Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

A KETTERING FOUNDATION REPORT
October 2004
Prepared by John Doble Research Associates
P U B L I C T H I N K I N G A B O U T
Americans’Role
in the World
An Analysis of Results from the 2003-2004 National Issues Forums

Copyright © 2004 by the Kettering Foundation
The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation, chartered in 1927, that does not make
grants but welcomes partnerships with other institutions (or groups of institutions) and individuals who
are actively working on problems of communities, politics, and education. The interpretations and con-
clusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the
author or authors and not necessarily those of the foundation, its trustees, or officers.
www.kettering.org

About This Report 1
About the Forums: A Framework for Public Deliberation 4
Key Findings: Americans on America’s Role in the World 6
The Nature of Public Thinking: How Citizens Approach Complex Issues
of Politics and Policy 8
Forum Results: Toward a Common Ground for Action 13
The Effects of Deliberation: The Impact of Forums on People’s Thinking 24
Appendices:
A. Questions and Answers about the Forums 26
B. Questionnaire Results 29
C. Forum Transcript Excerpts 32
D. Methodology 38
E. Demographics 40
F. Issue Map 42
About Doble Research 44
About National Issues Forums 45
About the Kettering Foundation 46
Contents

October 2004
Public Thinking about Americans’ Role in the World
When it comes to foreign policy,
conventional wisdom suggests
that Americans are indifferent and
ill informed. Their views are too
simplistic. They care little for the
complexities of charting a new course
for the United States in the post-Cold
War and post-9/11 world.
The results of a two-year research
project by the Kettering Foundation,
however, suggest something quite
different, namely, that Americans care
deeply about our nation’s role in the
world and they are thinking about it
in complex ways. They see clear links
not only between national security
and our image abroad, but also
between national security and issues
like human rights, trade, and the war
on AIDS—and they wish public
officials and policymakers were
making the same connections.
The project’s findings are based
on the results of more than 100
deliberative forums in 37 different
states and represent the collective
judgment of thousands of citizens
from all walks of life. Organized
by the National Issues Forums (NIF)
network, the forums took place over
the course of some 15 months,
beginning in early 2003, during the
buildup to the Iraq War. The results
of these forums are explored in
detail in this report by John Doble
Research Associates, a nonpartisan
research firm that specializes in
analyzing public opinion about
complex policy issues.
While opinion polls and press
accounts at the time—and since—
have suggested that Americans’ views
on foreign policy and the war are
polarized and extreme, these forums
revealed something quite different:
common ground. After a decade
of uncertainty, Americans are
beginning to find their way through
the post-Cold War world and the
perplexing realities of globalization
and terrorism. Rather than simply
falling back on political ideology,
those taking part in these deliber-
ative forums had the ability to
struggle with difficult issues and
tradeoffs. Their thinking was highly
nuanced. Their views, in fact, were
far more sophisticated than policy-
makers and political commentators
commonly realize.
Americans are interested in
effectiveness and ethics—defining
not only the reasonable thing to
do, but also the right thing to do. A
decade after the collapse of the Soviet
Union—and the disappearance of
our traditional communist enemy—
Americans are clearly beginning to
find their voice. They are beginning
to define the kind of world they want
to live in and the kind of world they
want to pass on to their children and
grandchildren.
Key Findings:
• Military power and Moral
Authority. When it comes to
protecting national security and
combating terrorism, as forum
participants see it, international
standing is as important as
military strength. In fact, while
1
About This Report:
What Americans have to say about America’s role
in the world and why it matters
BY HAROLD H. SAUNDERS AND KENNETH A. BROWN

2 Kettering Foundation
their belief in the importance of
a strong military is almost
unanimous, they see our global
reputation as an almost decisive
element in our ability to both
play a leading role in the world
and defend ourselves. After 9/11,
participants say, the United States
lost an invaluable opportunity to
strengthen alliances with traditional
allies and build relationships with
old opponents—particularly in the
Muslim world. Instead, the sympa-
thy and goodwill that followed
the terrorist attacks in New York
and Washington, D.C., have been
replaced by distrust and enmity.
• Building Alliances and the Use
of Force. Like the public at large,
forum participants were deeply
divided about the war in Iraq. Yet,
whether they thought the decision
was right or wrong, in terms of
long-term national security, few
thought it was the best decision.
While they believe the United
States needs a strong military to
defend its interests and has the
unquestionable right to defend
itself against imminent attacks,
they are concerned about the moral
and financial costs of going it alone.
Force, forum participants say,
should be used only as a last resort
and only in conjunction with
others. The United States, they
argue, should be neither isolationist
nor the world’s policeman. Instead,
we should work more closely
with others to build the kind of
world we want to live in together.
• Human Rights and Democracy.
While forum participants generally
believe that the spread of democ-
racy would make both the United
States and the world safer in the
long run, they also feel that trying
to impose democracy is counter-
productive. We need, they explain,
to be careful to respect others’
cultural traditions and political
realities. They believe our priorities
and principles would be better
served by pushing for the protection
of basic human rights—particularly
where ethnic minorities, women,
and children are concerned. From
the perspective of forum goers, a
world in which basic human rights
are respected is one in which all
nations can begin to work together
to solve those problems that no
nation can solve alone.
• Focusing on the Long Term.
In addition to developing alliances
and protecting human rights, forum
participants say, the United States
needs to pay more attention to
larger global problems, for example,
AIDS, economic inequality, and
global warming. In terms of long-
term global stability, these comprise
the problem behind the problem.
Often, forum participants approach
these issues from a very different
perspective from that of experts.
Instead of free trade, for instance,
forum participants spoke of fair
trade: treaties and trade agreements
that not only protect American jobs,
but also promote the health and
safety of workers in the developing
world. Rather than sitting on the
sidelines, participants say, the
United States should play a leading
role in attacking these kinds
of issues.
To some observers, these results will
no doubt seem like wishful thinking or
the products of well-informed and
well-thought-out hindsight. However,
it is important to remember that much
of the data in this report was gathered
in forums that took place during the
actual buildup to the Iraq War. That
they look and sound so different from
the picture of public opinion and
public thinking painted by opinion
polls and political commentary of that
time should come as no surprise.

