Mad men: Non-hostile relations with autocracies and mass presidential job approval

Backing up autocracies has been a central pillar of US foreign policy for decades. This study asks whether and why citizens punish or reward presidents for engaging with autocrats. We argue that citizens base their judgments on two competing values: self-enhancement values pertaining to goals such as catering to the nation's interests, and self-transcendence values such as democratic defense. To this end, we compile a time-series dataset comprised of media, country, and presidential job approval data between 1947 and 2019 (N = 3,126). Our findings suggest that citizens do not invariably prioritize one set of values over the other. Overall, presidents receive rewards nor punishments for engaging with autocrats. Instead, we find that citizens form their judgments case by case. Citizens prioritize the nation's interests and reward presidents for engaging with important political allies. Likewise, citizens prioritize democratic ideals and punish presidents for engaging with highly repressive regimes. These findings strongly suggest that how presidents engage with autocrats reflects on their reputation at large.