Presidential Political Ambition and US Foreign Conflict Behavior, 1816-2010 Matthew DiLorenzo Rebecca McBride James Lee Ray Vanderbilt University Calvin College Vanderbilt University July 28, 2016 Abstract How do term limits affect international conflict behavior? We revisit this ques- tion using new quarter-year-level data on presidential political ambition in the UnitedStates(US)from1816to2010. Multi-countryresearchfindsthatthereelec- tion motive decreases the likelihood of conflict initiation. We argue that there are good reasons to expect that the US is different. We find that politically-ambitious US presidents are more likely to initiate international conflicts. Consistent with previous research, however, we find that political ambition appears to be unrelated to a president’s chances of becoming the target of a militarized dispute. Word count: 9,969 Forthcoming in Conflict Management and Peace Science If the highest priority for leaders of states is to attain and retain power, then this pri- ority must affect the foreign policies of those states. In the United States (US), presidents have been aware that their days in power are clearly limited, even before the passage of the 22nd Amendment. How do term limits, self-imposed under historical norms or con- stitutionally imposed, impact leaders’ foreign policies? Two recent articles conclude that term-limited democratic leaders are more belligerent than democratic leaders eligible for reelection (Conconi et al., 2014; Zeigler et al., 2014).1 We revisit this question as it relates to US conflict behavior. Theory and evidence suggest that the US case may be unusual. On one hand, US presidents appear to become more conflict prone prior to elections (Russett, 1990a; Stoll, 1984), and there is some evidence that US presidents are prone to diversionary conflict behavior (Clark, 2003; Fordham, 2002; Morgan and Bickers, 1992; Ostrom and Job, 1986; Russett, 1990b). Removing the prospects for reelection may thus have a pacifying effect on US foreign policy by reducing incentives for diversionary tactics. On the other hand, the nature of political interdependence between the executive and legislative branches in the US may make presidents responsive to public opinion regardless of concerns about reelection (Edwards, 1980; Fiorina, 1981; Oneal and Tir, 2006: 768). This implies that term-limited presidentsshouldbehavenodifferentlyfrompolitically-ambitiouspresidents. Whilethese perspectives make different predictions about the relationship between political ambition and US conflict behavior, neither predicts that lame duck US presidents should be more conflict prone as some existing evidence would suggest. We consider whether results from multi-country studies find support in the US case using new quarter-year data on presidential political ambition in the US from 1816 to 2010. We show that in one respect the US is different: US presidents who have osten- sibly given up hope of being re-elected are generally less likely to initiate militarized disputes. However, we do replicate Zeigler et al.’s (2014) finding that presidents eligible for reelection are no more or less likely to be targeted in international conflicts than their term-limited counterparts. This article makes a number of contributions. First, it identifies an important excep- 1 tion to a more general relationship between political ambition and international conflict. The US holds a unique position of influence and its decisions to use military force affect a diverse array of actors. A reflection of this fact is that the US has been involved in a relatively high number of militarized disputes throughout its history (14% of the 2586 disputes documented in the Correlates of War Militarized Interstate Dispute Data Set (Palmer et al., 2015)). Our finding that the relationship between political ambition and conflict initiation in the US is the opposite of what multi-country studies find is thus substantively important. We do not interpret our findings as a refutation of previous research, but instead as evidence that the US does not fit into what appears to be a general pattern. Second, past research on this question has relied on annual observations of political ambition (e.g., Conconi et al., 2014; Zeigler et al., 2014). Depending on when an election occurs during a given year, this may introduce measurement error. We use quarter-year observations to help minimize this problem. Additionally, our data cover the entire period of 1816 to 2010, allowing us to study the relationship between political ambition and conflict behavior throughout the longest time period for which data on militarized disputes are available. Finally, we introduce a new data set on the political ambition of US presidents. While we use the data to study American conflict behavior, analysts might also find them useful in studying the effects of political ambition on a variety of other policy outcomes. The article proceeds as follows. We begin by briefly reviewing research on political ambition and foreign policy, deriving hypotheses about the role of political ambition in affecting US conflict behavior. Next, we describe our data and develop a research design to evaluate our hypotheses. Finally, we present our results and consider some possible explanations for the difference between our results and prior research findings. Political Ambition, Foreign Policy, and Term Limits The axiom that national leaders