June 3, 2015 | By Dina Smeltz, Craig Kafura

Partisan Leaders and Public United on Foreign Policy Goals, Divided on Means


Across party lines the US public and US opinion leaders largely agree on the general direction of American foreign policy, says a new report from The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, though there are large partisan disagreements on several key issues. These significant differences of opinion on Iran, the use of US troops abroad and US participation in some international treaties may present significant challenges to addressing today’s foreign policy concerns.
 
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs surveyed nearly 700 opinion leaders — including those in Congress and executive branch agencies; think tank fellows; leaders of NGOs; academics; and leaders of labor unions, religious organizations. and multinational corporations. This sampling was then compared to a broader survey of Americans. While disagreements among leaders often are wider than among the public, the findings show opinion leaders and the American public agree on many issues of foreign policy. Both the public and leaders emphasize the importance of American leadership abroad, see common goals and threats and support globalization and free trade.
 
The survey shows agreement in the following areas:
  • Whether they describe themselves as Democrats, Republicans or Independents, foreign policy leaders and the public generally agree on the most critical foreign policy threats, including cyberattacks, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
  • Both groups also see preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, combatting international terrorism and securing adequate supplies of energy as top foreign policy priorities.
  • Leaders and the public both endorse continued US international engagement and US military presence abroad.
 
Republicans, Democrats and Independents diverge in a few key areas, namely whether the best approach to address foreign policy issues is through the projection of military strength or multilateralism:
  • Republican leaders and Republicans among the public emphasize US military superiority and favor use of ground troops to attack terrorist training camps, support maintaining long-term military bases in Guantanamo Bay and support military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  • Democratic leaders and public are more supportive of multilateral approaches, including working through the United Nations and using US troops for potential peacekeeping in Syria or Israel-Palestine, and are more concerned about climate change than are Republicans. Democratic leaders oppose use of force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while Democratic members of the public support the use of force for this purpose.
  • Independents generally prefer to avoid the use of US military force, though Independent leaders are closer to Republicans in prioritizing US military superiority while the Independent public is closer to the Democrats.
 
Aside from partisan differences, The Chicago Council data reveals a few cases where opinion leaders’ views do not align with public concerns. In general, more foreign policy leaders express support for US international involvement than the public. In addition:
  • Among leaders, no more than 4 in 10 consider protecting American jobs a “very important” foreign policy goal, and at most half of leaders say that reducing US dependence on foreign oil is a “very important goal.” But these are among the leading priorities for the US public, with between 7 and 8 out of 10 Americans emphasizing these concerns.
  • Leaders, regardless of party, do not consider reducing illegal immigration a “very important” foreign policy goal, in contrast to a majority of the Republican public who do.
  • In many cases the partisan gaps are wider among policy leaders than among the public, including on issues concerning Iran, climate change, military bases and international treaties.
 
The 2014 Chicago Council Survey was made possible by the generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, the Korea Foundation, the United States-Japan Foundation and the personal support of Lester Crown and the Crown family.

The full dataset for the public survey is currently available, and the opinion leaders survey dataset will be available shortly. 

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy. 

The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion. 

The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.

Archive








| By Bettina Hammer

Americans Aren't Fans of Arms Sales

The United States has long been the tops arms supplier in the world. Yet public opinion data shows that Americans aren’t fans of U.S. arms sales.


| By Bettina Hammer

Little Admiration for the United States among MENA Publics

Most Americans believe that respect and admiration for the United States are instrumental in achieving US foreign policy goals. But a new poll finds publics in the Middle East and North Africa continue to view the United States unfavorably. 


| By Bettina Hammer

Peace to Prosperity Misses the Mark with Palestinians

At the June 25-26 Bahrain Peace to Prosperity Workshop, Jared Kushner presented the first component of a U.S. peace plan for the Middle East. But how does this plan sit with the Palestinian public?



| By Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm

Scholars vs the Public: Collapse of the INF Treaty

In early February 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following President Trump’s October 2018 (and the Obama administration’s July 2014) accusations that Russia was failing to comply with the treaty. Russia withdrew from the treaty the next day.

Findings from a February 2019 Chicago Council on Global Affairs general public survey and a December 2018 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of International Relations (IR) scholars around the world illustrate how these different populations perceive the collapse of the INF Treaty.



| By Craig Kafura

Expert Panel Survey: US Focus on the Denuclearization of North Korea

Despite expectations for the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, their recent summit in Hanoi ended with no agreement toward denuclearization. With that in mind, we asked our panel of foreign policy experts whether the United States should continue to focus primarily on denuclearization, or shift to arms control and non-proliferation.