3October 2004
The findings in this report are not
the product of traditional opinion
polls or a collection of expert theories.
They are the result of something far
more profound: public deliberation—
the collective judgment of citizens
from all across the country, as expres-
sed in locally organized, nonpartisan
forums.
Forums are not popularity contests.
Participants do not merely argue or
vote. They work together, carefully
weighing the costs and benefits of
different approaches, struggling to
define a collective course for action.
For the press and public officials alike,
forums offer a glimpse into citizens’
most deeply held beliefs and desires—
invaluable information whether one’s
goal is covering the news or develop-
ing policy.
About the Kettering Foundation
For more than 20 years, the
Kettering Foundation has been using
forums to study Americans’ views
about foreign policy and America’s
role in the world. Studies have cov-
ered public thinking in this regard on
everything from the nuclear arms race
to terrorism. Coupled with this
research has been extensive work in
public diplomacy—bringing citizens
and policymakers together through
such initiatives as the Dartmouth
Conferences on U.S.-Soviet relations
during the height of the Cold War as
well as present-day programs like the
U.S.-China Dialogues and others in
Russia, Thailand, and Tajikistan.
Other international research proj-
ects include collaborative work with
community and human rights groups
around the world to demonstrate both
the widespread roots and the wide-
spread reach of democratic practices
at the national, state, and community
level. Nonpartisan and nonpolitical,
the foundation’s key research question
is “What does it take to make
democracy work as it should?”
A healthy democracy depends
on public participation, not just in
regularly scheduled elections, but
also in the ongoing and much harder
business of finding solutions to
persistent public problems. Nowhere
is that fact more critical today than in
the task of developing a sustainable
and effective approach for protecting
the nation’s security and defining
its role in the world. For far too long,
that job has been considered one
solely for professionals and political
leaders. The public need not apply.
By offering a framework for
public deliberation, forums help
citizens find solutions to the prob-
lems that concern them—a way of
connecting both with others in their
community and with their elected
officials. They help put the public
into public policy, whether
the issue is local public schools or
our nation’s role in the world.
People cannot act together until
they decide together. Deliberation
is not just about talking over issues,
but about talking through them—
bringing divided interests together
to find a common ground for action.
Hal Saunders is the head of the
International Institute for Sustained
Dialogue and the director of Inter-
national Programs at the Kettering
Foundation. A former Assistant
Secretary of State, in 1978 he helped
draft the Camp David Accords and
in 1980-1981 helped negotiate the
release of American hostages in Iran.
Ken Brown is a program officer at
the Kettering Foundation. He works
regularly with the NIF network on
research questions involving public-
government relations and the media.
He has worked as a journalist in Africa,
Latin America, and the United States.

This report is about public thinking
on Americans’ role in the world—the
thoughts, insights, and values of 1,486
everyday Americans as expressed in
deliberative forums organized around
the country by the National Issues
Forums (NIF) network. Between
early 2003 and mid-2004, the forums
brought citizens together in high
school, college, literacy, and ESL
classrooms; churches, synagogues,
and mosques; community and senior
centers; public libraries; private
homes; and even prisons to deliberate
about U.S. foreign policy and our
nation’s role in world affairs.
Behind this analysis of the public’s
thinking, of course, is the forum
process itself: the framework used to
structure public deliberation in these
public forums and the question of
values at stake. The outcomes of these
forums reveal not only a number of
important insights about the nature
of the public’s thinking on Americans’
role in the world, but also the nature
of public thinking in general—how
citizens reason together and how
lasting public views about questions
of politics and policy take shape—
in short, how people struggle with
difficult public issues. Together, they
help reveal that citizens are ready to
define a clear course of action and are
willing to make the tradeoffs required.
An Analysis of Public Thinking
When people come together
in a National Issues Forum, they
deliberate for up to three hours with
a trained, impartial moderator. The
deliberations occur within a frame-
work designed to present an array
of approaches for dealing with a
complex issue, including the costs
and consequences of each approach.
National Issues Forums are designed
to help people see that even the most
complex issues can be approached,
understood, and deliberated about
by ordinary citizens.
Although the people who attend
a National Issues Forum comprise a
geographically and demographically
diverse group of American citizens,
they are not, as pollsters often seek,
a random (or national probability)
sample.i
As a further distinction, while
pollsters commonly sample opinion
over only a few days, these forums
took place over many months.
Consequently, the results of forums
and those of polls fundamentally
differ. While a poll provides a statisti-
cally precise snapshot of what the
public thinks at a given time, forums
yield a richer, more stable, and more
differentiated set of results. Forum
results enable us to analyze and
About the Forums:
A Framework for
Public Deliberation
i See Tables and Methodology at the end of this report
for a description of who attended these forums. To check
our results we also conducted a series of Research
Forums or Focus Groups. See pages 38–41 for details.
The outcomes of these forums
reveal not only a number of
important insights about the
nature of the public’s thinking
on Americans’ role in the world,
but also the nature of public
thinking in general—how
citizens reason together and
how lasting public views about
questions of politics and policy
take shape—in short, how
people struggle with difficult
public issues.
National Issues Forums are
designed to help people see
that even the most complex
issues can be approached,
understood, and deliberated
about by ordinary citizens.
While a poll provides a
statistically precise snapshot
of what the public thinks at a
given time, forums yield a
different, richer, more
differentiated set of results.

During deliberation, people
considered each approach in turn.
At the end of the forums, moderators
and recorders asked the groups to
consider what they had agreed on,
where they had disagreed, and what
common ground for action, if any,
they had identified.ii
The Boundaries of Political Permission
The eminent social scientist
Daniel Yankelovich has written that
the appropriate role of citizens in a
democratic society is to establish a
broad set of guidelines, or what he
called “the boundaries of political
permission,” within which policy can
be carried out. It is unrealistic and
unwise, Yankelovich writes, to
expect average citizens to acquire
the expert’s level of knowledge or
in-depth understanding and then
provide clear dictates for the enact-
ment of public policy. However, a
“deliberative public,” a public that
has the opportunity to learn and
deliberate about even the most
complex issues, can establish a set
of clearly identifiable boundaries
within which policymakers can act.
This report describes some of the
boundaries of political permission
forum participants established for
Americans’ role in the world.
5October 2004
iiFor a more detailed description of the issue map see
Appendix F pages 42–43.
map people’s thinking by revealing
the values people draw on and the
considerations they bring to bear as
they struggle with an issue over a
long period of time. Forums enable
us to explore what we might call
the “public mind,” including the
tension points and strains in people’s
thinking as they deliberate about
how to deal with an issue as complex
as Americans’ role in the world.
A Framework for Public Deliberation
For their deliberations in these
forums, people from across the
country used the same framework
and considered the same broad
approaches, each of which was pre-
sented with pro and con arguments
and an array of costs and conse-
quences. Every direction or course of
action involved risks, uncertainties,
and tradeoffs. Thus, preferences
were associated with costs.
Using an issue book and starter
video, forum participants considered
four perspectives on defining the
nation’s role in the world:
• Promoting international order
by using our power to secure
the peace
• Fostering global stability by
promoting democracy and
supporting human rights
• Working to promote equality
and stability around the world
through free trade and economic
development
• Securing a safe future by
addressing worldwide health
and environmental problems
such as AIDS and global
warming
The appropriate role of citizens
in a democratic society is to
establish a broad set of guide-
lines, or boundaries of political
permission within which policy
can be carried out.
A public that has the opportunity
to learn and deliberate about
even the most complex issues,
can establish a set of clearly
identifiable boundaries within
which policymakers can act.

