With the economy still struggling and the nation involved in multiple military operations overseas, the public’s political mood is fractious. In this environment, many political attitudes have become more doctrinaire at both ends of the ideological spectrum, a polarization that reflects the current atmosphere in Washington.

Yet at the same time, a growing number of Americans are choosing not to identify with either political party, and the center of the political spectrum is increasingly diverse. Rather than being moderate, many of these independents hold extremely strong ideological positions on issues such as the role of government, immigration, the environment and social issues. But they combine these views in ways that defy liberal or conservative orthodoxy.

For political leaders in both parties, the challenge is not only one of appeasing ideological and moderate “wings” within their coalitions, but rather holding together remarkably disparate groups, many of whom have strong disagreements with core principles that have defined each party’s political character in recent years.

The most visible shift in the political landscape since Pew Research’s previous political typology in early 2005 is the emergence of a single bloc of across-the-board conservatives. The long-standing divide between economic, pro-business conservatives and social conservatives has blurred. Today, Staunch Conservatives take extremely conservative positions on nearly all issues – on the size and role of government, on economics, foreign policy, social issues and moral concerns. Most agree with the Tea Party and even more very strongly disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance. A second core group of Republicans – Main Street Republicans – also is conservative, but less consistently so.

On the left, Solid Liberals express diametrically opposing views from the Staunch Conservatives on virtually every issue. While Solid Liberals are predominantly white, minorities make up greater shares of New Coalition Democrats – who include nearly equal numbers 0f whites, African Americans and Hispanics – and Hard-Pressed Democrats, who are about a third African American. Unlike Solid Liberals, both of these last two groups are highly religious and socially conservative. New Coalition Democrats are distinguished by their upbeat attitudes in the face of economic struggles.

Independents have played a determinative role in the last three national elections. But the three groups in the center of the political typology have very little in common, aside from their avoidance of partisan labels. Libertarians and Post-Moderns are largely white, well-educated and affluent. They also share a relatively secular outlook on some social issues, including homosexuality and abortion. But Republican-oriented Libertarians are far more critical of government, less supportive of environmental regulations, and more supportive of business than are Post-Moderns, most of whom lean Democratic.

Disaffecteds, the other main group of independents, are financially stressed and cynical about politics. Most lean to the Republican Party, though they differ from the core Republican groups in their support for increased government aid to the poor. Another group in the center, Bystanders, largely consign themselves to the political sidelines and for the most part are not included in this analysis.

These are the principal findings of the political typology study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which sorts Americans into cohesive groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation. The new study is based on two surveys with a combined sample of 3,029 adults, conducted Feb. 22-Mar. 14, 2011 and a smaller callback survey conducted April 7-10, 2011 with 1,432 of the same respondents.

This is the fifth typology created by the Pew Research Center since 1987. Many of the groups identified in the current analysis are similar to those in past typologies, reflecting the continuing importance of a number of key beliefs and values. But there are a number of critical differences as well.

The new groupings underscore the substantial political changes that have occurred since the spring of 2005, when the previous typology was released. Today, there are two core Republican groups, compared with three in 2005, to some extent reflecting a decline in GOP party affiliation. However, Democrats have not made gains in party identification. Rather, there has been a sharp rise in the percentage of independents – from 30% in 2005 to 37% currently. Today, there are three disparate groups of independents, compared with two in 2005.

While Republicans trail the Democrats in party affiliation, they enjoy advantages in other areas: The two core GOP groups are more homogenous – demographically and ideologically – than are the three core Democratic groups. And socioeconomic differences are more apparent on the left: Nearly half of Solid Liberals (49%) are college graduates, compared with 27% of New Coalition Democrats and just 13% of Hard-Pressed Democrats.

The GOP still enjoys an intensity advantage, which proved to be a crucial factor in the Republicans’ victories in the 2010 midterm elections. For example, the GOP’s core groups – Staunch Conservatives and Main Street Republicans – express strongly negative opinions about last year’s health care legislation, while reactions among the Democratic groups are more mixed. Even Solid Liberals offer only tepid support for the bill – 43% say it will have a mostly positive impact on the nation’s health care, while somewhat more (51%) say it will have a mixed effect.

However, maintaining solid support among the GOP-oriented groups in the center of the typology represents a formidable challenge for Republicans. The cross-pressured Disaffecteds highlight this challenge. They were an important part of the GOP coalition in 2010, but were lackluster supporters of John McCain two years earlier.

Like the core GOP groups, most Disaffecteds (73%) view government as nearly always wasteful and inefficient. At the same time, a solid majority of Disaffecteds (61%) say the government should do more to help needy Americans even if that means going deeper into debt.

Libertarians, the other Republican-leaning group, overwhelmingly oppose expanding aid for the poor if it means increasing the nation’s debt. Yet on immigration and homosexuality, Libertarians’ views differ markedly from those of the core Republican groups. Fully 71% of Libertarians say homosexuality should be accepted by society; nearly as many Staunch Conservatives (68%) say it should be discouraged.

Many of the political values and attitudes of Post-Moderns, young, Democratically-oriented independents, fit awkwardly with those of core Democratic groups. Post-Moderns overwhelmingly voted for Obama in 2008, but their turnout fell off dramatically last fall, which contributed to the Democrats’ poor showing in the midterms. Compared with the core Democratic groups, Post-Moderns are less supportive of increased aid for the needy and are far less likely to view racial discrimination as the main obstacle to African American progress.

Partisan Dividing Line: Views of Government

The new typology finds a deep and continuing divide between the two parties, as well as differences within both partisan coalitions. But the nature of the partisan divide has changed substantially over time.

More than in the recent past, attitudes about government separate Democrats from Republicans, and it is these beliefs that are most correlated with political preferences looking ahead to 2012. In 2005, at the height of the Iraq war and shortly after an election in which national security was a dominant issue, opinions about assertiveness in foreign affairs almost completely distinguished Democrats from Republicans. Partisan divisions over national security remain, but in an era when the public’s focus is more inward-looking, they are less pronounced.

