January 3, 2019 | By Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz

Seven Examples Where Partisan Divisions on Foreign Policy Widened in 2018

According to Pew surveys, dislike of the opposing political party and loyalty to one’s own party greatly influenced voting decisions in the 2018 midterm elections. 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.

While Democrats and Republicans still generally agree on the importance of US engagement in the world, the need for a US military presence abroad, and the benefits of free trade to the US economy, they have grown wider apart on several key international issues. Here are some highlights of those increasing divisions from the past decades of Chicago Council Surveys.

1. Illegal Immigration

In 1998 and 2002 similar percentages of Republicans and Democrats agreed that controlling and reducing illegal immigration should be a very important foreign policy goal. But starting in 2004, American public opinion began fracturing along partisan lines. Generally, about seven in ten Republicans considered this a high priority since first asked this question in 1994. But the percentage of Democrats that agreed steadily fell, reaching an all-time low in 2018 (to just 20% saying this is a very important goal). In fact, this is the largest gap between Republicans and Democrats ever on this question and of all questions asked in the 2018 survey.



 

2. Support for NAFTA

Republicans and Democrats now equally agree that free trade is good for the US economy, consumers and job creation, though during President Obama’s tenure Republicans were much less positive than Democrats. While they agree on the potential that trade can bring, in recent years Democrats are more positive than Republicans about existing trade agreements, including NAFTA.

While differences between Democrats and Republicans on NAFTA were in the single digits until 2008, views on the agreement at this point are at their widest ever with a 36-37 percentage point difference in views in the last two years. Eight in ten Democrats (79%) now say NAFTA is good for the US economy, while only 43 percent of Republicans agree. Importantly, support for NAFTA is now at its highest level ever recorded in Chicago Council Surveys, increasing 10 percentage points over the past year (from 53% to 63%).



 

3. Commitment to NATO

In Chicago Council Surveys conducted during the Cold War, Republicans were more likely to favor increasing or maintaining US commitment to NATO, reflecting hawkish views towards the Soviet Union. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Democrats have been more likely to favor increasing or maintaining commitments to the Alliance, surpassing the highest level of support among Republicans (in 1986). Democrats seem to have solidified their support for NATO – and Republicans have become softer on the alliance – even more in the aftermath of President Trump’s criticisms of the alliance and leaders of allied countries. The 2018 Chicago Council Survey revealed the largest percentage point difference between Republicans and Democrats on this question, a 22 percentage point difference.



 

4. Opinion of Russia

An interesting finding from the 2018 survey: as Democrats have firmed up their support for NATO in the past year, Republican views of Russia – though still largely unfavorable – grew more positive. In the past, regardless of political affiliation, Americans generally felt similarly about Russia within a few percentage points. But Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election had a significant and differential impact on Republicans and Democrats’ views toward Moscow. Out of a possible highest positive feeling of 100 degrees, Republicans gave Russia a 39-degree rating, an increase of five percentage points over the previous year, while Democrats average rating was 25 degrees. This is the widest gap between the two partisan groupings since the first time the Chicago Council asked this question during the Cold War.



 

5. Emphasis on Maintaining US Military Superiority

In 1998, six in ten Republicans and Democrats expressed the view that maintaining US military superiority is a very important goal. Then the September 11 attacks happened, and Republicans and Democrats grew further apart on how much emphasis to place on military superiority, mainly because Democrats began placing lesser priority on military might. In fact, the 2018 survey revealed the largest ever gap between Democrats and Republicans who think maintaining military superiority is a very important goal, a 29 percentage point difference.



 

6. Emphasis on Strengthening the United Nations

While Democrats have become likely than Republicans to focus on projecting US power through military superiority, Republicans have become less likely to focus on projecting US influence through strengthening the United Nations. From 1974 until 1998, the American public was fairly united in their views about the United Nations. But since then, the public has steadily grown apart about the importance of strengthening the United Nations. Today, while six in ten Democrats (61%) think strengthening the UN is a very important foreign policy goal, less than a third of Republicans (29%) and about a third of Independents (34%) feel the same way. For Democrats, the importance of strengthening the UN reached a high in 2018 not seen since 2002.



 

7. Protecting Weaker Nations

In the last decade, the importance of protecting weaker nations against foreign aggression as a foreign policy goal of the United States has been growing apart for Democrats and Republicans. When the question was first asked in 1974 both Republicans and Democrats had similar views on this topic; however, today, 42 percent of Democrats agree that it is a very important goal compared to 24 percent of Republicans. Since this question was first asked, this is the biggest gap between Republicans and Democrats yet recorded (18 percentage points).


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

It's Not Easy Being Green

The Obama Administration’s energy strategy has evolved over time, viewing the production of natural gas and nuclear energy as a transitional stage in shifting away from dependence on fossil fuels to reliance on cleaner energy sources. 




| By Dina Smeltz

Best Picture (of all time)

In honor of the 85th annual Academy awards (now officially rebranded as The Oscars) being presented on Sunday, this week I am sharing  the results of a 2012 survey of international film critics and directors conducted by Sight and Sound, a British monthly film magazine published by the British Film Institute.


| By Dina Smeltz

Like Father, Like Son

Last summer the New York Times reported that some North Korea watchers wondered whether rising hem lines and heels among women on the streets of downtown Pyongyang signaled that Kim Jong-un would lead the country in a different style than his father, Kim Jong-il.



| By Dina Smeltz

Home Deport

Last week several papers reported that President Obama will seek a comprehensive, not incremental, immigration reform package in his second term and he doesn't want to carry the legacy of Deporter in Chief.