Report Date: January 2004
Data Collected: December 8-20, 2003
Survey Population: 1,290 civically engaged adults nationwide; six focus groups
Learn more about this survey.

Key Findings

• A 55-17% majority believes that the U.S. is less liked and respected abroad than several years ago.
  
• An 84% majority feels America’s security and foreign policy are damaged when it is less liked and respected abroad.
  
• A 48% plurality feels that, “more than at most times in our history, the U.S. now is threatened and must take steps to protect its own people and security,” while 45% choose the alternative view that, “More than at most times in our history, the U.S. now has opportunities to help build a more peaceful world and ensure freedom and decent lives for more people around the world.”
  
• “Americans who have traveled extensively (more than 7 trips abroad in the last 10 years) support focusing more on problems abroad by a 2:1 margin, but for the 41% who have not traveled abroad during this period, the margin is reversed.”

Key Advice

• “Despite a difficult opinion environment, advocates of progressive alternatives to current U.S. foreign and national security policy face a series of opportunities to get a better and broader hearing for their issues.”
  
• Americans are concerned that current policies are reducing support for the U.S. abroad and damaging America’s security as a consequence.
  
• “The public feels that the U.S. is devoting too much time and money to problems abroad, and not enough to problems at home – which creates an opening to argue for international cooperation to provide more cost effective solutions.”
  
• Terrorism and homeland security are currently prominent in the public’s mind. Thus, the general public responds more favorably to development assistance issues when they are placed in some relation to this “hard” security agenda.
  
• Of the various possible approaches to talking about development assistance, the most convincing message is one that acknowledges the importance of the “hard” security agenda but then “pivots” to emphasize the value of addressing global poverty in this context.
  
• There is significant support for a foreign policy agenda that focuses on hope rather than fear, going beyond the goal of defending against terrorism and security threats to emphasize the active building of a more peaceful and prosperous world.
  
• Understanding the differences between demographics is a key component of effective messaging.
  
  • Relation to Issue: Different message frames work to different degrees with various audiences – such as the general public, opinion formers, activists or issue experts. For example, opinion formers are more open to American efforts abroad.
    
  • Ideology: The effectiveness of progressive arguments depends on the reasoning employed. For instance, arguments against military preemption based on “American tradition” play very strongly with moderates and conservatives, while arguments that decry “bullying behavior” resonate among liberals.
    
  • Gender: women are more concerned about security, more critical of current U.S. policy and more receptive to development assistance issues.
    
  • Location: Americans on the two coasts are more supportive of a progressive agenda than those who live in the rural heartland areas.
    
  • Education: Highly educated Americans are more supportive of an active global role for America abroad. Highly traveled Americans attach even more importance to global issues.

Methodology
Research was sponsored by the Open Society Institute and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The research is based on a set of 6 focus groups, conducted December 8-11, 2003 in the Seattle suburbs, Des Moines, and Washington, DC; and a nationwide survey of 1,290 civically engaged adults, including an over-sample of 439 opinion formers, conducted December 15-20, 2003.

Return to Index of Surveys.