As in recent years, beliefs about the environment, business, immigration and the challenges faced by African Americans are important fissures between the parties, though to some extent within them as well.

In general, there is far more agreement across the two core GOP groups than the three core Democratic groups. Staunch Conservatives and Main Street Republicans express highly critical opinions about government performance and are both deeply skeptical of increased government aid to the poor if it means adding to the debt.

Yet Staunch Conservatives have much more positive opinions about business than do Main Street Republicans. Attitudes about the environment also divide the two core GOP groups: 92% of Staunch Conservatives say that stricter environmental laws cost too many jobs and hurt the economy; just 22% of Main Street Republicans agree.

The differences among core Democratic groups show up across a wider range of fundamental political values. Social and moral issues divide Solid Liberals, who are more secular, from other Democratic groups who are much more religious.

Opinions about business, immigration and the economic impact of environmental laws and regulations also divide the Democratic groups. For instance, more than half of Hard-Pressed Democrats (54%) say that stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy; just 22% of New Coalition Democrats and 7% of Solid Liberals share this view.

Race and ethnicity are factors in some of the opinion differences among Democrats. New Coalition Democrats, who are roughly a quarter Hispanic, have positive views of immigrants. Fully 70% say immigrants strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents.

Hard-Pressed Democrats – who are mostly white and African American – take a dim view of immigrants’ contributions. Just 13% say immigrants strengthen the country, while 76% say they are a burden because they take jobs and health care.

Age also is a factor in partisanship and political values. Younger people are more numerous on the left, and older people on the right. However, many young people think of themselves as independents rather than as Democrats. Post-Moderns, Democratic-oriented independents, are by far the youngest group in the typology, but they often deviate from traditional Democratic orthodoxy and are not consistent voters.

Older people, who have increasingly voted Republican in recent years, are found disproportionately in the Staunch Conservative bloc – 61% are 50 or older. And this group is highly politically engaged; 75% say they follow government and public affairs most of the time.

Staunch Conservatives also include by far the largest share of Tea Party supporters – 72% of Staunch Conservatives agree with the movement. The Tea Party’s appeal is deeper than it is wide. There is no other typology group in which a majority agrees with the Tea Party. Aside from Staunch Conservatives, Libertarians are most supportive (44% agree).

The survey suggests that while the Tea Party is a galvanizing force on the right, strong disapproval of Barack Obama is an even more powerful unifying factor among fervent conservatives. No fewer than 84% of Staunch Conservatives strongly disapprove of Obama’s job performance and 70% rate him very unfavorably personally. Ardent support for Obama on the left is no match for this – 64% of Solid Liberals strongly approve of him, and 45% rate him very favorably.

More than two years into office, Obama’s personal image is positive though his job approval ratings are mixed. Yet doubts about Obama’s background and biography persist. More than one-in-five Americans (23%) say, incorrectly, that Obama was born outside the United States; another 22% are not sure where Obama was born. Nearly half of Staunch Conservatives (47%) and 35% of Main Street Republicans say that Obama was born in another country. Only among Solid Liberals is there near total agreement that Obama was, in fact, born in the United States (95%). (NOTE: The survey was conducted before President Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27.)

Other Major Findings

• Majorities in most typology groups say the country will need both to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit. Staunch Conservatives are the exception – 59% say the focus should only be on cutting spending.
• Core GOP groups largely prefer elected officials who stick to their positions rather than those who compromise. Solid Liberals overwhelmingly prefer officials who compromise, but the other two Democratic groups do not.
• For Staunch Conservatives it is still “Drill, Baby, Drill” – 72% say that expanding exploration for and production of oil, coal and natural gas is the more important energy priority. In most other typology groups, majorities say developing alternatives is more important.
• Republican groups say the Supreme Court should base rulings on its interpretation of the Constitution “as originally written.” Democratic groups say the Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means today.
• Main Street Republicans and GOP-oriented Disaffecteds are far more likely than Staunch Conservatives or Libertarians to favor a significant government role in reducing childhood obesity.
• Solid Liberals are the only typology group in which a majority (54%) views democracy as more important than stability in the Middle East. Other groups say stable governments are more important or are divided on this question.
• New Coalition Democrats are more likely than the other core Democratic groups to say that most people can make it if they are willing to work hard.
• More Staunch Conservatives regularly watch Fox News than regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and the nightly network news broadcasts combined.
• There are few points on which all the typology groups can agree, but cynicism about politicians is one. Majorities across all eight groups, as well as Bystanders, say elected officials lose touch with the people pretty quickly.
• Staunch Conservatives overwhelmingly want to get tougher with China on economic issues. Across other typology groups, there is far more support for building stronger economic relations with China.
• The allied airstrikes in Libya divide Democratic groups. Solid Liberals and New Coalition Democrats favor the airstrikes, but about as many Hard-Pressed Democrats favor as oppose the operation.
• Michelle Obama is popular with Main Street Republicans, as well as most other typology groups. But Staunch Conservatives view the first lady unfavorably – and 43% view her very unfavorably.

Making the Typology

The 2011 typology divides the public into eight politically engaged groups, along with a ninth group of less engaged Bystanders. It is the fifth of its kind, following on previous studies in 1987, 1994, 1999 and 2005.

Using a statistical procedure called cluster analysis, individuals are assigned to one of the eight core typology groups based on their position on nine scales of social and political values – each of which is determined by responses to two or three survey questions – as well as their party identification. Several different cluster solutions were evaluated for their effectiveness in producing cohesive groups that are distinct from one another, substantively meaningful and large enough in size to be analytically practical. The final solution selected to produce the political typology was judged to be strongest from a statistical point of view and to be most persuasive from a substantive point of view. As in past typologies, a measure of political attentiveness and voting participation was used to extract the “Bystander” group, people who are largely not engaged or involved in politics, before performing the cluster analysis.

