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 Dina Smeltz

​Polls Measure So Much More than Voting Intentions

The polling community took a lot heat following the failure of forecasters and data journalists to predict Trump's triumph in the 2016 election. But polls measure so much more than voting intentions says Council senior fellow Dina Smeltz.


| By Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura

Public Opinion in the US and China

There is perhaps no more important bilateral relationship in the world today than the one between the United States and China—the world’s two most important players in terms of economics and security. Where do the Chinese and American publics stand on key issues in the relationship, and what policies do they want to see their respective nations pursue worldwide? 



| By Diana C. Mutz

How Trade Attitudes Changed from 2012-2016

Trade was an important issue in the recent presidential election, but not in the way the media and many prominent observers have led us to believe.  The dominant narrative in the media was that disgruntled manufacturing workers whose jobs had been sent overseas emerged, understandably, as trade’s strong opponents, thus making Trump with his strong anti-trade rhetoric their natural ally.


Who Run the World? Foreign Policy Attitudes on Women and Girls

In partnership with the New America Foundation, the 2016 Chicago Council Survey included two questions developed to provide better insight about the importance of promoting women's rights and women's participation in societies around the world. 




| By Dina Smeltz

The US-Russian Relationship

The 2016 Chicago Council Survey partnered with the Levada Analytical Center in Moscow to ask Americans and Russians how they feel about each other and—more importantly—each other’s government. 


| By Richard C. Eichenberg

Gender Difference in Foreign Policy Opinions: Implications for 2016

There are three patterns in American politics that take on special significance in 2016: the gender divide in Presidential elections; the low support for Donald Trump among women; and the growing discussion in the foreign policy community about the inclusion of women in the policy process. Nonresident fellow Richard Eichenberg explores the extent of gender difference in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey data and assesses the relevance of any differences to this year’s presidential election.