Take the Lead, But Cooperate
Since the attacks, more Americans have come to support an active U.S. leadership role in the world. At the same time, a growing proportion of the public has become more sensitive to the need for the United States to cooperate with and listen to its allies, especially with regard to the international response to the threat of terrorism.
Overall, just under half of Americans (45%) agree with the notion that the U.S. should at the very least be the most active among leading nations, if not the single world leader, up from 38% before the attacks.
This change in opinion has occurred across the board, though somewhat less strikingly among Democrats, a majority of whom still feel the U.S. should be no more active than other leading nations in setting the direction of international policy.
By two-to-one (59% to 30%), Americans say the United States should strongly take into account the interests of its allies with regard to the war on terrorism, as opposed to basing decisions mostly on U.S. national interests. Prior to the attacks, when asked about general levels of cooperation with the allies, the public was more divided, with 48% in favor of taking the allies' views into account and 38% saying American national interests should take priority.
Every ideological group has shown increased support for miltilateralism. Now, even a majority of conservative Republicans, who previously expressed the most skepticism, endorse that approach.
Other Priorities Lose Steam
Even before Sept. 11, the public rated anti-terrorism efforts as the nation's most important long-range foreign policy goal. As one might expect, even more people see this as the top objective now. Fully 93% list this as a top priority in the current survey, up from 80% in early September.
Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction is ranked as a top national priority by 81%, up slightly from 78% two months ago.
Yet it is clear that the events of Sept. 11 have affected attitudes on a range of other policy priorities. Efforts to stop the spread of infectious diseases, curb global warming, alleviate world hunger, raise living standards, and promote democracy in other nations all draw less support since the attacks.
The change in priorities has been most evident among those, like young people, who previously attached great importance to such goals. The number of Americans under age 30 who rate reducing global warming as a top priority has dropped by about half since early September (from 50% to 24%). Roughly one-in-three (32%) Americans under age 30 rate alleviating world hunger as a top priority today, compared with 54% who did so in early September.
Americans have revised their priorities to focus on the war on terrorism, but there is no sense that the public is turning inward. While there has been a noticeable decline in the proportion rating such goals as helping the hungry and addressing global warming as top priorities, an overwhelming majority favor giving some priority to all of the goals listed.
Equally important, most people believe that the best way to avoid problems like terrorism is to remain actively engaged in the world. This view is expressed across all major demographic groups, including both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, the young and the old.
Even Americans who, prior to the attacks, considered foreign affairs largely irrelevant now say an activist U.S. foreign policy can prevent future problems internationally. Better than half of this group (54%) - who previously said that events in other regions mattered little to them personally - favor the United States staying involved globally, while 39% say it is better not to get too involved.
Women, Men Agree on Defense Increase
Public opinion on defense policies has been transformed by the Sept. 11 attacks. Support for increased defense spending has risen 18 points since early September (from 32% to 50%), and now is far higher than at any point since at least 1974.
Much of the change has come among women and Democrats, groups that traditionally have tended to be skeptical of more military spending. Women are now nearly as likely as men to favor higher military spending (47%, compared to 53% of men). In early September, just 24% of women supported a higher defense budget, compared with 41% of men.
Backing for increased military spending is particularly pronounced among younger women. Support for more defense spending among women age 18-49 has grown from 17% in early September to 44%. Among men in this age group, the number favoring higher military spending has increased, but much more modestly (from 39% to 53%).
While the gender gap on this issue has all but disappeared, at least temporarily, political divisions remain. More Republicans than Democrats favor higher military spending (70% vs. 38%). Still, the number of Democrats supporting more money for the military has doubled, from 19% to 38%, since early September. GOP backing has risen from 56% to 70% over the same period.
Missile Shield Gains Favor
Some of the same trends are evident in the growing public support for a missile defense system. Public backing for the missile shield has risen from 56% to 64%. And there has been a sharp increase in the number who see this as an urgent need - 35% favored the immediate development of such a system in early September, compared with 49% who feel that way now.
As with defense spending, much of the change has come among women, and especially mothers. Overall, 64% of women favor developing a missile defense system, up from 52% in early September. More significantly, half of women want the system in place now, compared with roughly three-in-ten (29%) in early September. By contrast, attitudes among men have remained fairly stable - as in the earlier survey, more than six-in-ten (65%) support the missile shield and nearly half (47%) say we need it right now.
Nearly three-quarters of women with children at home (73%) favor the deployment of a missile defense system, up from 53% in early September. The proportion of mothers who favor immediate development of a missile shield has more than doubled, from 27% to 59%. Support among non-mothers for immediate deployment has increased, but not as much (from 31% to 45%).
There has been only a slight narrowing of the partisan gap on this issue, however. Democratic support for a missile shield has grown slightly (from 49% to 58%), while the number who want it in place now has increased from 30% to 45%. Roughly three-quarters of Republicans back missile defense (77%), no change from early September; 60% favor immediate development now, up from 47% then.
Views Stable on Mideast
Slightly less than half of the public (47%) say they sympathize more with Israel in the Middle East conflict, while just 10% have more sympathy for the Palestinians. There has been a modest shift in support of Israel since early September, when 40% sympathized with Israel, with 17% sympathizing with the Palestinians. These numbers have remained fairly stable since the late 1970s.