Defining National Security
When it comes to national security,
forum participants have what might
be considered a surprisingly broad
perception of the issues involved.
They see it as including not only our
ability to respond to military and
terrorist threats, but also our interna-
tional standing: how the rest of the
world views us and perceives our
intentions. The United States, many
said, not only failed after 9/11 to seize
the opportunity to build bridges and
cement alliances, but also caused
the goodwill foreigners felt in the
aftermath of that attack to be replaced
by enmity, especially in the Middle
East and among Muslims. People
felt the country should work to under-
stand and address these sentiments.
While sharp divisions existed
about the current U.S. involvement
in Iraq, forum participants agreed on
a great deal. There was consensus
that the United States needs a strong
military, for example, and agreement
that force should be the option of last
resort and then only after extensive
public debate. Except in cases of dire
emergency, forum participants also
agreed that the country should use
force only in concert with other
nations. The belief in the need for
leadership through international
cooperation was so strong, in fact,
that it played a role in a host of
Key Findings:
Americans on
Americans’ Role
in the World
other issues as well—everything
from promoting democracy and
economic development to protecting
the environment and public health.
Supporting Democracy and Protecting
Human Rights
People said the United States
should promote the spread of
democracy around the globe because
it would enhance national security
and make the world a safer place.
At the same time, they felt that this
country should not use military force
to “impose” democracy on other
countries. The United States, forum
participants said, needs to be more
sensitive to the beliefs and values of
other countries.
Pointing to problems in the 2000
presidential election and the inequali-
ties in our current health care system
and national economy, many forum
participants said America should
address its own shortcomings before
trying to spread its political and
economic system internationally.
Protecting Human Rights
While urging respect for other
cultures and traditions, people strong-
ly felt that the United States should
promote basic universal standards of
human rights, especially those for
the protection of ethnic minorities,
women, and children. As in forums
When it comes to national
security, forum participants have
what might be considered a
surprisingly broad perception of
the issues involved. They see it
as including not only our ability to
respond to military and terrorist
threats, but also our international
standing: how the rest of the
world views us and perceives our
intentions.
While sharp divisions existed
about the current U.S. involve-
ment in Iraq, forum participants
agreed on a great deal. There
was consensus that the United
States needs a strong military, for
example, and agreement that
force should be the option of last
resort and then only after exten-
sive public debate.

7October 2004
in previous years, participants
drew a distinction between protecting
human rights and promoting the
spread of democracy, giving the
protection of human rights an unqual-
ified endorsement. Although forum
participants believe that the spread
of democracy can help make the
world a safer place in the long term,
they believe protecting human rights
is of more immediate concern.
Promoting Economic Development
Participants generally opposed
protectionism and favored free trade,
but they found it easier to identify
the downsides of trade, both here
and in developing countries, than
the benefits free trade brings to con-
sumers. Consequently, a great deal
of people’s support for free trade
appeared to be qualified.
While support for free trade was
widespread at the start of most forum
discussions, many participants said
that recent trade agreements unfairly
disadvantage American workers and
need adjustment. Many were more
interested in promoting what they
called fair trade—a vision of global-
ization that protected American jobs
while promoting the health and safety
of workers overseas, particularly in
poorer nations.
Long-term Global Threats
Participants strongly believe that
preserving the country’s security
requires the United States to take the
lead in forging international partner-
ships with other nations to address
long-term global threats. People said
the United States should address these
problems not only for humanitarian
reasons, but also out of self-interest.
In the long term, they saw addressing
these issues as closely tied to preserv-
ing political stability around the
world and controlling or even
eliminating the threat of terrorism.
Many who deliberated in these
forums, however, saw economic
considerations as critical. They felt
hard-pressed personally and said the
United States lacks the resources to
be overly involved in global affairs.
For some, the costs of the military
were onerous. Others talked about the
economic effects of trade. Still others
questioned whether the country has
the resources to afford foreign aid,
promote the spread of democracy, or
deal with global threats when there
are so many urgent needs here in the
United States.
Even so, they broadly agreed
that world health and environmental
threats should receive a higher priori-
ty than they currently do, with a large
majority saying they would be willing
to make lifestyle changes to address
global warming and reduce our
dependence on Middle-Eastern oil.
Addressing long-term global threats
was seen as a key part of ensuring
our long-term national security.
People said the United States
should promote the spread of
democracy around the globe
because it would enhance national
security and make the world a
safer place. At the same time,
they felt that this country should
not use military force to “impose”
democracy on other countries.
While support for free trade
was widespread at the start of
most forum discussions, many
participants said that recent
trade agreements unfairly
disadvantage American workers
and need adjustment.
Participants strongly believe that
preserving the country’s security
requires the United States to take
the lead in forging international
partnerships with other nations to
address long-term global threats.

