84 Percent Worried About How Things Are Going for the United States in World Affairs

NEW YORK CITY – Rising fears about the health of the U.S. economy are spilling over into the public’s thinking about foreign policy issues, and their concerns about the nation's dependence on others to satisfy its energy needs are particularly pronounced. The Spring 2008 edition of the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index from Public Agenda and its partner Foreign Affairs reveals that six out of ten Americans (60 percent) say reducing energy dependence would strengthen our nation’s security “a great deal,” the highest percentage since the Index’s inception and now the most highly rated of 12 basic strategies to improve national security explored in the survey.

The CFPI tracks attitudes on more than 110 items covering nearly all major aspects of foreign policy, along with its Anxiety Indicator based on five key “leading indicators.” The report on the sixth edition shows that the public has grown increasingly focused on economic and energy issues, that views of the current state in Iraq have improved somewhat since the beginning of “the surge” and that the previous trend toward greater foreign policy anxiety has abated.

The “Anxiety Indicator” has declined slightly to 132, down from 136 in Fall 2007 but still above the 130 mark of the first reading in September 2006. Analysis and data for questions asked in all six editions of the CFPI are available at: http://www.publicagenda.org/reports/confidence-us-foreign-policy-index-vol-6

“In the new edition of the Index, the most important take-away for leaders is this: The public’s concerns about energy policy aren’t limited to rising gas prices. Americans are connecting energy policy to national security issues in ways that they didn’t just a few years ago,” said Public Agenda Chairman Daniel Yankelovich.

“I don’t think this is just about economics returning to the forefront of public attention as foreign policy slips to the back burner. It’s about the public starting to understand that in a globalized world, you can’t necessarily separate the two spheres. So energy policy and Iraq are now both major concerns,” said Gideon Rose, Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs.

ENERGY & ECONOMICS TAKING CENTER STAGE IN FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS

Whereas improving intelligence operations used to top the list of strategies for improving national security, now reducing energy dependence is the highest national security priority for the American public. There has been a very large jump of 16 percentage points over the past six months of those saying they worry “a lot” about the rise in cost of gas and fuel (70 percent). And there has been a 14-point jump in those saying they worry “a lot” that problems abroad may hurt our supply of oil and raise prices (54 percent), with 35 percent saying they worry somewhat.

At the same time, the public may be more dispirited about what can and is being done about the energy challenge. Fewer say it is realistic to think that the U.S. government will be able to maintain a stable supply of oil at a reasonable price (32 percent, down from 41 percent in Fall 2007). Only a minority (19 percent) give the United States a grade of A or B in increasing energy independence. The public believes that decreasing our dependence on other countries for our supply of energy is something about which our government can act upon, with 44 percent saying it can do “a lot,” one of the highest efficacy scores of any challenge explored in the survey. But even here public discouragement is evident: expectations of government effectiveness has fallen 6 points from 50 percent in Fall 2007.

When asked to name the most important problem facing the United States in its dealings with the rest of the world, the highest number still say “Iraq,” but now “the economy” has lept up to the second most commonly cited world-affairs issue, alongside “terrorism.” There was a 9-point jump in those who worry “a lot” that the United States may owe too much money to other countries (39 percent), with another 34 percent somewhat worried. The rating of how well the United States is doing in limiting the amount of money we owe other countries remains low (17% A+B). The United States’ performance in protecting American jobs from moving overseas also gets a low rating (16% A+B). Further, Americans have become decidedly more pessimistic about the benefits of international trade. Forty-two percent (up from 34 percent in Fall 2007) now say other countries benefit more from international trade than the United States, while 41 percent say they are unsure and just 14 percent say America benefits more.

GRADES ON IRAQ IMPROVE BUT OVERALL ATTITUDES STILL NEGATIVE

Fundamental attitudes about Iraq have not changed. There has been some improvement in how the public grades U.S. performance in Iraq since the last edition of the CFPI – 8 percent give an “A” and 23 percent a “B.” But that is comparable to the approval level in September 2006. Overall attitudes remain negative about the war. Eighty-four percent are worried (56 percent worry “a lot”) that the war in Iraq is leading to too many casualties, essentially unchanged over the past six months, and in fact, over the past three years. Eighty percent are worried (47 percent worry “a lot”) that the war in Iraq is requiring so much money and attention that it may be distracting the United States from other threats in the word, also unchanged in the last six months.