For a more complete description of the methodology used to create the typology, see About the Political Typology. For more information about the survey methodology seen About the Surveys.

As President Obama prepares to host Chinese President Hu Jintao next week, Americans increasingly see Asia as the region of the world that is most important to the United States. Nearly half (47%) say Asia is most important, compared with just 37% who say Europe, home to many of America’s closest traditional allies.

Views on this issue have changed considerably over the last decade. In an early September 2001 poll, 44% said our political, economic and military ties to Europe were more important, while 34% prioritized our ties to Asia. Similarly, in polls conducted in 1993 and 1997 about half felt Europe was the region most important to American national interests, while roughly three-in-ten said Asia.

This shift reflects changing perceptions about the economic balance of power in the world. Almost half (47%) of Americans say China is the world’s leading economic power, while just 31% name the U.S. Three years ago – prior to the global economic crisis – only 30% characterized China as the global economic leader, compared with 41% for the U.S.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted January 5-9 among 1,503 adults finds that by two-to-one (60% to 27%) Americans see China’s economic strength as a greater threat than its military strength. And as Obama goes into talks with the Chinese president, a 53% majority say it is very important for the U.S. to get tougher with China on trade and economic issues.

Yet while Americans may see China as a problem, relatively few describe it as an adversary, and a 58% majority say it is very important to build a stronger relationship between the U.S. and China. By comparison, promoting human rights and better environmental policies and practices are important, but lower priorities.

American views of China are not extreme in a global perspective. A 2010 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey found roughly half of Americans expressing a favorable opinion of China, while 36% said they felt unfavorably. In that survey, attitudes toward China were far more negative in France, Germany and Turkey, as well as among the publics of some of China’s neighbors, such as Japan, South Korea and India. By contrast, China is viewed in an overwhelmingly favorable light in places like Kenya and Nigeria (where the U.S. is also viewed very favorably) as well as in Pakistan (where opinions of the U.S. are mostly negative).

China’s Economic Strength

Nearly half (47%) of Americans see China as the world’s leading economic power, while 31% say the United States holds that position. As recently as February 2008, the positions of these two countries were reversed: 41% named the U.S., and 30% China as the world’s leading economic power. Few Americans (6%) place the countries of the European Union in the top position. Similarly, only 9% think Japan occupies the top spot – a stark change from the late 1980s and early 1990s, when concerns about Japan’s growing economic power were widespread. In fact, a January 1989 survey found that by a two-to-one margin, Americans believed Japan was the world’s dominant economy: 58% considered Japan the top economic power; only 29% named the U.S.

While Americans believe China has assumed the leading position in the global economy, they see the military balance of power quite differently. Two-thirds (67%) think the U.S. is the world’s leading military power. Just 16% say China has the top military, while 5% name Russia, and 3% the EU.

In keeping with this, Americans view China primarily as an economic threat, rather than a military one. When asked whether they are more concerned about China’s economic or its military strength, more say the former by roughly two-to-one (60% vs. 27%).

One-in-five Americans identify China when asked to name the country representing the greatest threat to the U.S., up from 11% in November 2009. This is the highest percentage volunteering China as the greatest danger since a September 2001 poll taken prior to the 9/11 attacks and just months after the dispute over a U.S. surveillance plane that was held by Chinese authorities for several days on the island of Hainan.

China (20%) and North Korea (18%) top the list of global dangers, followed by Iran (12%) and Afghanistan (10%). For the first time in more than two decades, fewer than 10% name Iraq as the leading threat.

When the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press first asked this question in March 1990, roughly one-in-three Americans (32%) rated the Soviet Union as the biggest danger to the U.S. By February 1992, with the Soviet Union no longer in existence, Americans believed Japan’s rising economic power posed the greatest threat.

While Americans see China as a rising global power, relatively few characterize the U.S.-China relationship as adversarial. Only 22% describe China as an adversary; 43% say it is a serious problem, but not an adversary; and 27% believe China is not much of a problem. The view that China is not a problem is especially common among young people: 42% of 18-29 year-olds hold this opinion.

Views on this question have been relatively stable since it was first asked in 1997, although the percentage who consider China an adversary has increased somewhat since 2004, when just 14% saw China this way.

Partisan Differences on Views of China

For the most part, views about China and its military and economic strength do not vary considerably along partisan lines. Yet, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents express more positive opinions of the Sino-American relationship than do Republican and Republican leaners. While majorities in both groups say relations between the U.S. and China are staying the same, 22% of Democrats say relations between the two countries are improving, compared with just 9% of Republicans. In 2004, when this question was last asked, 16% of Democrats and Democratic leaners and 21% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said relations between the two countries were improving.

When asked about their view of China, 47% of Republicans and Republican leaners and 43% of Democrats and Democratic leaners describe that country as a serious problem, but not an adversary. Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to see China as an adversary (24% vs. 19%, respectively); conversely, Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to say China is not much of a problem (29% vs. 23%).

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who agree with the Tea Party offer more negative views of China and Sino-American relations than do those who disagree with the Tea Party or have no opinion of the movement. One-third of Tea Party Republicans describe China as an adversary, compared with 17% of other Republicans and Republican leaners. And while 34% of those who agree with the Tea Party say relations between the U.S. and China are getting worse, 24% of Republicans who disagree with the Tea Party or do not have an opinion of it say that
is the case.

Democrats and Republicans also offer different views about U.S. policy toward China. The partisan gap is especially notable in regards to the promotion of human rights; 48% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say is very important for the U.S. to do more to promote human rights in China, compared with one-third of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Democrats and Democratic leaners are also more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to say it is very important for the U.S. to do more to promote better environmental policies and practices in China (43% vs. 34%, respectively). And while majorities among both partisan groups say it is very important for the U.S. to build a stronger relationship with China, more Democrats say that is the case (62% vs. 54% of Republicans).