National Issues Forums enable us to
explore both the substance and nature
of public thinking, that is, what peo-
ple think about the issue along with
how they think. Below we discuss
first the focus and characteristics of
public thinking and then the approach
people in these forums took to
the issue.
Focus
PERSONALLY CONNECTED. While
some forum participants found the
issue of Americans’ role in the world
unfamiliar, many connected to it in
intensely personal terms. Some of
them talked about the impact of the
war in Iraq. “The son of a man in
our forum is on his way to Iraq,”
reported a forum moderator in
Columbia, Missouri. Feelings ran
deep at Tyndall Air Force Base in
Florida and in communities near the
U.S. Army’s Fort Hood in Texas, not
only among service personnel, but
also among their families and friends.
At forums in other communities,
participants talked about the impact
of globalization and free trade, their
trials with lost jobs, factory closings,
and corporate relocations. For some,
the issue brought up memories of
persecution and prejudice. During
discussions of the anti-Muslim preju-
dice that has sprung up since 9/11,
for example, one Japanese-American
described being interned during
World War II when anti-Japanese
sentiments ran similarly high in the
United States. Another, an educator
who advises international students,
spoke of a Saudi Arabian student who
“took his family home [after 9/11],
saying, ‘they’ll feel safer there.’”
A number of forum participants
emphasized the importance of getting
to know citizens of other countries.
They called attention to the value of
cultural and educational exchanges,
saying this country benefits when
Americans study abroad and when
foreigners study here. Often a develop-
ing country’s strongest advocates
of democracy, they explained, are
those who were educated in the
United States. Many participants also
lamented that Americans know so
little about foreign people and their
traditions, pointing out that this lack
of knowledge has led the country
to commit foreign policy blunders
in the past and, in the opinion of
many, to blunder again today in the
Middle East.
NATIONALLY FOCUSED. While
citizens felt personally connected to
the issues at stake in their deliberations
on Americans’ role in the world, their
deliberations quickly focused on
the appropriate role for the nation.
They talked about America’s role in the
world, about what role the country
should or should not play in the
twenty-first century, rather than their
role as Americans and what they could
do. With respect to other NIF forums,
The Nature of Public Thinking:
How Citizens Approach
Complex Issues of
Politics and Policy
While citizens felt personally
connected to the issues at
stake in their deliberations on
Americans’ role in the world,
their deliberations quickly focused
on the appropriate role for the
nation. They talked about
America’s role in the world,
about what role the country
should or should not play in the
twenty-first century.
Many participants also lamented
that Americans know so little
about foreign people and their
traditions.

9October 2004
that shift was unique. Participants
did not approach this issue on the
same personal terms used when, for
example, forums were held on drugs,
crime, education, health care, affirma-
tive action, social security, or even the
economy. Virtually without exception,
participants in these forums framed
the issue in national terms.
With regard to public thinking, this
phenomenon was a clear indication
of just how strongly the public’s
tendency is to reframe issues in their
own way. Initially, the central question
for consideration in these National
Issues Forums involved the role
individual Americans should play.
Both the issue book and the video
that framed the topic were carefully
constructed so that participants,
instead of conversing about U.S.
foreign policy, would talk about the
role they as individual American
citizens might play in the world of
the twenty-first century. In addition,
each approach in the framework
presented an array of actions individ-
ual citizens might take—all to no
avail. However personally connected
they might have felt to the issue
of Americans’ role in the world,
they believed it was an issue that
demanded a national approach.
GLOBALLY AWARE. When consider-
ing economic issues, people’s main
concerns were national. They focused
on the self-interest of American
workers and consumers. However,
when people talked about the use of
military force, promoting the spread
of democracy, or dealing with AIDS
and the environment, their focus
shifted from the national to the
international. They discussed global
efforts and the importance of the
United States taking a leadership role,
often through existing international
organizations such as the UN. A
woman from New Orleans said that
to tackle global problems, “you
have to have [strong, international]
relationships already, and not
necessarily with government [but
with] entities within the country.”
INTERESTED IN THE LONG TERM.
Again and again, people in these
forums stressed the importance of
considering the long-term effects of
an approach or idea. For example,
both critics and supporters of the
war in Iraq talked about long-term
consequences. Critics argued that
the conflict had caused lasting
damage to this country’s image
abroad, especially among Muslims.
At the same time, supporters of the
war also talked about the long-term
dangers the war addressed. Similarly,
discussions about the environment,
health, and even trade and global-
ization were often framed within a
10- or 20-year context, as people
discussed what had happened and
speculated about what would happen
in this country should trends contin-
ue. Not only were discussions about
global problems usually viewed from
a long-term perspective, so too were
many of the specific solutions, such as
education, to which people gravitated.
Characteristics
NON-IDEOLOGICAL. Commonly,
experts and leaders have a well-
developed philosophy or worldview;
often, they look at issues related to
their country’s role in the world
through an ideological prism. To that
extent, observers can forecast to a
reasonable degree what positions vari-
ous experts and leaders will take on
an issue, even as those issues are just
emerging. By contrast, participants in
these forums usually did not have a
coherent, sophisticated philosophy or
worldview. They did not approach the
issues in ideological terms.
When considering economic
issues, people’s main concerns
were national. They focused on
the self-interest of American
workers and consumers. However,
when people talked about the use
of military force, promoting the
spread of democracy, or dealing
with AIDS and the environment,
their focus shifted from the
national to the international.
Again and again, people in these
forums stressed the importance of
considering the long-term effects
of an approach or idea.
Commonly, experts and leaders
have a well-developed philosophy
or worldview; often, they look
at issues related to their country’s
role in the world through an
ideological prism.…By contrast,
participants in these forums
usually did not have a coherent,
sophisticated philosophy or
worldview. They did not approach
the issues in ideological terms.

