Only Doves could send Nixon to China

When do leaders pursue rapprochement? A counterintuitive answer is that “only Nixon could go to China”—that Nixon’s reputation as a foreign policy hawk allowed him to pursue a conciliatory policy with China that the U.S. public would not have tolerated from a more dovish president. This hawkish advantage thesis has been premised on the basis that hawks may appear more moderate and are better able to convey the desirability of conciliation than doves. Scant attention, however, has been devoted to the individual preferences we know voters have regarding foreign policy. Yet, if we are to understand the domestic conditions that favor rapprochement, it is crucial to bring voters back to the fore of our theory. I field an original survey experiment to answer whether hawks always enjoy an advantage when pursuing peace. Experimental results suggest three main points. First, conciliation (belligerence) is most likely when voters are pacific (militant). Second, hawkish advantage dynamics only manifest when voters are militant, but these results imply the existence of an even clearer dovish advantage. Indeed, voters reward the belligerence of doves considerably more than that of hawks. However, I do not find any evidence of a hawkish advantage at conciliation when the public is pacific. Finally, I find that preferences also shape how voters perceive leader moderation and policy quality. Overall, these results emphasize the importance of the public’s type for conciliation and suggest important implications for future Sino-American relations.