Public confidence in the United States military

This dissertation examines the extent to which the military as a professional, trusted, and credible institution can influence public opinion on politically contentious issues facing the nation, including climate change, the national debt, and gender identity. I use original survey-experimentation to establish (1) the conditions under which the military can influence public attitudes on political issues, (2) the role public credibility in the military plays in this process, and (3) the potential consequences of military engagement on these issues. Partisan cues often cause a back-fire effect whereby cross-partisans respond to cues by adopting the opposite policy positions. Although the military is often associated with conservative ideology, I theorize that the high levels of credibility and trust in the military from both Republican and Democratic Americans allow the military to effectively engage in co- and cross-partisan messaging without a back-fire effect. Moreover, I theorize that the military's effectiveness at messaging will allow it to influence not only general attitudes but also preferences on specific, concrete policy options. Using an experiment embedded in surveys of the American public, I present evidence that the military can influence public attitudes on climate change and the national debt. On the issue of climate change, the US military can be more effective than the scientific community at shaping public beliefs that climate change is occurring, that it is a threat to US national security, and that steps must be taken to prevent further temperature rising. This effect is particularly pronounced among Republicans when the issue is framed as a security threat, but when the scientific community delivers the same security cue, treatment effects are not present. Traditional civil-military norms prescribe that political engagement by the military may erode the public's high confidence in the military, but little attention has been given in this literature to whether the military's positions on political issues may also affect public perceptions of the military. I present evidence of a partisan public that does not value the traditional apolitical norm but instead evaluates the military's position and updates its views of the military. Democrats report higher levels of trust in and credibility of the military when exposed to the military's pro-climate position but report lower levels of trust in and credibility of the military when exposed to the military's restrictions on transgender people joining the military. By contrast, Republicans who disagree with the military's position generally resist changing their views of the military. Importantly, I illustrate the downstream effects of the military's position on its effectiveness to influence opinions on another unrelated issue. Democrats who gain trust and credibility in the military from its position on climate change are more likely to oppose transgender people serving in the military and support other organizations being allowed to incorporate someone's gender identity into employment decisions. Overall, these results show that the military can have important effects on public opinion on non-military issues, but there is a long-term risk to its institutional image the more it gets involved in these politically contentious topics.

Keywords: Political Science.
Advisor: Schultz Kenneth A. 
Sagan Scott Douglas 
Tomz Michael