November 10, 2016 | By Dina Smeltz, Craig Kafura

US Opinion Leaders Tend to Respond to Vocal Minorities among the Public

Under the aegis of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Texas National Security Network, we have just concluded a survey of nearly 500 leaders working for U.S. institutions with expertise on U.S. foreign policy. They are drawn from the Executive Branch, Congress, think tanks, academia, media, business, labor unions, religious organizations, and interest groups.

These foreign policy leaders strongly support international engagement but substantially underestimate public support for international engagement, globalization, and immigration. Foreign policy leaders respond to an outspoken and passionate segment of the US public and mistakenly believe they are representative of wider public opinion.

At least nine in ten leaders across partisan lines support the United States taking an active part in world affairs (99% of Democrats, 93% of Republicans, and 91% of Independents). Yet when asked to speculate what proportion of the American public felt the same way, the leaders’ average estimate for public support was well below reality. Leaders from partisan groups all distinctly underestimated public support: as shown in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey, nearly two in three Americans support taking an active part in world affairs. Yet Republican, Democratic, and Independent opinion leaders' estimates of public support are between fifteen and twenty points lower than reality. 

The survey found an even larger division between public opinion and leaders' perceptions on globalization. While overwhelming majorities of opinion leaders agree that globalization is mostly good for the United States (93% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans, and 84% of Independents), they do not think the public shares that view. Estimates range from one in five--among Republican leaders--to one in three--among Independent leaders. But all of these are drastic underestimates: in reality, two in three Americans (65%) say that globalization is mostly good for the US.

These findings among the public are also not a recent development. Over the past several decades, the American public has consistently supported a policy of international engagement and globalization. In the 2016 Chicago Council Survey released earlier this fall, majorities across party lines said the US should play an active role in world affairs (70% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans, and 57% of Independents), though only half among Donald Trump's core supporters (those who preferred Trump above all other Presidential candidates in the primary). Cross-partisan majorities also say that globalization is mostly good (74% of Democrats, 59% of Republicans, and 61% of Independents), with core Trump supporters divided (49% mostly good).

On other foreign policy issues, such as support for the US commitment to NATO, maintaining superior US military power, and continuing bases overseas are shared across party lines and run counter to Donald Trump’s criticisms of U.S. allies. In short, foreign policy leaders strongly support international engagement but mistake loud voices for broader public opinion. 

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

The Urban-Rural Divide?

Are Americans as divided along geographic lines when it comes to key foreign policy matters as their voting patterns suggest? 

| By Karl Friedhoff

Moon Jae-In's Victory Does Not Put US-Korea Alliance at Risk

With the election of Moon Jae-In to the presidency of South Korea, there are concerns that the US-Korea alliance hangs in the balance. Those fears are overblown. While there are rough waters ahead, much of that will emanate from the Trump administration's handling of cost-sharing negotiations in the near future.

| By Dina Smeltz

The Foreign Policy Blob Is Bigger Than You Think

The Blob isn't just science fiction. When it comes to US foreign policy, its reach is far and wide with wide swaths of agreement between foreign policy elite and the general public. A new report from the Council and the Texas National Security Network explains.

| By Dina Smeltz

American Views of Israel Reveal Partisan and Generational Divides

Despite partisan differences on taking a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the status of US-Israel bilateral relations, overall trends from Chicago Council Survey data indicate that the relationship between the United States and Israel will continue to be viewed warmly by the American public.

#TBT: That Time We All Feared Chemical and Biological Weapons

In the spirit of Throw Back Thursday, Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at America’s foreign policy feelings of old. This week, we’re looking at Council data on Americans' perceptions of the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons in the late 90s and early 00s.

| 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. 

This Presidential Election Was All about Identity, Not Qualities and Issues

Donald Trump just pulled off one of the most stunning upsets in American political history, capturing the presidency last Tuesday night. How did it happen? This election was all about identity politics, with Trump able to connect with non-college whites, especially white men without a college degree.

| 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.

Pages