The numbers on whether or not to withdraw from Iraq have also remained stable – 21 percent say "withdraw immediately," 44 percent say withdraw all troops "over the next 12 months" and 29 percent say "stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to stabilize the nation." Positions on the United States’ moral obligation to Iraq (majorities say we do have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people) and whether America’s safety from terrorism depends on our success in Iraq (majorities say it does not) have also remained unchanged.

Perhaps reflecting positive perceptions of the efficacy of “the surge,” fewer say that there is not much our government can do to control the violence in Iraq (42 percent, down from 49 percent in Fall 2007) and to create a democratic Iraq (44 percent, down from 51 percent). And fewer are worried that our actions in the Mideast are aiding the recruitment of terrorists (worry “a lot” is down to 34 percent from 39 percent in Fall 2007).

ANXIETY STILL RUNNING HIGH

Using a scale of 1 to 200, Public Agenda’s Anxiety Indicator gauges Americans’ anxiousness or contentment with the nation’s foreign policy. The Spring 2008 Anxiety Indicator stands at 132, well above the neutral mid-point of 100 and a small 4-point drop from October 2007. The first reading of the Anxiety Indicator in September 2006 – when military officials were just beginning to admit that the Iraq conflict might be a civil war– was at 130. The Anxiety Indicator rose to 137 in February 2007 as pressure on the Administration to change course mounted and stabilized at 136 in October 2007 as Gen. Petreaus was about to report on the initial progress of “the surge.”

The reading on the Anxiety Indicator is a composite score, reflecting the public’s concerns on multiple dimensions of foreign policy. The indicator reflects a majority view among the public that they are worried about the nation’s position in the world, that the country faces increasing danger abroad, U.S. policy is on the wrong track and that the United States is viewed negatively abroad. Taking the five indicator questions of this edition of the CFPI point-by-point:

• Eighty-four percent are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs
• Seventy-four percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and its people
• Sixty-nine percent say the United States is not doing a good job as a leader in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world
• Sixty-four percent believe the rest of the world sees the United States negatively
• Sixty-five percent say U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track

MORE INSIGHTS IN THE FULL REPORT ON THE SIXTH EDITION OF THE CFPI

Increasing support for diplomacy, especially on dealing with Iran. There has been a distinct increase in those favoring diplomacy, especially on Iran. Vast majorities also say the United States will have to talk with hostile nations to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Perceptions of Muslims Changing. The leveling of concerns on Iraq and reduced concerns about terrorism seem to be coinciding with improving perceptions of Muslims.

Increasing Favorability of Global Development Strategies. The Index shows significant increases in favorability toward global development strategies, such as policies that support equal rights and better educational opportunities for women in Muslim countries, helping poor countries move out of poverty, assisting countries in developing clean water supplies, helping people in poor countries to get an education and improving the treatment of women in other countries. But these strategies are still less popular than most other proposed strategies for improving national security.

On Fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attitudes about the war in Afghanistan (which gets much less media coverage), are less intensely negative than on Iraq. Pakistan ranks much lower on the public’s radar, but there is considerable skepticism about our efforts there. Four in 10 say there is “not much” the United States can do about stopping anti-American terrorists in Pakistan.

Methodology

Public Agenda’s study probes much deeper than typical polls, examining core strategies and beliefs about America’s role in the world and how much the public holds the government accountable on specific issues. Supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Ford Foundation, the index covers more than 25 different issues through more than 110 different survey questions and has been issued biannually. Public Agenda’s foreign policy survey has been fielded six times, first in June 2005, again in January 2006, September 2006, March 2007,September 2007 and March 2008. Public Agenda interviews a nation-wide random sample of adult Americans to track the changing state of mind of average Americans toward foreign policy – what worries people most, where they support or resist present foreign policy, what their priorities are, and what foreign policy initiatives make sense to them.

Sampling: This sixth iteration of the study was based on telephone interviews with a national random sample of 1,006 adults over the age of 18 between March 18, 2008 and April 1, 2008. It covered over 25 major policy areas in more than 110 different survey questions. The margin of error for the overall sample is plus or minus three percentage points. Full survey results can be found at www.publicagenda.org or www.confidenceinforeignpolicy.org.

Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public’s voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public’s views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues.

Since 1922, the Council on Foreign Relations has published Foreign Affairs, America's most influential publication on international affairs and foreign policy. Foreign Affairs has a circulation of 140,000 and was ranked #1 in influence by U.S. opinion leaders in last year's national study of publications conducted by Erdos & Morgan, the premier business-to-business research firm. Inevitably, articles published in Foreign Affairs shape the political dialogue for months and years to come. www.foreignaffairs.org

Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues.