Free trade is not a topic discussed at length in the media, and when it is discussed it is not usually about the positives. The subject comes up now as Congress debates granting President Obama Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (The specifics of those deals is beyond the scope of this posting, but for thorough summaries of each see here and here. Note: both links point to PDFs.)
The ongoing tussle has caught the media’s attention because it has allied Congressional Republicans with President Obama as the president faces a revolt within his own party. All groups involved likely think they are acting in the interests of their electoral bases—or at least in the interest of their financial supporters—but who is more closely aligned with the public? That depends on which poll you cite and how you interpret the results.
The most recent (April 26-30) NBS News/Wall Street Journal survey shows that 37 percent think that free trade has helped the United States. While that is a plurality of respondents, nearly as many (31%) thought it hurt the US and 25 percent said it made little difference. That is not a clear consensus.
That same poll returned mixed results on NAFTA. Though 29% thought the impact was positive, 26 percent thought it was negative, and 32 percent said it had little impact.
A recently released survey of elite and public opinion by the Chicago Council also offers mixed results on trade. While two-thirds of the public says globalization is mostly good, just 14 percent of the overall public unconditionally favor lowering trade barriers. That number was 37 percent among Republican leaders and only 5 percent among Democratic leaders.
Instead, support among the public (50%) for lowering of trade barriers is based on the government establishing programs to help those that lose their jobs due to free trade. This is not robust support for free trade, suggesting opposition could rise should those programs be insufficient. Speaking of opposition, it should be noted that nearly one-third (31%) of the public opposed lowering trade barriers altogether.
Also of importance is that the questionnaire used the term “trade barriers” rather than free trade—a charged term. This leaves the possibility that responses may have differed significantly had the latter term been used.
A Gallup poll from earlier this year finds that 58 percent cited global trade as an opportunity versus 33% that cited it as a threat. But the same was not true in previous years. Positive attitudes on trade have ebbed and flowed. From 2005 to 2012, a plurality either cited that “foreign trade” was a threat or attitudes were evenly split.
Finally, a CBS News/New York Times poll from April 2009 found that 66 percent cited trade with other countries as good. But 60 percent of all respondents also noted that restrictions on that trade were necessary.
So what does this mean for TPP? In the previously cited Chicago Council survey, six-in-ten members of the public support the initiative. Combined with the other results, there does seem to be some level of goodwill toward free trade. But there is also enough data to call into question exactly how free that trade should be.
This is precisely what makes it such a contentious issue on Capitol Hill. Both sides have the polling and both sides think they are acting in the interest of the public. With nearly one-half of the public stating free trade is an issue they do not think much about, there is a lot of space for political maneuvering. Being aligned with the public on this issue can be as easy as grabbing the nearest—or at least the most convenient—survey results.
Dina Smeltz joined The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February 2012 as a senior fellow in public opinion and foreign policy, and directed the Council’s 2012 survey of American public opinion (see Foreign Policy in the New Millennium). She has nearly 20 years of experience in designing and fielding international social, political and foreign policy surveys.
As the director of research in the Middle East and South Asia division (2001-2007) and analyst/director of the European division (1992-2004) in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department’s Office of Research, Dina conducted over a hundred surveys in these regions and regularly briefed senior government officials on key research findings. Her experience includes mass public and elite surveys as well as qualitative research. She has written numerous policy-relevant reports on Arab, Muslim and South Asian regional attitudes toward political, economic, social and foreign policy issues. Her writing also includes policy briefs and reports on the post-1989 political transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, and European attitudes toward a wide range foreign policy issues including globalization, European integration, immigration, NATO, and European security.
With a special emphasis research in post-conflict situations (informally referred to as a “combat pollster”), Dina has worked with research teams in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel-Palestinian Territories and in Iraq (2003-2005), where she was one of the few people on the ground who could accurately report average Iraqis impressions of the postwar situation. In the past three years, Dina has consulted for several NGOs and research organizations on projects spanning women’s development in Afghanistan, civil society in Egypt and evaluating voter education efforts in Iraq.
Dina has an MA from the University of Michigan and a BS from Pennsylvania State University.
Feel free to email Dina with comments or questions at firstname.lastname@example.org
Publics in South Korea and Japan agree on the problems that need to be resolved, but there's little optimism they can find solutions.
In recent years, partisanship has become a major factor in foreign policy attitudes in the Chicago Council Surveys; not so long ago opinions on foreign policy seemed immune to partisan impulses. Here are seven striking examples from the 2018 Chicago Council Survey.
It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.
As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.
President Trump pulled the United States out of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations last year. But a majority of Americans seem to wish he hadn’t done that.
Past surveys have found that Americans want to cut US spending on foreign assistance and dramatically overestimate how much the US spends on those programs. When asked to construct their own US budget in the 2018 Chicago Council Survey, Americans allocate far more than the US actually spends.
While many headlines have declared that Donald Trump is remaking the Republican party in his image, a new 2018 Chicago Council Survey finds that not all Republican Party supporters have adopted the president’s positions. There is more than one GOP faction alive and kicking.
National Security Advisor John Bolton says "the International Criminal Court is already dead to us." Americans disagree.
A new joint report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center finds experts have little hope for US-Russia relations in the near future.
Attitudes and beliefs frequently change from generation to generation and a new joint study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, CATO Institute, and Charles Koch Institute explores generational differences between the American public on foreign policy issues.
The path to Singapore just got a little bumpy as North Korea reinforces message that denuclearization, if it comes at all, will not come cheap.
The April 27 inter-Korean summit was largely successful in the eyes of the South Korean public. It has created momentary trust in North Korea, and if that lasts, may lead the public to ask serious questions about the US-South Korea alliance.
When it comes to reunification, South Koreans take pause. A quick reunification likely has serious cosequences for the South, and is not much favored by the South Korean public. Instead, the status quo is generally favored, and those views are often conditioned by the actions of North Korea.
In the coming months, there will be a flurry of diplomatic activity on the Korean Peninsula. This is good news for many South Koreans, even though the South Korea public still has doubts about North Korea's true intentions.
Millennials have become the most populous living generation in the United States, overtaking Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in becoming the largest voting body. So what do Millennials want, and what are some of their noticeable generational differences? A recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs event featuring Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL2), former Congressman Bob Dold (R-IL10), POLITICO’s Natasha Korecki, and Council pollster Craig Kafura, discussed Millennial attitudes and the Millennial political agenda.