In political science, the rally 'round the flag effect, also referred to as the rally 'round the flag syndrome, is the phenomenon of increased short-run popular support of a country's government or political leaders during periods of international crisis or war.Goldstein, Joshua S.; Pevehouse, Jon C. (2008). International Relations: Eighth Edition. New York: Pearson Longman. Because the effect can reduce criticism of governmental policies, it can be seen as a factor of diversionary foreign policy. The concept originated in analysis of the United States during the Cold War, but has since been applied to governments around the world.

Mueller definition Political scientist John Mueller suggested the effect in an American context in 1970, in a paper called "Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson". He defined it as coming from an event with three qualities:

"Is international" "Involves the United States and particularly the President directly" "Specific, dramatic, and sharply focused"

In addition, Mueller created five categories of rallies. Mueller's five categories are: Sudden US military intervention (e.g., Korean War, Bay of Pigs Invasion) Major diplomatic actions (e.g., Truman Doctrine) Dramatic technological developments (e.g., Sputnik) US-Soviet summit meetings (e.g., Potsdam Conference) Major military developments in ongoing wars (e.g., Tet Offensive) These categories are considered dated by modern political scientists, as they rely heavily on Cold War events.

The name of the effect was taken from "Battle Cry of Freedom", an American Civil War song that urged union supporters to "rally 'round the flag" and was used for Abraham Lincoln's re-election campaign.

Causes and duration Since Mueller's original theories, two schools of thought have emerged to explain the causes of the effect. The first, "The Patriotism School of Thought" holds that in times of crisis, the American public sees the head of state as the embodiment of national unity, rather than as an actual political figure as they are perceived as in times of peace. The second, "The Opinion Leadership School" believes that the rally emerges from a lack of criticism from members of the opposition party, most often in the United States Congress. If opposition party members appear to support the head of state, the media has no conflict to report, thus it appears to the public that all is well with the performance of the president. The two theories have both been criticized, but it is generally accepted that the Patriotism School of thought is better to explain causes of rallies, while the Opinion Leadership School of thought is better to explain duration of rallies. It is also believed that the lower the presidential approval rating before the crisis, the larger the increase will be in terms of percentage points because it leaves the president more room for improvement. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt only had a 12pp increase in approval from 72% to 84% following the Attack on Pearl Harbor, whereas George W. Bush had a 39pp increase from 51% to 90% following the September 11 attacks.

Another theory about the cause of the effect is believed to be embedded in the US Constitution. Unlike in other countries, the constitution makes the President both head of government and head of state. Because of this, the president receives a temporary boost in popularity because his Head of State role gives him symbolic importance to the American people. However, as time goes on his duties as Head of Government require partisan decisions that polarize opposition parties and diminish popularity. This theory falls in line more with the Opinion Leadership School.

Due to the highly statistical nature of presidential polls, University of Alabama political scientist John O'Neal has approached the study of rally 'round the flag using mathematics. O'Neal has postulated that the Opinion Leadership School is the more accurate of the two using mathematical equations. These equations are based on quantified factors such as the number of headlines from The New York Times about the crisis, the presence of bipartisan support or hostility, and prior popularity of the president..

Political Scientist from The University of California Los Angeles, Matthew A. Baum found that the source of a rally 'round the flag effect is from independents and members of the opposition party shifting their support behind the President after the rallying effect. Baum also found that when the country is more divided or in a worse economic state then the rally effect is larger. This is because more people who are against the president before the rallying event switch to support him afterwards. When the country is divided before the rallying event there is a higher potential increase in support for the President after the rallying event.

In a study by Political Scientist Terrence L. Chapman and Dan Reiter, rallies in Presidential approval ratings were found to be bigger when there was U.N. Security Council supported Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). Having U.N. Security Council support was found to increase the rally effect in presidential approval by 8 to 9 points compared to when there was not U.N. Security Council support.

According to a 2019 study of ten countries in the period 1990–2014, there is evidence of a rally-around-the-flag effect early on in an intervention with military casualties (in at least the first year) but voters begin to punish the governing parties after 4.5 years. A 2021 study found weak effects for the rally-around-the-flag effect. A 2023 study found that militarized interstate disputes, on average, decrease public support for national leaders rather than increase it.

