Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
gov
Source:
Conference Papers -- American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2005, p1
This paper compares the views of the U.S. public with those of U.S. leaders of
various government and private organizations involved in foreign affairs, using the
Chicago Council of Foreign Relations surveys taken last summer. Analyses of the
Chicago Council surveys taken between 1994-2002 have shown that American
leaders and public share similar ways of organizing their views on U.S. foreign
policy, even though their preferences on certain foreign policies may differ sharply.
Both leaders and public organize their foreign policy opinions in four distinct groups,
which are examined separately in this paper. A large public/leader split on GLOBAL
ALTRUISTIC policies has emerged during the past several years, with American
leaders now clearly more supportive of initiatives on political issues (e.g., promoting
democracy) and much more supportive of providing economic assistance. In
contrast, the public continues to give much higher priority than leaders to
DOMESTIC ISSUES bearing on foreign policy. The public is more concerned than
leaders about the adverse personal financial impact of U.S. policies, and therefore
gives higher priority to restricting the flow of people and products into the U.S. Both
leaders and public give high priority to the GLOBAL INTEREST objective of
preventing nuclear arms proliferation and lower priority to protecting the global
environment and strengthening the U.N Both U.S. leaders and public also give high
priority to combating international terrorism, but differ on a number of other
MILITARY SECURITY issues. Leaders are generally more willing than the public to
defend U.S. allies and participate in international peacekeeping operations. However,
the public is more willing to use American military forces to protect U.S. oil supplies
and topple unfriendly regimes that support terrorist groups threatening the U.S. Both
groups are reluctant to use military force without U.N. authorization to prevent a
country from acquiring nuclear... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]