engaged in foreign policy making place the highest priority on staying in power (rather than the “national interest”) has deep historical 2 roots. According to Modelski (1964: 55), “Kautilya’s Arthasustra is, above all, a manual ofstatecraft, acollectionofrulesthatakingoradministratorwouldbewisetofollowifhe wishes to acquire and maintain power.” Nederman (2009) points out that Machiavelli’s The Prince emphasizesthattheonlyrealconcernofpoliticalleadersistheacquisitionand maintenance of power. Even Morgenthau (1967: 32) asserts in Politics Among Nations that, “[t]he essence of international politics is identical with its domestic counterpart. Both domestic and international politics are a struggle for power, modified only by the different conditions under which this struggle takes place... .” In the more contemporary era, Domke (1988: 105) suggested that, “political elites wish to attain and stay in office,” andfurtherthatgovernmentleaderswouldfightwarsifthoseconflictshelptokeepthemin office. Milner (1997: 334) bases her work, which focuses primarily on democratic states, on the “simplifying assumption that staying in office is the main goal of executives.” Probably the primary inspiration for the recent widespread adoption of a fundamental axiom that the highest priority of political leaders is to remain in power is The Logic of Political Survival (BuenodeMesquitaetal., 2003).2 “Wetakeitasaxiomatic,” according to the authors, “that everyone in a position of authority wants to keep that authority and that it is the maneuvering to do so that is central to politics in any type of regime” (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2003: 9).3 This assumption is core to the “selectorate” theory that those authors develop. If leaders strive first to maintain themselves in power, then perhaps leaders who are constitutionally or otherwise prohibited from extending their hold on power approach foreign policy issues and interstate interactions in fundamentally different ways. Leaders of other states might also deal with them differently. Unfortunately, Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003) offer limited guidance on these questions.4 The authors do suggest that term limits in the Roman Republic apparently encouraged leaders – whom were limited to terms of one year – to engage in reckless foreign policy behavior (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2003: 315). Others have drawn on Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s (2003) framework to hypothesize about the relationship between term limits and conflict behavior. Conconi et al. (2014) 3 and Zeigler et al. (2014) both provide extensive reviews of literature suggesting possible relationships between term limits and conflict. One viewpoint based on selectorate theory says that leaders of democratic states will normally be cautious about becoming involved in interstate conflict, since defeat in a conflict will increase the risk of losing the next election. Because “[a]rriving in a final term lowers a leader’s sensitivity to domestic audience costs,” leaders that are term limited “should be more inclined to engage in military disputes...” (Zeigler et al., 2014: 662). Haynes (2012: 791) also speculates that term limits could “lead to riskier foreign policy behavior, as lame-duck presidents cannot be punished by their constituents in the wake of policy failures.” Similarly, both Fearon (1994) and Jackson and Morelli (2007) suggest that lame-duck leaders are relatively impervious to the possible costs of losing an interstate conflict, and therefore tend to be more inclined to fight. Two recent studies find support for this hypothesis. Zeigler et al. (2014: 673) an- alyze the conflict proneness of forty-eight democracies in the years from 1978 to 2000, concluding that, “the institutional constraint of term limits increases the likelihood of conflict by more than 50 percent.”5 Conconi et al. (2014) compare rates of conflict across dyads throughout the period of 1816 to 2001 and find that jointly-democratic dyads are more peaceful than democratic-autocratic or jointly-autocratic dyads only when neither democratic leader faces a binding term limit (Conconi et al., 2014: 1010). Further, Con- coni et al. (2014: 997) report that “in democracies with two-term limits, conflicts are less likely to occur during the executive’s first mandate than in the last one.” Given the concurrent findings in these two cross-national time-series analyses, a reasonable prior expectation is that US presidents who can and intend to stand for reelection will be less likely to initiate international conflicts. Throughout we state our hypotheses in terms of comparisons between presidents who have “political ambition” (i.e., can and do aspire to reelection), and those who do not. Hypothesis 1: Presidents with political ambition are less likely to initiate international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re-elected. Politically-ambitious presidents might also evoke different responses from other states 4 inawaythataffectsthelikelihoodthatthosepresidentswillbethetargetsofinternational conflict. Hypothesis 1 implies that foreign adversaries should less often target leaders without political ambition since those leaders have no electoral incentive to avoid the costs of war. If it is true that US presidents in their final terms are relatively immune to the costs of conflict, then these expectations