On trade and economics, however, Democrats and Republicans offer similar views; 54% of Republicans and Republican leaners and 52% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say it is very important for the U.S. to get tougher with China on economic and trade issues. But among Republicans, those who agree with the Tea Party are more likely than those who do not to place high priority on the U.S. getting tougher with China on economic and trade issues; 60% of Tea Party Republicans say this is very important, compared with 49% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who disagree with the Tea Party or do not have an opinion of it.

The general public and members of the Council on Foreign Relations are apprehensive and uncertain about America’s place in the world. Growing numbers in both groups see the United States playing a less important role globally, while acknowledging the increasing stature of China. And the general public, which is in a decidedly inward-looking frame of mind when it comes to global affairs, is less supportive of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than are CFR members.

In polling conducted before President Obama’s decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, both groups expressed pessimism about prospects for long-term stability in Afghanistan. Fewer than half of the public (46%) and CFR members (41%) say it is very or somewhat likely that Afghanistan will be able to withstand the threat posed by the Taliban. While half of the CFR members (50%) favor increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, just 32% of the public agrees.

In the midst of two wars abroad and a sour economy at home, there has been a sharp rise in isolationist sentiment among the public. For the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality (49%) says the United States should “mind its own business internationally” and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.

The quadrennial survey of foreign policy attitudes, conducted among the general public and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, finds broad recognition of China’s growing power. But the public takes a less benign view of China’s rise than do the members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

For CFR members, China has been transformed from a major threat to the United States to an increasingly important future ally. Just 21% of CFR members view China’s emergence as a world
power as a major threat to the United States. In 2001, 38% of foreign policy opinion leaders said that China’s emergence was a major threat, as did 30% in 2005.

More important, there is a growing belief among CFR members that China, along with India, will be more important U.S. allies in the future. Majorities of the Council members surveyed say China (58%) and India (55%) will be more important U.S. allies; Brazil is a distant third (37%). And while more CFR members view China, India and Brazil as more important future allies than did so four years ago, substantially fewer say the same about Japan and Great Britain.

The public sees China’s emerging power as more worrisome than do the foreign policy opinion leaders. There has been virtually no change since 2005 in the percentage of the public saying that China represents a major threat to the United States (53% today, 52% then). Moreover, while Iran is mentioned most often as the country that poses the greatest danger to the United States, China continues to rank among the countries frequently named by the public as dangers to the U.S.

The new survey finds that 41% of the public says the United States plays a less important and powerful role as a world leader today than it did 10 years ago – the highest percentage ever in a Pew Research survey. And while the foreign policy opinion leaders differ with the public about many issues – including President Obama’s foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan and China – a growing proportion of Council on Foreign Relations members agree that the United States is a less important world leader. Fully 44% of the CFR members say the U.S. is a less important global leader, up from 25% in early September 2001, just before the 9/11 attacks.

In a reversal of opinion from the beginning of last year, 44% of the public now says China is the world’s leading economic power, while just 27% name the United States. In February 2008, 41% said the U.S. was the top economic power while 30% said China. Somewhat fewer people now say China is the top economic power than named Japan as the leading economic power in the late 1980s (58% in 1989).

The United States is widely viewed as the world’s leading military power – 63% express this view, while just 18% name China. A majority of the public (57%) continues to say that U.S. policies should try to maintain America’s role as the world’s only military superpower – although far fewer favor this if it risks alienating U.S. allies.

However, the percentage saying that the United States should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own” has reached an all-time high of 49%. Four years ago, 42% agreed that the U.S. should “mind its own business” in international affairs; in December 2002, just 30% agreed with this statement.

At the same time, there has been a rise in unilateralist sentiment. Fully 44% say that because the United States “is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.” That is by far the highest percentage agreeing since the question was first asked by Gallup in 1964.

CFR members continue to strongly support the United States playing an assertive role in global affairs: 69% say the U.S. should be either the single world leader (7%) or the most assertive of leading nations (62%). These opinions are little changed from previous surveys.

Yet CFR members assign a far lower priority to several globally oriented policy goals than they did at the beginning of the decade. Just 10% of CFR members say that promoting democracy in other nations should be a top U.S. foreign policy goal, down from 44% in early September 2001, shortly before the 9/11 attacks.

Defending human rights (down by 22 percentage points as a top priority), strengthening the United Nations (19 points) and improving living standards in developing countries (13 points) also are now viewed as less important priorities by CFR members.

These are among the principal findings of America’s Place in the World, a survey of foreign policy and national security attitudes conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent, nonpartisan organization focused on helping government officials and the public better understand the world and foreign policy. The survey was conducted among 642 members of the Council on Foreign Relations and 2,000 members of the public.

The survey finds that the Council members are much more positive about President Obama’s approach to foreign policy and his handling of specific issues than is the public. About three-quarters (77%) of the members of the Council of Foreign Relations approve of Obama’s overall job performance, compared with just 51% of the public. There are comparable or even larger differences in opinions about Obama’s handling of Iran, Iraq, global climate change and several other issues. Yet the CFR members are nearly as critical of Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan as is the public. Just 42% approve of Obama’s job performance on Afghanistan, which is modestly higher than his rating among the public (36%).

Only about half of CFR members (49%) say the Taliban’s growing strength in Afghanistan represents a major threat to the United States; 70% of the public sees this as a major threat. Yet CFR members are much more supportive than the public of the initial decision to use force in Afghanistan – fully 87% say this was the right decision compared with 56% of the public. CFR members also are more supportive than the public of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan.

There is little optimism among either the members of the Council on Foreign Relations or the public about prospects that Afghanistan can become stable enough to withstand the threat posed by the Taliban. Just 41% of the Council members and 46% of the public think that it is very or somewhat likely that Afghanistan will become stable enough to withstand the threat from the Taliban and other extremist groups.