Forum participants, for example,
did not generally endorse the use of
preemptive force; but instead of ruling
it out, they saw such use of force as
an option to employ under certain,
limited circumstances, to be decided
on a case-by-case basis. Similarly,
people were generally not ardent
free-market capitalists; they felt that
the U.S. free enterprise system had
some drawbacks, which might make
it unattractive for some countries or
cultures to adopt. And participants
wanted to assess health and environ-
mental issues case by case, weighing
in turn the likely effectiveness of each
proposed solution, rather than judg-
ing the issues on an ideological basis.
ETHICAL. When people deliberated
about different approaches, they
brought ethical considerations to
every aspect of the issue. No matter
how they felt about the issue, partici-
pants repeatedly asked whether this
country had the right or the responsi-
bility or even the moral obligation to
pursue a given course of action.
When addressing the often-divisive
question of Iraq, participants also
considered the issue in terms of its
ethical dimensions. A man in an
Austin forum said, “Before I would
send somebody else off [to war], I
[would] need to be absolutely
convinced that it’s worth risking that
person’s life and destroying whoever
I’m going to attack.” But people
with a different point of view also
spoke in terms of ethics as they
described Saddam Hussein’s brutality
or the need to fight in Iraq in order
to prevent another terrorist attack on
the United States.
Similarly, when the deliberation
focused on the question of trying
to promote global prosperity by
expanding free trade, a great many
participants framed their responses
in ethical terms. They talked about
“unfair” competition or job loss in
the United States or about child
labor and sweatshops in developing
countries.
Again and again, participants
checked their moral compasses as
they deliberated. Young people in
particular were concerned about
human rights, especially with regard
to protecting the rights of women
and children and preventing geno-
cide. Others talked about issues of
pollution, resource management, and
global health. For example, several
students in a forum at Dutchess
Community College in Poughkeepsie,
New York, said that it was the coun-
try’s moral obligation to lead a broad
international effort to combat the
spread of AIDS.
PRAGMATIC. As they deliberated,
forum participants also weighed near-
ly every approach in pragmatic terms.
For example, when considering
whether this country should try to
promote the spread of democracy
around the globe, people spoke not
only about whether it was the “right”
thing to do, but also about the idea’s
feasibility. Did the approach have a
realistic chance of success? Some
people questioned the feasibility of
establishing a stable democratic
government in Iraq and the likelihood
of raising the standard of living in
developing countries through expand-
ed trade. As one West Virginia man
said, “Countries that have virtually no
economy all of a sudden are expected
to trade on an equal basis with large
countries? That is simply unrealistic
in terms of developing the weaker
countries.” Others doubted whether
it was realistic to expect progress
when it came to combating the global
spread of HIV or tackling worldwide
environmental problems. Here again,
no matter which side of the issue an
individual took, forum participants
When people deliberated about
different approaches, they
brought ethical considerations
to every aspect of the issue.
When addressing the often-
divisive question of Iraq,
participants also considered the
issue in terms of its ethical
dimensions. A man in an Austin
forum said, “Before I would send
somebody else off [to war], I
[would] need to be absolutely
convinced that it’s worth risking
that person’s life…But people
with a different point of view
also spoke in terms of ethics as
they described Saddam Hussein’s
brutality or the need to fight
in Iraq.
As they deliberated, forum
participants also weighed nearly
every approach in pragmatic
terms. For example, when
considering whether this country
should try to promote the spread
of democracy around the globe,
people spoke not only about
whether it was the “right” thing
to do, but also about the idea’s
feasibility.

11October 2004
viewed the issue through a practical,
no-nonsense lens.
Approach
INDUCTIVE, OR BOTTOMS-UP.
Another difference between how
experts and forum participants think
is that often, if not usually, experts
think from the top down, applying a
well-developed philosophy, ideology,
or worldview to a given situation.
Experts think deductively. In contrast,
forum participants use, to borrow
a term from Daniel Yankelovich, a
bottoms-up approach. That is, they
draw on their particular experience
and develop their ideas inductively.
Speakers in these forums often
reached a conclusion after beginning
with comments such as:
“When I went to Italy, I met people
who…”
“My son was stationed in South
Korea and he said…”
“I have a friend who’s from
Pakistan and she said…”
“On ‘60 Minutes,’ there was a story
about…”
“We learned about AIDS in school
and…”
“There used to be a factory here
that employed 90 people, including
my cousin, and it moved to Mexico
because of NAFTA, and now she’s
out of a job.”
COMPLEX. As forum participants
deliberated, it became apparent
that even though their thinking was
non-ideological and inductive, it
was anything but simplistic. They
made connections between short-
range problems like terrorism and
long-range problems like economic
underdevelopment or AIDS. When
weighing such issues as efforts to
increase global prosperity or promote
the spread of democracy, participants
were clearly learning from one
another. Instead of gravitating toward
any single solution, a great many
people expressed sentiments such
as, “I think that we need a little from
each approach because each has
elements I like and don’t like.”
COMPASSIONATE. No matter how
they felt about the issue, people
in these forums had humanitarian
concerns. Both those who favored and
those who opposed the war in Iraq,
for example, expressed concern about
not only U.S. military casualties, but
also Iraqi civilian casualties. While
proponents of the war tended to
focus on Saddam Hussein’s brutality
and opponents talked more about
the deaths that have resulted from the
war, both groups were concerned
about the loss of innocent life.
Participants expressed humanitarian
concerns on other international
matters as well. Some discussed the
painful effects of job loss as a result
of trade or the suffering and death
caused by AIDS. Others focused their
compassion on the aforementioned
problems of sweatshops, child labor,
and women’s rights. A woman from
a forum in Austin, Texas, said, “We
want to make sure that the people
manufacturing things [that Americans
buy] are treated humanely.”
CAUTIOUS. The thinking of forum
participants was often quite cautious.
Even when they called for bold
change in America’s approach to the
world—as often occurred—people
wanted a smooth transition from the
present course rather than a sudden
lurch in a new direction. While there
were deep divisions about the
wisdom of the U.S. actions in Iraq,
even those who ardently opposed
the war did not want to withdraw
American troops precipitously. Nearly
everyone agreed on the importance
Experts think from the top
down, applying a well-developed
philosophy, ideology, or
worldview to a given situation.
Experts think deductively.…
forum participants use…a
bottoms-up approach.…
they draw on their particular
experience and develop their
ideas inductively.
As forum participants deliberated,
it became apparent that even
though their thinking was non-
ideological and inductive, it was
anything but simplistic. They
made connections between short-
range problems like terrorism
and long-range problems like
economic underdevelopment
or AIDS.
The thinking of forum
participants was often quite
cautious. Even when they
called for bold change in
America’s approach to the
world—as often occurred—
they wanted a smooth
transition from the present
course rather than a sudden
lurch in a new direction.

