A common belief is that leaders who compromise lose public support and damage their reputation, hindering international peace.
New Insight Needed: This article challenges the idea that compromises necessarily harm a leader's domestic standing.
The Core Argument: Leaders can reduce these costs by leveraging 'proposal power'—the ability to initiate agreements—and navigating partisanship.
How We Tested It: Using survey experiments across US liberal and conservative audiences, we examined reactions to leaders proposing compromises on security and economic issues.
What We Found: Ideology matters significantly. Liberal audiences are more supportive of compromise than conservative ones.
Real-World Implication (US Case): This asymmetry means Republican presidents historically have greater leeway to negotiate international agreements without facing harsh domestic backlash.
The Takeaway: The study demonstrates that leaders can maintain, and even enhance, their ability to shape outcomes internationally by strategically managing domestic approval dynamics.