Major Threats and Long-Term Priorities

The public and Council on Foreign Relations members generally agree on three of the major threats facing the United States – large majorities of both groups say Islamic extremist groups like al Qaeda, Iran’s nuclear program and international financial instability are major threats to the well-being of the United States. But they differ over the seriousness of other global threats. The public views China’s emergence as a world power as a more serious threat than do CFR members, and the gap is nearly as large over North Korea’s nuclear program.

Fully 69% of the public says that North Korea’s nuclear program is a major threat to the well-being of the United States, which is little changed from 2005 (66%). But concerns about North Korea have declined markedly among CFR members over this period: just 44% currently regard North Korea’s nuclear program as a major threat, down from 67% in 2005. While growing tensions between Russia and its neighbors are viewed as a major threat by just 38% of the public, even fewer CFR members (12%) say this is a major threat.

More than eight-in-ten (85%) CFR members say instability in Pakistan is a major threat to the U.S.; this is a much lower concern for the public – just 49% view this as a major threat. In addition, higher percentages of the CFR members view global climate change (by 15 percentage points) and international financial instability (by 13 points) as major threats to the United States.

The CFR members’ concerns over Pakistan are seen in other ways as well. Nearly one-in-five (18%) says that Pakistan represents America’s most important international problem. However, Pakistan is mentioned by only 1% of the general public as America’s top international problem.

In terms of long-range policy priorities, large majorities of both the public and CFR members see preventing another terrorist attack on the United States and reducing U.S. dependence on imported energy sources as top priorities.

But on other goals – particularly protecting American jobs – there are substantial differences. Fully 85% of the public views this as a top foreign policy priority compared with just 21% of CFR members. This gap is not new: It was as large in the first America’s Place in the World survey in 1993 (85% of public, 19% of foreign policy opinion leaders) and has remained about as large in each of the succeeding studies.

Greater percentages of the public than CFR members also view reducing illegal immigration (by 35 points) and combating drug trafficking (by 34 points) as top long-range priorities. And while 37% of the public says strengthening the United Nations is a top priority, just 18% of CFR members agree. By contrast, a clear majority (57%) of CFR members say that dealing with global climate change should be a top long-range priority, compared with 40% of the public.

Support for Free Trade Holds Steady

The survey underscores the public’s anxiety over the nation’s economy. Fully 85% say protecting jobs should be a top foreign policy priority and economic issues are cited most frequently as the greatest international problem confronting the United States, followed closely by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Despite these concerns, public support for free trade agreements like NAFTA and the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has increased somewhat over the past year. In April 2008, nearly half of Americans (48%) said that free trade agreements were bad for the country, while 35% said such agreements were good for the country. In two polls this year, including the current survey, pluralities have said that free trade agreements and WTO policies are good for the country; currently, 43% say that free trade agreements are good for the country, while 32% express a negative opinion.

Nonetheless, foreign policy specialists have long been more supportive of free trade compared with the public, and that remains the case today. Nearly nine-in-ten CFR members (88%) say that free trade agreements and the policies of the WTO are good for the country, which is little changed from previous America’s Place in the World surveys.

The public expresses more negative opinions about the specific impact of free trade agreements on jobs, economic growth and wages. Still, somewhat smaller percentages say that free trade agreements lead to job losses (53%), lower wages (49%) and slower economic growth (42%) than did so in April 2008 (61%, 56% and 50%, respectively).

Public’s Terrorism Concerns Grow

The survey also finds substantial differences between the public and CFR members over anti-terrorism strategies and tactics – and even over the ability of terrorists to launch new attacks on the United States. Currently, 29% of the public says the ability of terrorists to launch a major attack on the U.S. is greater than it was at the time of the 9/11 attacks; that percentage has risen 12 points since February. (NOTE: The main survey of the public was mostly conducted before the Nov. 5 shootings at the Ft. Hood Army base in Texas.)

The public’s attitudes about terrorists’ capabilities are comparable to opinions in October 2005: 29% say the ability of terrorists to conduct a major attack is greater than it was at the time of 9/11, 38% say their ability to launch a major strike is the same as it was around 9/11, while 29% say it is less.

By contrast, an increasing proportion of CFR members say the ability of terrorists to launch a major attack is less now than at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks; 56% of CFR members say that currently, up from 44% in 2005.

The public and CFR members continue to support divergent policies to combat terrorism. Most notably, 19% of the public says the use of torture is often justified to gain important information from terrorist suspects, while 35% say the use of torture in these circumstances is at least sometimes justified. Just 2% of CFR members say torture is often justified, and 11% say it is sometimes justified, to gain important information from suspected terrorists.

The proportion of the public saying torture is at least sometimes justified against suspected terrorists has increased modestly over the past year. Currently, 54% say torture is at least sometimes justified to gain important information from suspected terrorists, compared with 49% in April and 44% in February.

Other findings:

• France’s Comeback: A separate survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds that France’s image has improved substantially in recent years. Fully 62% of the public says they have a favorable opinion of France, up from just 29% in May 2003, during tensions over France’s opposition to the Iraq war.

• Pakistan’s Slide: Favorable ratings of Pakistan, by contrast, have become more negative just in the past year. Currently, just 16% of the public expresses a favorable opinion of Pakistan, down from 37% in the spring of 2008.

• Divided over Military Action: Among the public, 63% approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon; just 33% of CFR members agree. But a greater percentage of CFR members (63%) than the public (51%) favors using U.S. military force if extremists were poised to take over Pakistan.

• Obama – Best and Worst: CFR members overwhelmingly see President Obama’s emphasis on engagement and diplomacy as the best thing about his administration’s foreign policy (44%). The most frequently cited negatives about Obama’s foreign policy are his handling of Afghanistan and Pakistan (27%).

• Fewer See U.S. as Less Respected: Most Americans (56%) say the United States is less respected than in the past, but that is down from 70% last year. In contrast with surveys during the Bush administration, more Republicans (68%) than Democrats (49%) now say the U.S. is less respected.

• Less Support for U.N.: The proportion of CFR members saying that strengthening the United Nations should be a top long-term policy priority is down sharply from 2001. Meanwhile, only about half the public (51%) says the United States should “cooperate fully” with the U.N., slightly fewer than in 2005 (54%) and the lowest percentage since 1976.

More Americans now say that the United States is less respected in the world than it has been in the past, and a growing proportion views this as a major problem for the country. More than seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that the United States is less respected by other countries these days, up from 65% in August 2006.

For the first time since Pew began asking this question in 2004, a majority of Americans now sees the loss of international respect for the United States as a major problem. The percentage of Americans saying the loss of international respect is a major problem has risen from 43% in 2005 to 48% in 2006 and 56% currently.

The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 21-25 among 1,505 adults, finds that majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (72%) and Republicans (60%) believe that the United States has lost global respect in recent years.

In particular, Republican opinion about international respect for America has shifted substantially over the past two years. A clear majority of Republicans (60%) now say the nation is less respected in the international community, an increase of 12 points since August 2006. Moreover, 43% of Republicans say the loss of global respect represents a major problem, compared with just 26% two years ago.

Over the same period, opinion among Democrats and independents about America’s global image has remained more stable. While somewhat more Democrats say the nation is less respected than in 2006 (81% now vs. 76% then), there has been little change in the proportion who view this as a major problem; opinion among independents about global respect for the United States has remained stable since 2006.

Top Threats: Islamic Extremism, Iran and North Korea

When asked to assess a set of specific international threats to the United States, public consensus is strongest about the threat posed by Islamic extremist groups like al Qaeda. More than seven-in-ten (72%) view these groups as a “major threat” to the national well-being.

Solid majorities also say that the nuclear programs of Iran (62%) and North Korea (55%) represent major threats to the United States. Opinions about Iran’s nuclear program have changed little since 2005, while the percentage expressing concern about North Korea’s program has declined somewhat (from 66% who viewed the program as a major threat in 2005 to 55% who do so today). Half of Americans see China’s emergence as a world power as a major threat, a proportion that has remained largely unchanged since the question was first asked in 1999.

Other potential international threats – political instability in Pakistan and growing authoritarianism in Russia – are of considerably less concern to Americans. The public is divided over the severity of the threat posed by Pakistani instability (41% view this as a major threat, while 40% see it as a minor threat). Only about a quarter of the public (24%) says growing Russian authoritarianism is major threat to the United States.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express concern about the top three potential threats (Islamic extremist groups and the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea). An overwhelming majority of Republicans (86%) say that al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups represent a major threat to the country’s well-being. About two-thirds of independents (68%) and Democrats (67%) express this view.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (74%) say that Iran’s nuclear program is a major threat to the United States, compared with 62% of independents and 55% of Democrats. The partisan gap in opinion about the threat that North Korea’s nuclear program poses is slightly smaller; 61% of Republicans views this as a major threat, as do 58% of independents and 51% of Democrats.

Taken together, 54% of Republicans say that Islamic extremist groups and the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea are major threats; just 42% of independents and 37% of Democrats say all three represent major threats to the United States. By contrast, there is little partisan difference in the percentages viewing other potential threats (China, Pakistan and Russia) as major concerns.

The post-Cold War era may be less than a decade old, but Americans whose views help shape U.S. foreign policy have grown remarkably comfortable with it. Compared to four years ago when they were deeply troubled, American Opinion Leaders today see the world as a better place, where U.S. influence is enhanced and there are fewer worries about potential trouble spots. In striking contrast, the American public’s global view remains bleak.

Among Opinion Leaders, a substantial increase in confidence in the Clinton administration plays a significant part in this decidedly different climate of opinion. Four years ago, the then-new president received at best a mixed review from a similar group of Influential Americans. Today solid majorities in each group — ranging from corporate CEOs to religious leaders — approve of his overall performance in office. Specifically, Influential Americans credit Clinton for his trade policies, handling of Bosnia and for the quality of his foreign policy appointments.

The public shares this much improved opinion of President Clinton and his foreign policy, but those sentiments have not affected its view of the world. Opening a new and dramatic opinion gap with America’s Opinion Leaders, the general public remains dissatisfied with world conditions and sees no change in America’s influence. The dichotomy between ordinary Americans and Opinion Leaders in part may reflect the public’s scant knowledge of international affairs and a media focus on violence, conflict and instability.

Moreover, most Americans fundamentally doubt the relevance of international events to their own lives. While the percentage of people holding isolationist views did not increase (as it had in previous surveys in this series), majorities — sometimes large majorities — say events in Europe, Mexico, Asia and Canada have little or no impact on them.

These are the principal findings of a four year trend survey that included foreign affairs and security experts, journalists, scholars, scientists, religious leaders, governors and mayors, top business executives, Congressional staff and labor leaders. The Center interviewed nearly 600 of these Opinion Leaders (or Influentials) culled from these ten different groups or professions for the report. A representative sample of two thousand adults was surveyed by phone between September 4 and 11 as well.

A Post, Post -Cold War View

Influential Americans are much more confident about this country’s place in the world now compared to four years ago when they were anxious about the future in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are also much more satisfied with the way things are going both in the world and in the United States.

Twice as many Americans in leadership positions believe the United States plays a more important role in the world today than thought so in 1993 when the Center conducted its first poll in this series. Four out of five still prefer a shared leadership role for the nation, but several Influential groups are now more inclined to say the United States should be the single world leader.

Far more are willing to keep defense spending the same than four years ago, 50% vs. 31%, with even some greater sentiment for actually increasing it, despite the lack of an enemy that structured the overarching national strategy of Cold War years. Most of the Influentials surveyed support the current level of preparedness as consistent with U.S. strategy of being able to fight two wars, in Europe and in Asia, at the same time.