of Iraq being stabilized, if not
democratized—preferably under an
international or UN banner—before
the U.S. brings its forces home.
CONDITIONAL. In addition to being
cautious, the thinking of forum parti-
cipants was often conditional; that is,
they approved a course of action only
on certain conditions. For example,
while most supported free trade and
opposed protectionism, significant
numbers of participants also felt
that the United States has come out
on the short end of recent trade agree-
ments. As a result, American workers
have lost jobs and U.S. companies
have been unfairly forced to compete
against cheap labor abroad. Therefore,
many participants favored what
they called “fair trade” and defined
as trade agreements negotiated on
terms that were “fairer” to American
workers.
Participants also spoke conditional-
ly when they talked about promoting
the spread of democracy around
the globe. Commonly, they cautioned
that the United States should help a
fledgling democracy only if it is
invited by that government to do so.
Greater support for stepped-up U.S.
action was expressed when discussion
turned to global health or the environ-
ment, though here, again, participants
wanted this nation to act in concert
with other developed countries.
Many believed that, rather than acting
immediately or unilaterally, the
United States should take the leader-
ship role in a coordinated, long-term
international effort. The problems
involved, they insisted, are too great
for any country, including the United
States, to deal with in isolation.
Conditions were also important
to people’s thinking about military
action in Iraq. Participants were far
more inclined to support such action
if the effort had greater international
support and if American forces and
American taxpayers were not bearing
the lion’s share of the hazards and
costs. According to a forum modera-
tor at Temple Israel in Columbus,
Ohio, several World War II veterans
in his group were concerned about
going to war in Iraq without multi-
lateral support, with one reminiscing,
“at least in World War II we were
involved with allies.”
In addition to being cautious, the
thinking of forum participants was
often conditional; that is, they
approved a course of action only
on certain conditions.
Many believed that, rather than
acting immediately or unilaterally,
the United States should take the
leadership role in a coordinated,
long-term international effort.

13October 2004
Forum Results:
Toward a Common
Ground for Action
The value of these deliberative
forums on America’s role in the
world was not just the opinions and
judgments people came to, but the
process itself—the discussions,
disagreements, and deliberations
participants took part in and what
they revealed about the public’s
thinking as they struggled with ideas
over time.
In his book Coming to Public
Judgment, Daniel Yankelovich draws
a distinction between people’s
top-of-the-head opinions and their
considered, worked-through public
judgments. Poll results, he writes, are
often terribly misunderstood because
people’s initial, top-of-the-head
opinions, which are uninformed and
unstable, are mistakenly assumed to
be their final judgment. Rather than
revealing what people’s opinions are,
then, these deliberative forums help
reveal where people’s opinions are
after they have time to think through
an issue. In addition to public
thinking during the deliberations,
the forums help reveal the public
judgment they reach: the approaches
and programs people are most likely
to support in the long term, and the
solutions they believe are most likely
to be effective. In the following
sections we will explore how people’s
thinking evolved over the course
of these forums on Americans’ role
in the world, how they considered the
issues, where people disagreed, and
where they found common ground.
Military Strength
and National
Security
Participants in these National
Issues Forums saw national security
as the highest priority. As one woman
at a forum in Panama City, Florida,
put it, “The primary role of any
government is to protect and defend
the nation’s boundaries.” A strong
military, accordingly, was seen at the
outset of many forums as essential for
protecting the country and achieving
other vitally important goals. The
United States, said one man in an
Austin, Texas, forum, “wouldn’t be
able to…promote a stronger, free
economy in the world, or…protect
the environment and promote human
rights, or promote democracy if we
didn’t have the strongest military in
the world.”
Though they called for strength,
participants said that a strong military
does not by itself guarantee security.
In addition to military muscle, partic-
ipants said, security depends on
winning the battle for people’s minds.
“Terrorism is an idea,” said one
forum participant in Pennsylvania,
“and you can’t conquer an idea with
money or force.” Additionally, some
said national security depends on
The primary role of any
government is to protect and
defend the nation’s boundaries.
— Panama City, Florida
Terrorism is an idea…and
you can’t conquer an idea with
money or force.
— Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

the country’s international standing
and on other nations’ willingness to
work with us. A number of people
expressed concern that foreigners see
this country as “arrogant” or “acting
like a bully.” A man in New Orleans
said, “I’ve been to Europe four times
since September 11 and [Europeans]
think we’re the most arrogant [people
who] have ever existed.” A woman
at a forum in Texas said, “I’m con-
cerned about our loss of credibility
abroad. I think we’re going to need
to start by restoring some of our
credibility before we can do much of
anything else.”
The Use of Force
People agreed that the United
States has every right to use force in
response to an attack like Pearl
Harbor—or, for that matter, 9/11—
with participants strongly endorsing
the invasion of Afghanistan. Most also
agreed that the country has the right
to use force preemptively when it is
directly and imminently threatened.
In a broader sense, however, people
did not agree about the idea of using
force preemptively. An educator in El
Reno, Oklahoma, said that having
a strong military and being willing
to use force preemptively, including
in Iraq, “means peace around the
world.” But people at a forum at
Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio,
said a policy of preemption “sets a
dangerous precedent, makes this
country look like a bully, and could
fuel the fire for terrorists.”
No matter how they felt about
using force preemptively, people
agreed that force should be used only
after sufficient public debate and only
when absolutely necessary.i
A man
from Austin, Texas, as mentioned
before, said, “Before I would send
somebody else off [to war], I [would]
need to be absolutely convinced that
it’s worth risking that person’s life
and destroying whoever I’m going to
attack.” A woman from New Orleans
said, “We need to be prepared to use
force, but it would have to be as a last
resort.”
Participants were also strongly
opposed to the United States playing
the role of “global cop.” As one
woman in a Memphis, Tennessee,
forum put it, “Why do we think we
have to be the superpower anyway,
the world’s police? We’re 5 percent
of the world’s population.” The
remarks of one Vietnam veteran at a
New Jersey forum had a powerful
effect on others:
I look back at [Vietnam] now and
I say, what in the hell did we do?
What did we do? Fifty-some odd
thousand of our boys were killed.
It could have been me, could have
been my brother. I lost friends.
What the hell did we do? And
what were we thinking when we…
[said] we’re the cops of the world?
We’re not the cops of the world.
We can’t be the cops of the world.
The War in Iraq
The war with Iraq dominated
forums and sharply divided partici-
pants. The split in the post-forum
questionnaire was almost even:
45 percent agreed and 48 percent
disagreed with the statement, “The
United States should be willing to
strike first against enemies who have
weapons of mass destruction and a
proven willingness to use them.”ii
Some said the Iraq war was
necessary and justified. A serviceman
at a forum at Tyndall Air Force Base
said, “What we’re doing [in Iraq] is
right; 9/11 changed the face of
Having a strong military and
being willing to use force
preemptively, including in
Iraq, “means peace around
the world.”
— El Reno, Oklahoma
I look back at [Vietnam] now
and I say, what in the hell did we
do? What did we do? Fifty-some
odd thousand of our boys were
killed. It could have been me,
could have been my brother. I
lost friends. What the hell did we
do? And what were we thinking
when we…[said] we’re the cops
of the world? We’re not the cops
of the world. We can’t be the
cops of the world.
— Englewood, New Jersey
“What we’re doing in [Iraq] is
right. September 11 changed the
face of America [and so] we’re
doing what has to be done.
— Panama City, Florida
i See Appendix B, Table 1 for Questionnaire results. iiFor Questionnaire results on this approach see Appendix
B, Table 1. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be found
in Appendix C, pages 32–33.

