Chapter 8 > Leaders and the Public > Where the Public and Leaders Agree
U.S. Report - pdf version
Leaders Questionnaire - pdf version
Public Questionnaire - pdf version

Where the Public and Leaders Agree

As indicated later in this chapter, there are many substantial disagreements between leaders and the public. But there are also areas of agreement. On just over a third (38%) of all the questions asked of both leaders and the public in 2002, the difference between the proportion of leaders and the proportion of the public taking a given position is less than 10 percentage points. Differences that small are taken as constituting agreement.

Some percentages given in this chapter differ by small amounts from those reported in previous chapters. Here, for the sake of comparability, all "don't know" and "not sure" responses were excluded before calculating percentages.

Refocused Internationalism After 9/11
The tragic events of 9/11 have had a deep impact on leaders as well as the public. Eighty-three percent of leaders, like 91% of the public, identify terrorism as a critical threat to U.S. vital interests, and 61% percent of each group judge Islamic fundamentalism to be a critical threat. Eighty-seven percent of leaders, like 92% of the public, say that combating international terrorism should be a very important foreign policy goal.

The Goal: Security at Home
The terrorist attacks spurred leaders, like ordinary Americans, to focus on security against threats to the U.S. homeland. Eighty-nine percent of the leaders, like 91% of the public, say that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy. Leaders and the public also agree on some traditional issues of national security, with 55% of leaders and 58% of the public saying that defending our allies’ security should be very important. Similar proportions of leaders and the public (59% of the public, 61% of the leaders) say that combating world hunger should be a very important foreign policy goal, while similar proportions give lower priority to other altruistic goals: only 46% of leaders, like 47% of the public, rate promoting and defending human rights in other countries as a very important goal, and only a third of each say that helping to bring a democratic form of government to other nations should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Military Superpower, With Limits
Following 9/11, the deployment and conditional use of military force has enjoyed extensive support among leaders as well as the public. Ninety percent of both leaders and public favor U.S. air strikes against terrorist training camps. Similarly large majorities of leaders (83%) and public (88%) favor using U.S. ground troops to attack terrorist camps. Nearly two-thirds of both leaders and the public favor using U.S. troops to help the government of Pakistan—if requested—against a radical Islamic revolution. While force against terrorism stands out as a priority, both leaders and public are willing to use troops in other circumstances, with majorities of more than 80% in favor of using troops for the humanitarian purpose of stopping genocide.

To execute military operations, similar proportions of both leaders and the public support the stationing of U.S. troops abroad in five of the 10 actual or potential locations for bases that we asked about. Among leaders, like the public, support is highest for bases on the soil of longtime allies or in well-established locations: about two-thirds or more of leaders, like the public, support bases in South Korea, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines. Support for tackling international challenges is also evident in the 68% of leaders and 63% of the public who favor expanded spending on gathering intelligence information about other countries. Moreover, opposition to military aid to other countries has declined significantly in both groups: the overwhelming support by three-quarters of leaders and of the public for cutting military aid to other nations in earlier Chicago Council surveys has dwindled over time by about 30 points, to 41% for leaders and 48% for the public. (By contrast, three-quarters of both groups continue to support expanded spending on education and health care.)

Leaders and ordinary Americans do, however, share some ambivalence about the extent and the conditions under which U.S. military might is deployed. Both are split concerning establishing bases in Uzbekistan and whether 44,000 troops in Japan is “too many” or “about right.” (Forty-nine per cent of leaders, like 46% of the public, say too many.) Leaders and the public join in disavowing the first use of nuclear weapons, with only a fifth of each taking the position that in certain circumstances, the United States should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack.

International Cooperation
The substantial convergence of the public and leaders on support for an active U.S. role in the world is premised on working with allies and through international organizations and agreements. Two-thirds of leaders and of the public favor the United States keeping its current commitment to the NATO military alliance with Western Europe the same. Very large majorities of three-quarters or more of each group favor the treaties to ban all use of land mines (75% of leaders, 80% of the public) and to prohibit nuclear weapons testing (83% of leaders, 85% of the public.) Majorities of 80% and more among both leaders and public favor "having joint training exercises of UN member countries so that their militaries will be better prepared to work together in combat situations."