American Opinion Leaders have also changed their mind on Bosnia, although not to such a significant degree. Bosnia was the foreign policy issue on which Influentials were most critical of President Clinton four years ago. Now a plurality rate U.S. efforts to bring peace to the Balkans only fair, about on a par with U.S. efforts to deal with China as an emerging world power, but this is higher than they grade U.S. efforts to cope with several other foreign policy problems such as stopping the flow of illegal immigrants or protecting the global environment. Moreover, majorities in all Influential groups, often large majorities, would support extending the U.S. military mission in Bosnia if peace depended on its presence.

The Public Differs

The public, in contrast, does not see a more rosy world. Whereas four years ago the public and the Influentials were essentially in lock-step in their sour evaluation of world conditions (only 28% and 25% satisfied, respectively), the public today remains unchanged in its assessment (29% satisfied) while the Opinion Leaders register 58% satisfaction. Similarly, the public and the Influentials were close together four years ago in assessing the nation (20% and 25% satisfied, respectively); while both are more satisfied now in this respect, the public is considerably less positive than the Opinion Leaders (45% and 73% satisfied, respectively).

The American public does not think the United States today plays a greater global role than it did a decade ago. It is no more inclined to have the United States act as single world leader than before, nor any more generous with money for the military (although support for keeping spending at current levels remains high at 57%). It is also no more willing to use U.S. forces abroad in potential trouble spots than it was four years ago.

Average Americans are not enamored by U.S. activities in Bosnia, either. Barely half (48%) would support continuing the mission of American forces there even if it was necessary to keep the peace. A larger percentage (61%) does not believe U.S. and other NATO forces have improved chances so far for a permanent end to the fighting in the Balkans. A majority (55%) complains that Clinton has not adequately explained the purpose of U.S. forces there, up significantly in two years.

China: A Problem, Not An Adversary

American Influentials in the Pew Center survey also express little alarm about international problems. Concerns about global instability, including nuclear proliferation, continue to be the greatest general worries. China is the one geo-political problem that attracts most attention. But in a number of ways Opinion Leaders express only moderate concern about most other potential problems.

• Pluralities in eight of the ten Influential groups polled see less chance of an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction now compared to ten years ago. Security experts notably take a more pessimistic view– with a 63% majority seeing a greater chance of attack. All Influential groups see much less risk of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan than they did in 1993.
• Quebec’s secession from Canada is deemed unlikely despite the near success of the separatist referendum two years ago; and if Quebec does secede, only minor difficulties are anticipated for the United States as a result.
• Most Opinion Leaders are sanguine about the effects of European economic and political integration on the U.S.
• Few envision a civil war in Turkey.

While Influentials are twice as certain as in 1993 that China will become an assertive world power, most regard China as a serious problem rather than an adversary. Most are optimistic about the continued economic prosperity in Hong Kong under mainland rule. Opinion Leaders would advocate significant change in U.S. policy toward China after rather grave actions such as invading Taiwan or eliminating civil liberties in Hong Kong.

Significant majorities of all Opinion Leader groups would oppose U.S. insistence on applying American human and civil rights standards throughout the world if it seriously risked antagonizing friendly nations that follow different traditions. But there is a hint of increased priority being placed on protecting weaker nations against foreign aggression even if U.S. vital interests are not at stake.

Absent the single enemy that united disparate interests during the Cold War, Opinion Leaders surveyed show markedly different degrees of willingness to use America’s military might in potential conflict situations. Majority support increased in favor of the use of U.S. forces in two of the four cases posed — if Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia and if Arab forces invaded Israel — and remains steady in the case of North Korea invading South Korea. Majorities of all but one Influential group oppose the fourth case — use of force if the Mexican government were falling to revolution or civil war.

Nuclear Proliferation And Energy Top Goals

The consensus among Influentials on the greatest dangers to world stability remains much the same as four years ago: nationalism and ethnic hatred followed by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Reflecting these worries, Influentials overwhelmingly want the main U.S. foreign policy goal to be halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction: fully 86% give it top priority. Second, also as it was four years ago, is insuring adequate energy supplies for the United States (61%). Third is combating international drug trafficking. Fewer respondents now see strengthening the United Nations as a top priority goal. Reducing foreign trade deficits also has lost urgency.

Improving the global environment rates much higher for Union leaders, Governors and Mayors, and Scientists than for Business leaders or Security experts. Improving living standards in developing nations receives much greater support from Religious leaders than from any other group. Reducing foreign trade deficits looms as much more important for Governors and Mayors.

Other notable attitudes found among American Opinion Leaders include:

• Majorities, usually large majorities, endorse the expansion of NATO into Central Europe. Least enthusiasm for the move comes from the Security and Foreign Affairs groups, with Security experts only marginally in favor of including Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. There is somewhat less support among Opinion Leaders for a second round of expansion, though majorities in most groups remain in favor, with the Security and Foreign Policy experts again most dubious.
• Overwhelming majorities believe NAFTA is a good thing, except Labor Union leaders, more than two thirds of whom say it is a bad thing. Smaller majorities in most Influential groups favor extending the pact to other Latin American counties. Here again, Union Leaders are the exception — three to one against it. Governors and Mayors, while supportive overall, are the next most reserved about expansion of the free trade association.
• Majorities, sometimes large majorities, of Influentials favor either major reforms of the Central Intelligence Agency or its outright abolition in favor of a new agency. Capitol Hill staffers oppose abolition and lean more than other groups to only minor reforms.

The Public’s Agenda

Public responses suggest that it has not yet caught up to changed conditions over the past few years. While the public at large continues to have a gloomy international outlook, the very small percentage of Americans who are well informed about foreign affairs and have a college degree (about 4% of all Americans) have a positive view of world conditions — one that approaches that of Opinion Leaders. (See page 14.)

Much of the broader public also does not consider foreign affairs important to their lives. Majorities of varying sizes say events in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada have little or no impact on them. Similarly large majorities say the news media carries about the right amount of foreign news. Knowledge of international policy and events is minimal. Fully 63% support expansion of NATO, but only 10% can correctly name any one of the three nations to be admitted.

