Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Going to war is dangerous, costly, and questionable for its effectiveness. Yet, majorities of the US public consistently support military interventions. Doves into Hawks explains how, with the right words, presidents persuade skeptics to approve of military action. It shows that protecting US interests is not enough to make war popular—interventions must also appear to have a humanitarian dimension, helping people in other countries. Maxey demonstrates that humanitarian justifications give traditional doves a reason to become temporary hawks, overriding their skepticism about the use of force in service of protecting foreign civilians. The result is a broader domestic coalition of support for military action. Surprisingly, these broad coalitions create more opportunities for leaders to be held accountable by the public because doves and hawks pay attention to different issues. Combining analysis of original data on presidential justifications for military force with survey experiments and archival research, Doves into Hawks changes how we think about mobilizing public support for war. Its findings highlight the public incentives that demand military action appears to do good and the unexpected ways that this demand can be good for democracy, especially in the face of increasing polarization.</jats:p>