Leaders and the public both look to diplomatic and other nonmilitary foreign policy tools. A similar 49% of leaders and 44% of citizens agree that “strengthening international law and institutions” should be a very important foreign policy goal. By overwhelming margins of 90% or more, both leaders and citizens favor diplomatic efforts to apprehend suspects and dismantle terrorist training camps, working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism and to make sure UN members enforce them, and setting up an international system to cut off funding for terrorism. For countries targeted as part of the “axis of evil,” similarly high proportions of leaders and the public favor the use of economic sanctions, with a little over 60% favoring them against North Korea and a bit over 70% favoring them against Iraq.

The Global Economy
The public and leaders share a general confidence about the U.S. position in the world economy that is intermixed with uneasiness and concern. Wariness about globalization is reflected in the 49% of leaders who agree with 56% of the public that safeguarding against global financial instability should be a very important U.S. foreign policy goal.

Both leaders and the public strongly support international trade under specific conditions. Nearly threequarters of both leaders and the public agree with the statement that “I favor free trade and I believe that it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.” A remarkable consensus of 89% of leaders and 95% of the public agree that countries that are part of international trade agreements should be required to maintain minimum standards for working conditions. Eighty-eight percent of leaders and 96% of the public say the same about minimum standards for protection of the environment. Oversized majorities of both leaders and public acknowledge the right of other countries to take certain actions that might limit U.S. sales abroad; more than 70% of both accept that the European Union and Japan should be able to require labeling of genetically modified food, even if this might keep consumers from purchasing food imported from the United States.

The public and leaders both show strong support for certain types of foreign aid for humanitarian purpos-es. Approximately three-quarters of leaders and the public
favor aid for birth control in poor countries to help reduce population growth, while even larger majorities, in the 80% range, support "aid for women’s education in poor countries to help reduce population growth."

The Changing Geopolitical Landscape
In the aftermath of 9/11, leaders and the public share a revised view of several allies and foes. Only a quarter of each group view political turmoil in Russia as a critical threat to the United States. Two-thirds of leaders and the public feel that military conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a critical threat, and majorities of 70% or more in both groups prefer that the United States not take either side in the conflict. Tensions< between India and Pakistan have surfaced as a new concern< for both leaders and the public, with majorities of more than 55% identifying this as a critical threat.

The President’s Foreign Policy Performance
In terms of the foreign policy process, both leaders and the public agree that the president exercises the most influence on U.S. foreign policy and that he should continue to do so.

General Agreement on Controversial Policies: Iraq, Nuclear Weapons, Trade , UN Rapid Deployment Force
A substantial level of agreement between the public and the leaders we surveyed (though not always meeting the criterion of a less than 10 percentage point difference) is especially striking on a dozen or so issues that are controversial in Washington. Figure 8-1 shows that only a fifth of leaders and of the public support the United States using its troops to invade Iraq and overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein even if we have to go it alone. No majority or even plurality among any of the individual groups that comprise the leadership sample supports a U.S. initiative to go it alone.

In relation to a number of questions about nuclear weapons, a similar pattern emerges. Overall, only about a fifth of leaders and of the public support the United States using nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack. No majority or even plurality among the nine groups of leaders supports the first use of nuclear weapons. Majorities of Americans and of all groups of leaders support participation in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Likewise, large majorities of the public and of all individual groups of leaders favor free trade when it is linked to government programs that help workers who lose their jobs, and they believe that international trade agreements should require participating countries to maintain minimum standards for working conditions and for protecting the environment. Large majorities of both leaders and ordinary Americans also believe that the EU and Japan should be able to require labeling of genetically modified food even if it reduces U.S. imports. Oversized majorities from the public and all groups of leaders support joint training exercises of UN member countries to prepare their militaries to work together in combat situations.

Where Public and Leaders Tend to Agree Overall, But Some Leaders Disagree

On a different set of issues, leaders as a whole tend to agree with the public, but divisions among leaders mean that majorities of certain groups of leaders—especially those involved in government policy-making—may not be in line with the public's views (see Figure 8-1 for data).