15October 2004
America [and so] we’re doing what
has to be done.” A Texas participant
said a takeover of Iraq by Islamic
fundamentalists “could easily lead
to World War III.”
Others advanced a number of
reasons for taking the opposite view.
Some argued that the Iraq war has
decreased national security because it
increased anti-American sentiments,
creating enormous hostility toward
the United States. A man in Englewood,
New Jersey, said, “Around the world
a lot of people hate us.” Others
questioned the gravity of the threat.
For example, a student at a forum at
Hofstra University on Long Island
asked, “How could Iraq attack us?
What means did they have?”
Those who questioned the war
also said that the situation in Iraq has
diverted the country’s attention and
resources from what they saw as
more serious threats, including Osama
bin Laden, al Qaeda, the war in
Afghanistan, and the nuclear threat
posed by North Korea. And some
were concerned about the costs of the
war, saying it was draining resources
needed in this country. One partici-
pant, in an online National Issues
Forum conducted through SeniorNet,
wrote, “That $87 billion [targeted for
Iraq] would help to solve many of our
medical and economic ills and even
help train some people who might
come up with some miracle break-
throughs we’ve all been waiting for.”
Mixed Emotions
Many forum participants admitted
they were struggling with the issue.
At a forum at the LBJ library, one
man said, “In [my] 20 years in the
military, I’ve always had faith in my
government.… But this war is a
tremendous price to pay. I would not
want my son to go to Iraq. I would
go in his place.” Others, like this
woman from a forum in Memphis,
Tennessee, supported the war but
were troubled by the reasons used to
justify the conflict:
I have mixed emotions about going to
war [in Iraq]. I feel like we should go
to war. I have a son in the Air Force,
and he did go there and spend his six
months.… The only thing that was
troubling to me was the fact that
[President Bush] said they had mass
weapons of destruction and
they didn’t.
In an online forum conducted in
conjunction with “By the People,”
public television’s yearlong series on
Americans’ role in the world, one
person wrote,
It truly shocked me that my America
engaged in a preemptive strike against
sovereign nations. It is a brand-new
approach for American policy. In the
past, we’ve been compared to a “paper
tiger” because we have sustained so
many provocations without severe
retaliations.… Now I wonder, in my
more cynical and fearful moments, if
my beloved country is on its way to
establishing a “Pax Americana.”
Yet despite my shock, I can’t help
wondering how many lives might have
been saved if America had been blessed
with the foresight to move against
Hitler in the 1930s…or against the
Japanese before Pearl Harbor.…
Can those past disasters constitute
a rationale for current preemptive
strikes?
Is there ANY way, short of a
crystal ball, to determine WHICH
events or nations should be considered
sufficiently dangerous to justify
[preemptive] military action?
Others acknowledged that emo-
tions had clouded their judgment.
“On 9/12, I’d have favored war with
Iraq,” said a woman in El Reno,
Oklahoma. “Now I’m less angry, less
hawkish [and I’m not so sure].” And
in some forums, people wanted to
hear what others had to say. A Texas
moderator said, “People who opposed
the war with Iraq were desirous of
talking to those in favor and tried to
understand their viewpoint.”
In [my] 20 years in the military,
I’ve always had faith in my
government.... But this war is a
tremendous price to pay. I would
not want my son to go to Iraq.
I would go in his place.
— Austin, Texas
On 9/12, I’d have favored war
with Iraq. Now I’m less angry,
less hawkish.
— El Reno, Oklahoma
People who opposed the war
with Iraq [wanted to talk] to
those in favor and tried to
understand their viewpoint.
— Austin, Texas

international support than it does
now in Iraq. “We have to work
with other countries, our allies, to
show how we can strengthen one
another and work [together to]
protect each other,” said a woman
from Killeen, Texas.
3. Increased Chances of Success:
Broad international involvement,
some suggested, would improve
the chances that a military opera-
tion would succeed. “Unilateral
action is a very big risk,” said a
man from Columbia, Missouri.
A moderator in Carroll County,
Maryland, said people there felt
that when it came to Iraq, the
United States was “stuck” because
it had such limited international
support.
4. Winning the Peace: Finally, people
argued that an internationalized
effort was preferable once the
military phase was complete.
“It helps to have the UN there to
help clean up the mess [after the
fighting],” a participant in Austin,
Texas, said. People also felt that
using force collectively would
reduce internal opposition to a
military action. A student at
Hofstra University said, for exam-
ple, “UN control in Iraq would
mean more help to the United
States, increased Iraqi control, and
therefore reduced Iraqi opposition
to the occupation and less enmity
toward the American forces.”
Internationalizing the Conflict
No matter what their feelings
about the Iraq war, forum partici-
pants strongly favored far more
international involvement in that
conflict. A moderator from Modesto,
California, reported that his group
was “concerned about the United
States acting alone in Iraq.”
Many participants wanted this
country to work more closely with
the United Nations. A moderator
from West Lafayette, Indiana, report-
ed that in a forum held at Purdue
University’s Duncan Hall, people
said this country “should act in
concert with the UN and not unilater-
ally.” Forum goers in New Haven,
Connecticut, had similar views. “Even
though many in our group felt that
the UN [was] not fulfilling its global
role, they said the United States
should strengthen it instead of acting
against it and weakening it as we did
in the Iraq War.”
Forum participants presented four
principal reasons why any conflict
should be internationalized.
1. Greater Legitimacy: The use of
force, people said, has more
legitimacy with broad international
support, preferably through the
United Nations. “Involving the UN
is desirable because [military]
action is less divisive from a global
perspective,” said a participant at a
forum in Austin, Texas.
2. Fewer Casualties and Reduced
Costs: People wanted to use force
collectively to reduce American
casualties and decrease the dollar
costs to U.S. taxpayers. Some point-
ed to the Gulf War, Kosovo, and
Afghanistan as conflicts in which
this country enjoyed far more
Even though many in our group
felt that the UN [was] not
fulfilling its global role, they
said the United States should
strengthen it instead of acting
against it and weakening it as
we did in the Iraq War.
— New Haven, Connecticut
People wanted to use force
collectively to reduce American
casualties and decrease the dollar
costs to U.S. taxpayers.
We have to work with other
countries, our allies, to show how
we can strengthen one another
and work [together to] protect
each other.
— Killeen, Texas

