Graduate Spotlight: Drew Hogan's Dissertation Earns Predoctoral Fellowship at George Washington University

Graduate student Drew Hogan has recently secured a predoctoral fellowship with George Washington University. Here he discusses his research on the effect of rhetoric on foreign policy, including how politicians utilize rhetoric to sway public opinion; and how this rhetoric can be both effective and a hindrance.

What do you study and how did you become interested in it?

I study how the rhetoric [that] leaders use affects the foreign policy decisions they make. My current project asks a simple question: why does America seem to get stuck in so many foreign interventions? I argue that [the way that] leaders publicly justify conflicts is integral to successful war termination.

Specifically, how “cascade rhetoric”—like the fear of communist expansion throughout Asia that justified the Vietnam War—is particularly useful in building broad and cohesive coalitions in wartime. By suggesting that intervening, or failing to intervene, will create a regional and global ‘chain reaction,’ such rhetoric magnifies the stakes of war. However, by forging a coalition whose identity is tied to the war, cascade rhetoric risks locking states into failing interventions.

What brought you to the University of Minnesota?

I chose the University of Minnesota because of the excellent faculty that are committed to graduate student success. I have had terrific advising from Ron Krebs, Mark Bell, and Dan Myers, amongst others. My success and opportunities today would not have been possible without them!

What questions and ideas are you most interested in exploring right now?

For a chapter of my dissertation, I am currently working on crafting a survey experiment that examines how the rhetoric about an intervention affects public support. For the experiment, I will hold constant the 'type' of intervention (i.e., to fight terrorism) but will vary the rhetoric about that intervention (i.e., the consequences and the reason for the intervention).

What are the biggest takeaways from your research?

Rhetoric matters and has unexpected, long-term consequences. While leaders can use rhetoric for strategic purposes, it can constrain their options in the future. For example, [U.S.] President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) used domino rhetoric to legitimize the Vietnam War. It worked in the short run as public support for the war was high. However, by using this rhetoric LBJ elevated the prominence of conservative Republicans who enthusiastically supported the war as the crux of the fight against global communism. This weakened a core part of LBJ's political coalition, liberal Republicans, who expressed a desire to disengage as the war continued. Thus, as LBJ and [U.S. President Richard] Nixon after him sought to wind down the war they had to contend with powerful conservative Republicans who pushed for a maximum standard of victory in Vietnam.

What's next for you?

I have received a predoctoral fellowship from the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University. I will move to Washington DC in late August [2025] to be a fellow for a year in the program! This opportunity will allow me to expand my network both with academics and policymakers.

This story was edited by Rory Schaefer, an undergraduate student in CLA.