Presidents Abroad: The Politics of Personal Diplomacy

• Author: Toby J. Rider,Ian Ostrander
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912918809212
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918809212

Political Research Quarterly

2019, Vol. 72(4) 835 –848

© 2018 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912918809212

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Foreign travel is now regarded as one of the most quint-

essentially presidential pursuits (Doherty 2009; Ellis

2008). President Nixon’s trip to China as well as Presidents

Kennedy and Reagan’s speeches in Berlin are iconic

examples of executive action on foreign policy. Traveling

abroad allows presidents to make use of their superior

foreign policy powers to engage in face-to-face diplo-

macy and negotiate international agreements. Foreign

trips also have domestic implications. Given the pomp

and ceremony intentionally surrounding these events,

some presidential scholars suggest that presidents receive

a boost in approval by traveling abroad (Darcy and

Richman 1988; Marra, Ostrom, and Simon 1990) and

because of this benefit, they may even seek out such

opportunities (Kernell 1997). For modern presidents,

foreign travel is both a cornerstone of their foreign pol-

icy agenda as well as a hallmark of the office.

Given the ubiquity of modern presidential travel, it is

perhaps surprising that prevailing norms once effectively

barred presidents from stepping foot beyond American

borders (Ellis 2008). Many scholars have noted the extent

to which the American presidency has evolved over time

from a more traditional and constitutionally bounded

office to one that has become more powerful over time

(Burke 2000; Howell 2003). The evolution of presidential

travel similarly describes a transition from a traditional to

modern presidency.

While quite a bit of attention has focused on the expan-

sion of executive office staff (Burke 2000),1 comparatively

little attention has been given to the institutional implica-

tions behind the creation and expansion of a bureaucratic

apparatus related to presidential travel (Burton 2006). The

ability to travel is now a presidential tool commonly used

for the advancement of a foreign policy agenda.

Despite the utility of foreign travel as a tool of diplo-

macy (Lebovic and Saunders 2016), presidents face many

practical and institutional barriers to going abroad. Most

important, presidential time and attention are finite

resources while foreign policy can be a significant drain

on both (Kelley and Pevehouse 2015; Lindsey and Hobbs

2015). Personal presidential diplomacy is a task that by

definition cannot be delegated. As such, foreign travel is

limited by the executive “bottleneck” (Lindsey and Hobbs

2015), or the maximum capacity of the officeholder to be

personally involved in the process. Traveling abroad,

thus, necessarily takes time away from domestic affairs

and when the opportunity costs of foreign travel are high,

presidents may be unable to afford trips abroad. While a

president’s personal participation in foreign policy devel-

opment has proven to be valuable (Lindsey and Hobbs

809212PRQXXX10.1177/1065912918809212Political Research QuarterlyOstrander and Rider

research-article2018

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ian Ostrander, Department of Political Science, Michigan State

University, South Kedzie Hall, 368 Farm Lane, Room 303,

East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

Email: ian.ostrander@gmail.com

Presidents Abroad: The

Politics of Personal Diplomacy

Ian Ostrander1 and Toby J. Rider2

Abstract

A president’s most precious commodity is time, and nowhere is this scarcity more apparent than with respect to

international travel. Personal presidential involvement in diplomatic relations has proven to yield significant benefits,

and yet traveling to engage in face-to-face diplomacy is often prohibitively expensive for American executives in

time and attention. Given such restrictions, when and where do presidents choose to travel? We use a data set of

more than 750 presidential trips spanning more than one hundred countries and a century of history to investigate

the domestic and international factors influencing when, where, and for what reason presidents are likely to travel

abroad. We provide a detailed examination of presidential travel over time and find that domestic political contexts

influence presidential propensities to travel consistent with expectations based on allocating time and attention as

limited resources.

Keywords

U.S. presidents, diplomacy, foreign policy, presidential agenda