Why We Sometimes Favor Aggressive Political Leadership

Leader persuasion is an essential skill for gaining popularity and enacting policy. There exists a body of political research that focuses on how, when, and why political leaders succeed. Much of the research explores “hawkish” policy, which is when leaders take an aggressive approach to international relations. Hawkish leaders are typically perceived to be stronger and more uncompromising than their dovish counterparts.² Examples include Winston Churchill, Richard Nixon, and Margaret Thatcher, who once famously reminded George Bush not to “go wobbly” in response to Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

These leaders stand opposite to “dovish” leaders, who usually advocate for more peaceful or diplomatic measures, such as Jimmy Carter, who focused on human rights with his national security policy back in 1977.¹ These categories do not necessarily define partisanship, as hawkish democrats and dovish Republicans do exist. These terms do, however, help describe the typical approaches that leaders use, especially in foreign policy matters.

Trudeau’s (failed) attempt to gain a seat at the UN Security Council highlights a misperception of hawkish policy’s success. A significant part of Trudeau’s early campaign was his promise to bring Canada a new foreign policy that contrasted the hawkish strategy used by previous governments.1 Reportedly, “Trudeau has repeatedly pointed to the 2010 failure to win a seat as a sign the Conservative approach to more hawkish foreign policy was not as effective as his own focus on multilateral and quieter diplomacy.”¹

When Canada lost, critics were quick to blame the government’s “dilettante” strategy and lack of a coherent foreign policy. His “quiet and multilateral” position was perceived to be a passive approach.^1,3 It’s plausible to think that an amicable demeanor might fair better in foreign policy, but research demonstrates the opposite to be true in many cases.