As found four years ago, the public differs with Influentials on the top U.S. foreign policy priority. Protecting American jobs is given most priority, an effort which draws comparatively little attention among Influential groups except for Union leaders and Governors and Mayors. After this bread and butter issue, the public falls into line with Opinion Leaders, giving high priority to preventing nuclear proliferation, as well as to issues with domestic effects such as stopping drug trafficking, protecting U.S. energy supplies and safeguarding the global environment.

Sample

The purpose of the Pew Center survey was primarily to learn what America’s leadership elites believe America’s role in the post Cold War world should be. These leadership respondents, whom we call America’s Influentials or Opinion Leaders, consisted of 591 men and women chosen from recognized lists of top individuals in various fields or by virtue of their leadership positions.¹

The Business and Finance group consisted of chief executive officers in industry and finance picked at random from these categories of Fortune 1000′s list of leading companies. The Foreign Affairs group was selected at random from the membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Security group was selected at random from the list of American members of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Science and Engineering group was picked at random from members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineers. Governors and mayors were chosen from among the fifty state governors and mayors of cities with populations over 80,000.

Among respondents selected on a non-random basis, Academics were taken from a list of leaders of the private universities rated as “most difficult” to enter and those state universities rated as “very difficult” to enter. The Think Tank portion of the Academic sample included the heads of major think tanks listed in The Capitol Source. Religion respondents were selected from the leadership of, among others, all Protestant denominations with memberships over 700,000; each of the 33 Catholic Archdioceses of the country; and the three mainstream Jewish movements. Media respondents were selected from among top individuals in television, newspapers, radio and news magazines. Union Leaders were selected from top officials of the nation’s 50 largest unions. And the Capitol Hill staff were selected from committees handling international affairs and the personal staffs of members serving on such committees.

PUBLICS INTERVIEWED

• General Public (2000)
• Media (73)
• Business and Finance (35)
• Foreign Affairs (69)
• Security (57)
• Governors and Mayors (75)
• Think Tanks and Academics (93)
• Religious Leaders (36)
• Science and Engineering (92)
• Labor Union (24)
• Congressional staff (37)

Demographically, Influential respondents were mostly male, white and highly educated: 94% held university degrees, including 27% with masters degrees and 46% with doctorates. About one third (34%) had served in the military. Democrats outnumbered Republicans 41% to 26% overall, with another 32% self-described Independents. Half the sample (50%) described themselves as moderates, with another 27% describing themselves as liberal and 20% as conservative. The 1997 Influential sample closely parallels the 1993 sample in all respects.

The parallel public survey was undertaken to compare with the Influentials. It polled 2,000 adults who form a cross-section of American society in all of the various demographic measures.

As with NAFTA, American opinion leaders and the American public have conflicting views about Asia. A plurality of opinion leaders believe Asia is now more important to the United States than Europe, a recent survey found, while the public (by a 50% to 31% margin) continues to see Europe as most important.

The choice of Asia by the Influentials was largely one of pocketbooks vs. hearts. Of those respondents selecting the Pacific Rim, more than three-fourths cited economic reasons. The public, in continuing to look to Europe, may not see the same economic opportunity as the Influentials; it believes by an overwhelming five to one margin (72% to 14%) that Japan has an unfair trade policy toward the United States.

The survey by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press also found that the Influentials view the Asian region with most concern. No nation has replaced the former Soviet Union as the greatest danger to the United States, but the aggregated concern about the traditional nations of Asia was high. Those Influentials who specialize in security and defense issues considered it most dangerous to the United States, far more than the former Soviet Union or the Mideast.

Strong majorities or pluralities of almost all Influential groups would use U.S. troops to stop a North Korean invasion of South Korea, while most of the public would oppose it. Strong majorities in every Influential group would keep U.S. force levels in South Korea at current levels. Stronger sentiment was found for deep cuts in U.S. forces in Europe than in South Korea.

The survey of 649 opinion leaders in the nine groups — foreign affairs, security-defense, business, media, religion, science, state and local government, academia, and culture — was conducted in July and August, with two parallel public surveys in September and October. The results were released earlier this month in a report titled as America’s Place in the World.

We undertook this latest survey of the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, America’s Place in the New World, in an effort to discover where the nation’s top non-governmental leaders believe America is today, domestically and in foreign affairs, and where it should go in the post Cold War world.

“At this moment of panoramic change, of vast opportunities and troubling threats,” as President Clinton described the present climate, we asked those who influence American opinion and policy direction: What are the most important problems facing the nation? What are the greatest foreign dangers? What should America’s top goals be — economic, political, security, and ecologic? We asked them what leadership role the United States should play in the new world. We asked them to prioritize a list of specific policy options. We asked which area of the world was now most important to America: the Pacific Rim or Europe.

We spent considerable time and effort deciding who to poll in addition to the public. Political leaders in Congress and the Administration were excluded on the grounds that their views are already known, or at least they have ample opportunity to make them known. Some respondent groups were relatively easy to identify in view of our subject, including those in the foreign affairs and the defense-security areas, in industry and finance, and in the media.

Beyond that, we included a group of governors and the mayors of large cities to insure that local attitudes were represented in the survey. We chose top figures of the academic world to insure that those scholars and intellectuals were heard. We selected leaders of the religious communities to insure that the keepers of our moral and ethical values would be included. We chose scientists and engineers because they represent the creators of our modern technological society.

We included well-known cultural figures from the worlds of art and entertainment (writers, critics, musicians) since those who ‘write the songs’ reflect the country’s images for today and tomorrow. There is no perfect questionnaire and no perfect sample, but within those imperfections, we tried our best to reach the broadest spectrum of those who influence the American people.

We owe a special debt of gratitude to Robert C. Toth who authored this report and managed this project for the Center. His years of experience as a diplomatic and foreign correspondent added invaluably to questionnaire design and analysis.