Don't Mention the War versus Escalating Commitment: Political Party Responses to Military Casualties

Abstract

Do political parties change their position when military casualties increase? Several studies demonstrate that once military casualties increase, public support for sometimes even the government itself declines. With this potential backlash, once governing parties are faced with military casualties, do they (1) maintain that intervention was the “right thing” to do and even escalate their commitment by becoming even more pro-military or (2) try to avoid the blame and downplay the issue, i.e., “not mentioning the war”? And do the opposition parties become more negative or more positive about the military? To evaluate this, we measure the position on military issues in parties’ election manifestoes. Our dataset comprises 326 party policy changes in eleven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and focuses on post-Cold War military interventions. By using pooled time-series cross-sectional analysis, we find that opposition parties and governing parties respond differently. Generally, governing parties become more negative in their manifesto and opposition parties more positive. We also demonstrate important differences between party families and pre/post-9/11. Our analyses show that whether political parties change policy course once confronted with negative outcomes depends on their position in office, and also the direction in which they change policy depends on political ideology.