are reasonable in the US case. Further, Zeigler et al. (2014) cite a number of studies suggesting that length of time in office and experience correlate with a decreased likelihood of being targeted by foreign adversaries (e.g., Potter, 2007; Wolford, 2007). This suggests that politically-ambitious leaders, havingbeeninofficeforlesstime, shouldmoreoftenbetargetedininternationalconflicts. Hypothesis 1-T: Presidents with political ambition are more likely to be tar- geted in international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re- elected. Is the United States Different? Two bodies of research suggest that the US may be different. The first deals with the diversionary theory of conflict, which stipulates that a leader might attempt to divert attention from domestic problems with international conflict to improve her standing among the public and boost her chances of being reelected (e.g., GW Downs and Rocke, 1994; Morgan and Bickers, 1992; Oneal and Tir, 2006). Since term limits eliminate the reelection motive, theories of diversionary conflict imply that, all else equal, binding term limits should be pacifying. Evidence for the diversionary hypothesis is notoriously mixed and disputed (e.g., Oneal and Tir, 2006: 757-760; Chiozza and Goemans, 2011: 35-40). Two central critiques of the research agenda are that (1) many analysts rely on data from the US case for the sake of convenience and (2) the US case is likely to be exceptional because of the unique position of power held by the US (Oneal and Tir, 2006: 760). Critiquing the broader diversionary war agenda for its heavy US focus makes sense, but if the US truly is exceptional, the implications for the relationship between politi- cal ambition and conflict behavior are different. A number of studies that suggest the 5 prospects for being reelected may lead US presidents to risk international conflict to their benefit. Stoll (1984) finds that American presidents have been prone to use military force during reelection campaigns in apparent attempts to create “rally round the flag” effects to their benefit. Russett (1990) also finds that the US has been more likely to initiate or participate in the escalation of a dispute in presidential elections years. This reinforces Russett’s (1990) research suggesting that military action by the US becomes more likely in the immediate lead up to an election, a finding also reported by Wang (1996). The benefits of initiating or escalating crises are not certain, and on average may be quite small.6 But presidents may be more willing to take this gamble when election to an ad- ditional term is possible (Chiozza and Goemans, 2003, 2011). While the evidence for the relationship between economic growth and the use of force by the US is mixed (Ostrom and Job, 1986; Oneal and Tir, 2006: 769), there is evidence that conflict can distract the public’s attentiveness to economic problems in the US (DeRouen and Peake, 2002). Further, military action and the prominence of national security concerns help presidents receive greater deference from Congress in pursuing international and domestic policy goals, which may help them win reelection (Howell et al., 2013; Stoll, 1987). So, the validity of the assumption that leaders will be penalized electorally for using force–anassumptionConconietal.(2014: 1002)buildintotheirtheory–isquestionable in the US case. American presidents may have the motive to engage in diversionary behavior. Perhaps more importantly, many have suggested that the US and other great powers may be well-positioned to engage in diversionary behavior (Oneal and Tir, 2006: 763; Brule et al., 2010; James and Hristoulas, 1994). Regarding the interaction of the election motive with diversionary incentives, Zeigler et al. (2014: 664) comment that, “the United States is likely to be the exception rather than the norm, given its position of power” (Zeigler et al., 2014: 664). It is possible that the costs of initiating disputes relative to even modest expected gains in electoral fortunes are small enough to justify conflict. Thus, if US presidents have a propensity for diversionary behavior and engage in that behavior close to the time of elections, then US presidents who can stand for reelection should be more likely to initiate international conflicts than presidents without 6 political ambition on average. Hypothesis 2: Presidents with political ambition are more likely to initiate international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re-elected. Extending this logic, if the lack of incentive for reelection leaves little reason to incur the potential risks of conflict, outside aggressors might see lame duck presidents as easy targets who have little reason to fight back. As such, politically-ambitious presidents may be targets of international conflict less often than presidents without political ambition. Hypothesis 2-T: Presidents with political ambition are less likely to be tar- geted in international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re- elected. As both Oneal and Tir (2006: 768) and Zeigler et al. (2014: 667-668) point out, a second body of research in American politics suggests that the interaction of the leg- islative and executive branches in the US – in particular the relationship between con- gressional and presidential elections – makes American presidents responsive to public opinionthroughouttheirentireterms. Thepresident’sstandingwiththepubliccanaffect