While there have been no major demographic or political shifts in attitudes on the Middle East, Americans who are less attentive to foreign news and less informed about international issues have become somewhat more supportive of Israel since Sept. 11. Among those who pay little attention to foreign news, 48% sympathize with Israel now, compared with 36% who did so in early September. Most of the change came from those who were previously neutral in the conflict or who had not formed an opinion. A similar shift has occurred among those who are less knowledgeable about international matters.
A solid majority of the public (56%) favors keeping aid for Israel at its current level. Similarly, 56% say the United States should take Israel's side as much as it has in the past, while 19% favor taking Israel's side less and 16% think the United States should side with Israel more in the future.
No Clash of Cultures
By wide margins, Americans of all backgrounds and political persuasions reject the notion that the terrorist attacks are the start of a major "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. Just over one-in-four (28%) say this is a conflict between the people of America and Europe versus the people of Islam, while nearly two-thirds (63%) say this is only a struggle against a small, radical group. Americans who show the least knowledge about world affairs, and those with less education, are the most likely to believe that we are on the brink of a clash of cultures, but even among these groups a majority believes this is a more limited conflict.
Back to Normal?
Americans clearly are on edge over the prospect of new terrorist strikes, although no more so than they were before the recent anthrax scare. About seven-in-ten expressed at least some concern over new terrorism throughout the survey period. That figure has not changed significantly over the past three weeks.
But Americans have been slow to return to a sense of normalcy and, as seen in earlier Pew Research Center surveys after the Sept.11 attacks, women are feeling the emotional impact of the attacks more acutely than are men. In the current survey, eight-in-ten women worry that there will soon be another terrorist attack in the United States, while only 63% of men have that worry.
Women also are much less likely than men to say their lives have returned to normal (34% to 48%). In fact, women are among the most likely of all Americans to say life will never return to normal following the attacks, with fully one-in-five expressing this view. And women with children at home are especially shaken. Just 28% of mothers say their life has returned to normal, and 41% are very worried about an impending attack.
Confidence Slips Slightly
The public's evaluations of the government's progress in combating terrorism have remained fairly stable, with 84% saying things are going very or fairly well. Still, since mid-October there has been a decline in the proportion giving the highest evaluation to the government's efforts (from 48% to 38%). And the number giving the military campaign a top grade of "very well" has slipped from 45% to 38% over the same period, although overall positive ratings have not declined.
Interestingly, the anthrax outbreaks have had no effect on public assessments of the government's performance in building homeland defenses. Roughly seven-in-ten (69%) grade the government's job in this area as good or excellent (with 18% saying excellent), virtually the same as in mid-October. Despite their high degree of concern over new attacks, women are just as upbeat as men about the ongoing efforts to defeat terrorism abroad, and if anything, rate the government's efforts at homeland defense more highly than do men.
There also are modest partisan differences in assessments of the government's efforts at stopping terrorism. Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans rate progress on the home front as excellent or good, compared with two-thirds of Democrats. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats or independents to say the military campaign is going well.
Military Action Remains Higher Priority
Despite the anthrax attacks, Americans continue to believe that destroying terrorist networks abroad is more important than bolstering anti-terrorist defenses in this country. Opinion on this issue has remained steady since late September (see "Military Action a Higher Priority Than Homeland Defense," Sept. 27).
When asked to choose, 48% of Americans say taking military action to destroy terrorist networks should take priority over building defenses against future attacks, while 37% say creating homeland defenses is more important (13% volunteer that they'd like to see both). Republicans favor military action to building defenses at home by 54%-31%, while Democrats are more evenly split (45%-41%).
African-Americans, who are much more concerned about another terrorist attack than are whites, strongly favor building military defenses at home to conducting military attacks. By a margin of two-to-one, African Americans favor homeland defense (60% homeland defense to 31% military action), while more whites prefer military action (50% military action, 34% homeland defense).
Less Aware, More Worried
Americans who are not well informed about foreign affairs are more worried by the possibility of new terrorist attacks and less supportive of an internationalist role for the United States. In early September, respondents were asked a series of factual questions designed to measure their knowledge of international matters.(1) Those who scored lowest on this "quiz" have very different views on the current conflict and international affairs generally than those who are more knowledgeable about foreign issues.
[NOTE (1): Respondents were asked to name the president of Russia (23% correct), the country in which the crew of a U.S. spyplane was held for several days earlier in the year (62%), and the issue addressed in the Kyoto treaty (14%).]
Roughly a third (34%) of the less knowledgeable group say the best way for the U.S. to avoid problems like terrorism is to not get too involved with international problems, compared to about one-quarter (26%) of those who are well informed about international affairs.
When the United States does get involved, as in pursuing those responsible for the terrorist attacks, Americans who are less familiar with international matters are the most likely to say the government should base its policies on national interests, rather than strongly taking into account the interests of its allies. A higher proportion of this group also believes that the terrorist attacks are the start of a major conflict between the West and Islam.
