide and coordinate national security policy, such as the U.S. National Security Council. Dr. Jost completed his doctoral degree in the Department of Government at Harvard University. He has held postdoctoral fellowships in the International Security Program at the Kennedy School of Government, as well as in the China and the World Program at Columbia University. His research has been supported by the Smith Richardson Foundation, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.
Photo Credit: https://pixabay.com/users/meandcolors-14366492/