the outcomes of local elections (e.g., Fiorina, 1981) and affect Congressional support for executive initiatives (e.g., Edwards, 1980). Russett (1990) argues that modern polling and extensive media activity in the US makes political leaders constantly sensitive to public opinion, not just near the time of elections (or even if they will never face the electorate again). For example, Brule et al. (2010: 489) speculate that US President Clinton’s launching of cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 – after Clinton faced a binding term limit – was intended to shore up the position of the Demo- cratic Party in Congress. If presidents also prioritize policy goals that are unrelated to the pursuit of remaining in office, then this “permanent referendum hypothesis” (Russett, 1990b) suggests that term limits will have little or no effect on the conflict proneness of states, contra the expectations underlying the above hypotheses. While Russett (1990) and Wang (1996) link elections to heightened conflict behavior by the US, other studies find no such link (e.g., Gowa, 1998). 7 Hypothesis 3: Presidents with political ambition are no more or less likely to initiate international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re- elected. If conflict incentives remain constant throughout a president’s term as suggested by the permanent referendum hypothesis, then political ambition should not affect the like- lihood that a US president is targeted in a military dispute. Yet, even if Hypothesis 2 is correct with respect to conflict initiation, the US’ roles as a relatively isolationist and geo- graphically remote nation after its founding and then as a global superpower beginning in the early twentieth century may influence its likelihood of being targeted in international conflicts in ways that could make any independent effect of political ambition small or difficult to detect. Hypothesis 3-T: Presidents with political ambition are no more or less likely to be targeted in international conflicts than presidents who do not aspire to be re-elected. In sum, there are good reasons to reconsider whether extant findings on political ambition and international conflict hold for the US. In the next section we develop a research design to test whether politically-ambitious US presidents behave differently than US presidents without ambition when it comes to international conflict. Research Design Independent Variable: Political Ambition Comparing the foreign conflict behavior of politically-ambitious US presidents to those of presidents who are identifiably less ambitious requires generating data on which pres- idents have become “lame ducks” while still in office. Previous studies on ambition and conflict generate annual data on ambition. Though a reasonable design choice, this en- tails occasionally coding leaders as having ambition for some periods of time when we know they did not. For example, presidents lose political ambition upon defeat in their 8 reelection bids, yet they continue to serve as president for months. When political ambi- tion is observed only on an annual basis, periods of service by chief executives who are unconcerned about holding onto the presidency during regular constitutional transfers of power are inaccessible. To better distinguish between portions of a year when a president did and did not have the ambition to be reelected, our units of observation are time periods three months in duration. Our temporal domain is 1816-2010, corresponding to the availability of the data on international conflict. An aspect of our study that requires special attention is that the legal status of term limits in the US changes during our temporal domain. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by the US Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite three- fourths of the states by 1951, prohibits US presidents from serving more than two terms. It specifically excluded the sitting president, Harry Truman, from its impact, so Dwight Eisenhower was the first US president to be prohibited by the 22nd Amendment (after he won a second term in 1956) from running for a third term. Obviously, presidents who served after the passage of the 22nd Amendment have no reason to be concerned about reelection as soon as they are elected (or not) to their second terms. In the years from 1816 to 1951, the date by which presidents might have given up ambition to be reelected is more difficult to identify. A review of the historical record suggests there was a norm of some strength pro- hibiting presidents from serving more than two terms. Starting with George Washington in 1796, many presidents adhered to a norm of foregoing a third term.7 Some presi- dents even promised not to run for reelection in their first terms. Jefferson, for instance, actually favored a one-term limit. Andrew Jackson agreed, and between Jackson and Lincoln, “a one term tradition seems to have developed” (Peabody, 2001: 447. See also P Willis and G Willis (1952).) At least three nineteenth-century presidents publicly dis- avowed any intentions of running for a second term very close to the beginning of their first terms. James K. Polk, for example, declared in his speech accepting his party’s nomination in 1844 that he would not run for a second term (Nelson, 2008). Milkis and Nelson (2012: 147) explain that “after winning the Democratic nomination, [Polk] stole 9