There is also some truth behind these fears. In a 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Chicago Council Survey veteran Ben Page argue that the US public is merely ‘semi-sovereign’, achieving their goals when they align with the powerful, falling short when they diverge. The argument touched such a nerve that the two academics were invited on the Daily Show. Their paper does not stand alone: other work has shown that while the public does not always get its way, some groups within the public are more likely to get what they want than others.
The public and foreign policy
In the most recent 2014 Chicago Council Survey of American public opinion, (1,877 respondents, fielded May 6-29, 2014) Americans were asked their impressions of how large a gap, if any, exists today between American public opinion and decisions taken by American political leaders. A majority described the gap as large, with 42 percent saying it is “very large,” and another 45 percent saying it is “somewhat large” (10 percent say it is “somewhat small,” and just 2 percent say “very small”).
Americans were also asked to rate various groups’ influence on US foreign policy on a scale from 0 to 10, with ten being the most influential. When asked about the American public, the public rated its influence at an average of 4.8 out of 10, tied for second-lowest.
Who runs the world? Who should?
So if Americans do think they are not influential, who do they think runs US foreign policy? The public rates the President (mean of 7.4) and Congress (6.9) as the two most influential. In third are large corporations (6.8), followed by military leaders (6.3) and U.S. interest groups (6.0).
These groups aren’t always the ones Americans want to be running the show. As the figure below shows, the public wants to be far more influential, and wants large corporations and the media to be far less influential.
When the public was asked which of groups should have the greatest influence on US foreign policy from a scale of 0 to ten, Americans felt that on average, the American public should have the greatest level of influence (mean of 7.9), followed by the President (7.5). Congress and military leaders are rated an average of 6.6 and 6.2 respectively. All other groups were rated below a 5.0, including large corporations (3.6) and the media (3.4).
Opinion leaders have low opinion of public influence
However, the 2014 Chicago Council Survey did not end with asking the public’s views. For the first time since 2004, the Council also surveyed 668 opinion leaders from May 19 to August 1, 2014. Those surveyed included both policy experts (those working in Congress or Executive-branch agencies, think-tank fellows, academics) and interest groups (business, religious organizations, labor, NGOs).
As the figure below makes clear, while absolute values differ, the general rankings of foreign policy influence are broadly consistent between the both the public and opinion leaders. Both the public and leaders view the President and Congress as having the most influence. Both say large corporations have significant influence, though leaders are more likely to give greater weight to military leaders. Interest groups and the media round out the next tier of influence with averages of at least 6.0. Finally, both leaders and the public rated the American public near the lowest in influence, along with universities and think tanks and religious leaders.
Varied influence, similar policy desires?
Despite these perceived gaps of policy influence, on many issues the opinions of foreign policy decision makers and average Americans coincide, at least in a general sense if not always to the same degree. Both the public and leaders emphasized the importance of US leadership in the world, saw common top goals and threats, supported the US military presence abroad, favored signing international treaties on a host of issues, and supported globalization and free trade.
The most conspicuous discrepancies between the two groups are on the public’s greater domestic focus on protecting American jobs, expanding social security, and reducing US energy dependence. The public is also more concerned with the threat of Iran’s nuclear program. Leaders, in turn, show greater concern about the threat of climate change and are more likely to emphasize the importance of defending allies. While some of these differences are classic elite-public foreign policy gaps, others are driven by partisan divisions, as is the case on issues such as climate change and immigration.
At the same time as US policy leaders say the public has relatively little influence, they also underestimate public support for international engagement. When asked to estimate what proportion of the US public supports playing an active part in world affairs, on average, opinion leaders guess that less than half the public favors an active part (42% among Republican leaders, 43% among Democratic leaders, 45% among Independent leaders). This misperception among opinion leaders helps feed the ongoing myth of American isolationism, a myth the 2014 Chicago Council Survey continues to disprove.
When it comes to the question of the public's influence on foreign policy, opinion leaders and the public may well be correct. Indeed, the data from Page and Gilens' work suggests that both groups are indeed justified in saying that the public is uninfluential. But the public is certainly not happy about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
New survey evidence suggests that leaders strongly support international engagement but substantially underestimate public support for international engagement, globalization, and immigration among the broader American public.
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.
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.
What are the most interesting results from the Council's annual survey of Americans’ views on foreign policy? Dina Smeltz, senior fellow on public opinion and foreign policy, shares her "top five" list of surprising findings from the 2016 Chicago Council Survey.
On October 6, 2016 the Chicago Council released the results of its 2016 Chicago Council Survey. Get the full report.
Karl Friedhoff takes a look at American attitudes on South Korea from data in the 2016 Chicago Council Survey.
Karl Friedhoff takes a quick look at American public opinion on North Korea in light of its 5th nuclear test.
Trump surrogate Marco Gutierrez warned of "taco trucks on every corner." But from immigrant gateways like Chicago to unexpected places like Duluth, much of America already has—and embraces—a taco truck on its corner.
Results from the 2016 Chicago Council Survey reveal that international trade and globalization remain popular with the American public.
The idea of an "exceptional" United States is on the decline among Americans.
The June 10-27 Chicago Council Survey finds that the American public considers international terrorism to be the most critical threat facing the nation. In combating terrorism Americans say that almost all options should be on the table, yet a large majority expect that occasional acts of terror will be a part of life in the future.
The 2016 Chicago Council Survey, conducted June 10-27, reveals that Americans across partisan lines support limited military actions in Syria that combine air strikes and the use of Special Operations Forces. There are deep partisan divides on accepting Syrian refugees, and widespread skepticism toward arming anti-government groups or negotiating a deal that would leave President Assad in power.