ABSTRACT
The turbulent geopolitics of the early 21st century is mirrored by polarized views about national security in the United States. What distinguishes the two groups are contrasting attitudes about whether the United States should take the lead role in solving global problems and how willing the United States should be to use military force in pursuit of its national interests. Recent U.S. foreign policy has favored the “interventionist constituency.” Represented by both hawkish conservatives and liberal humanitarian interventionists, this bloc makes up roughly 24% of the public. Nonetheless, thanks to the emergence of the “restraint constituency” the potential for a future president to chart a different course is very real. Support for intervention runs quite high among political elites, but among the general public the restraint constituency outnumbers the interventionist constituency, representing roughly 38% of the public. Today, neither group’s core followers are a majority; 40% of the public falls somewhere between the two camps and holds more mixed views about the wisdom of military intervention. For these citizens the decisive factors are typically which party holds the White House and the specific threat or situation in question. In the long run, however, the restraint constituency is poised for growth. Over 50% of Millennial-Generation Americans belong to the restraint constituency while just 18% belong to the interventionist camp.