A 2022 study applies the same logic of rally effects to crisis termination instead of just onset. Using all available public presidential polling and crisis data from 1953 to 2016, the researchers found that a president received a three-point increase to their approval rating, on average, when terminating an international crisis. They suggest that the surge in approvals is as much related to a proof of a president's foreign affairs competency, as it is related to a mutual camaraderie in defense of the nation. Additionally, the suggestion that a president can achieve approval boosts via ending conflict instead of initiating conflict makes less cynical assumptions about the options within a president's toolkit and provide an additional avenue for inquiry into diversionary war theories.

Historical examples

The effect has been examined within the context of nearly every major foreign policy crisis since World War II. Some notable examples:

World War I

During World War I, most belligerents saw a lessening of partisanship. Most socialist parties abandoned their pledges to oppose wars and endorsed their governments, leading to the break-up of the Second International. This was part of the Spirit of 1914 In the German Empire, the Social Democratic Party enabled the German entry into the war by voting in favor of war credits at the Reichstag and supported the government for most of the war. Kaiser Wilhelm II subsequently declared a Burgfrieden in which normal partisan politics would be suspended. The French Third Republic declared a similar Sacred Union which was embraced by most socialist parties. The French Section of the Workers' International leader Jean Jaurès was assassinated while preparing to give what the French nationalist assassin Raoul Villain believed would be a pacifist speech. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland also saw a lessening of political instability and militancy as Irish nationalist, suffragette, and trade unionist dissidents supported the war. In particular the Curragh mutiny, in which many Ulster Protestants and some officers of the British Armed Forces with the support of the Conservative Party refused to recognize the impending implementation of Irish Home Rule and threatened civil war, immediately ended with the British entry into the war and an upswell of support for the Liberal government. Later, the Coalition Liberal-Conservative government of David Lloyd George used its wartime support to call a "coupon election" in 1918 in which candidates endorsed by the government with a "Coalition Coupon" won a massive landslide and decimated the Liberal Party.

World War II

During World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill enjoyed massive popularity in the United Kingdom for opposing the National Government's foreign policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany before the war and for saving the country from near-defeat in the Battle of Britain afterwards. All major parties in the British Parliament, including the opposition Labour Party, joined Churchill's war ministry. His approval ratings never declined below 78 percent for his entire wartime premiership. Churchill's personal popularity did not extend to the Conservative Party, which opposed the welfare state and nationalisation advocated by Labour and remained associated with appeasement and interwar unemployment and poverty. As a result, the Conservatives heavily lost the 1945 general election to Labour.

Contemporary history

United States Cuban Missile Crisis: According to Gallup polls, President John F. Kennedy's approval rating in early October 1962 was at 61%. By November, after the crisis had passed, Kennedy's approval rose to 74%. The spike in approval peaked in December 1962 at 76%. By June 1963, Kennedy's approval rating had declined to its pre-crisis level of 61%. Iran hostage crisis: According to Gallup polls, President Jimmy Carter saw his approval rating surge to 61%, up 23 points from his pre-crisis rating,Survey Finds Carter's Popularity Has Risen Sharply in Iran Crisis . The New York Times. 10 December 1979. Retrieved 26 September 2024. following the initial seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979. However, Carter's handling of the crisis caused popular support to decrease, and by November 1980 Carter had returned to his pre-crisis approval rating.. Gulf War: According to Gallup polls, President George H. W. Bush was rated at 59% approval in January 1991, but following the success of Operation Desert Storm, Bush enjoyed a peak 89% approval rating in February 1991. Bush's approval rating then substantially declined, returning to its pre-crisis level of 61% in October. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush received an unprecedented increase in his approval rating. On 10 September, Bush had a Gallup Poll rating of 51%. By 15 September, his approval rate had increased by 34 percentage points to 85%. Just a week later, Bush was at 90%, the highest presidential approval rating ever. Over a year after the attacks occurred, Bush still received higher approval than he did before 9/11 (68% in November 2002). Both the size and duration of Bush's popularity after 9/11 are believed to be the largest of any post-crisis boost. Many people believe that this popularity gave Bush a mandate and eventually the political leverage to invade Iraq in 2003. Killing of Osama bin Laden: According to Gallup polls, President Barack Obama received a slight uptick in his approving ratings following the 2 May 2011 killing of bin Laden, jumping from 45% in late April to 53% after bin Laden's death was announced. The rally effect did not last long, as Obama's approval ratings were back down to 45% by 15 July. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Following the shooting in December 2012, President Obama received another slight uptick in approval according to Gallup, increasing from 50% before the shooting to 56% shortly after.Newport, Frank (20 December 2012). . Gallup Organization. Retrieved 27 October 2024. The rally effect was over by 17 January 2013.