17October 2004
Democracy and
Human Rights
At first glance, the results of these
National Issues Forums suggest that
participants strongly believe the
United States should do what it can to
promote democracy around the globe.
In the post-forum questionnaire, a
resounding 83 percent agreed that the
“support of emerging democracies
will, in the long run, enhance our own
national security.” In addition, 63
percent said that “working to spread
and maintain democracy in other
countries will increase stability in the
world” and 60 percent said that our
goal as Americans “should be to help
citizens of other countries develop
stable democracies.”iii
However, as deliberation pro-
ceeded, it became clear that people’s
thinking about the idea of promoting
democracy globally was more
complex and differentiated than the
questionnaire results might suggest.
Political Realities and Cultural Sensitivities
A number of participants raised
practical questions about the idea
of promoting democracy abroad.
A woman in a New Orleans forum
asked if it was “realistic” to think
that democracy could work in every
country, saying, “How would you
[promote democracy in] China? How
do you do it?” Others suggested that
America has a special relationship to
democracy. “It took us 200 years to get
[where this country is in terms of its
democracy], and we expect others to
do it immediately?” said one woman
in a Columbus, Ohio, forum. In an
online forum hosted by SeniorNet,
another participant wrote:
I would question the premise of
promoting and expanding democracy
worldwide. Why do we believe that
democracy will work for all countries,
all citizens of the world? Thanks to
our Founding Fathers, we started out
with democracy; most countries did
not. They either don’t want it, can’t
accept its ideals, or are getting along
fine with another type of government.
In many groups, people talked
about cultural sensitivities and
the need to respect the values and
traditions of others. “There is much
diversity in the world,” said a
serviceman from Panama City,
Florida, “We can’t force our values
on other people.” In New Haven,
Connecticut, people said the “United
States should not promote a form
of democracy that may not be
compatible in terms of a country’s
culture, values, economy, and
wishes.” High-school students in
Pittsburgh were conflicted about this
idea, saying “democracy is important
but that the United States shouldn’t
push its values and morals down the
throats of other countries.”
Others were concerned that some
countries may not wish to move
toward democracy. A woman from
Memphis said the United States
should help only “if people are crying
out and saying, ‘we want to change
but we can’t do it ourselves.’” Some
suggested that the United States
needed to wait for willing partners.
“If we go and try to force our exact
model on another nation where it’s
unwelcome, it’s not going to be a
success,” said one forum goer in
Charleston, West Virginia. “[But] if
we wait to be asked, we are much
more likely to make a success.”
Participants in New Orleans had a
similar view. “I think [promoting
democracy] is a good idea. But we
cannot be arrogant,” said one woman
It took us 200 years to get
[where this country is in terms of
its democracy] and we expect
others to do it immediately?
— Columbus, Ohio
I would question the premise
of promoting and expanding
democracy worldwide. Why do
we believe that democracy will
work for all countries, all citizens
of the world? Thanks to our
Founding Fathers, we started out
with democracy; most countries
did not. They either don’t want it,
can’t accept its ideals, or are
getting along fine with another
type of government.
— SeniorNet Online Forum
iii For Questionnaire results on this approach see
Appendix B, Table 2. Excerpts from forum transcripts
can be found in Appendix C, page 34.

there. “In some countries, it will be
easier to promote democracy, but
other countries will not want to
change their ways.”
Furthermore, some people attached
a specific provision to their support
for promoting the spread of democ-
racy. “A magic word is global,” said
one Denver man. I think [the United
States] should stop trying to [promote
democracy] alone.… [But I’d favor
the idea if the United States builds]
an alliance with the rest of the world
who will support our ideas.” People
in Blacksburg, Virginia; New Haven;
and Minneapolis expressed similar
sentiments.
Democracy and Free Enterprise
In some forums, people talked
about the link between democracy
and free enterprise, saying some
countries might accept the former as
long as it does include the latter.
“Capitalism is not necessarily
democracy,” said a man in El Reno,
Oklahoma. Several participants sug-
gested that while Muslim countries
may accept a democratic system, they
might feel that a McDonald’s or a
Walt Disney World are incompatible
with their values. Indeed, people in
forums in Philadelphia and at the LBJ
Library in Austin felt that the true
motive of the United States is free
enterprise, not the promotion of
democratic governments. “It never
has been about exporting democracy,”
a Philadelphia man said. “What
we’re really talking about is opening
markets for the sake of capitalism.”
Democracy and Foreign Aid
While a narrow majority of partici-
pants, 53 percent, favored investing
heavily to help build democracy in
unstable countries like Afghanistan,
a solid minority, 37 percent were
opposed. Moreover, a number of those
in opposition were solidly opposed.
Some, like this man in a Memphis
forum, worried about competing
domestic needs:
We, as a free nation, should help
[developing countries] as much as
we can. But don’t forget about hungry
children [in the United States] and
our homeless people on our home
front. They have to be taken care of
first. I feel very strongly about that.
Imposing Democracy
In the post-forum questionnaires,
people said the United States should
try to promote democracy around
the globe. And the deliberation as
presented by the moderator mainly
focused on promoting the spread of
democracy through an array of non-
military means, including aid, cultural
exchanges, cutting ties to dictators,
and persuasion; the use of force was
mentioned only when a democratic
regime is threatened.
During deliberation, however, a
great many talked as if the central
idea under consideration was whether
the United States should forcibly
“impose” democracy on other coun-
tries. Most participants strongly
opposed this formulation of the idea.
A moderator from Phoenix said her
group “did not want to impose the
American model of democracy and
felt that it would not be appropriate
for all cultures.” Others expressed
similar sentiments. Reporting on a
forum in Overland Park, Kansas,
one moderator said that her group
“thought it would be very difficult to
install democracies in other parts of
the world.” An Austin, Texas, man
summed up the thinking of many
when he said: “I’m comfortable with
promoting the spread of democracy
as long as it doesn’t mean foist.”
For many forum participants then,
the issue they considered and stoutly
rejected was different from the ques-
A magic word is global. I think
[the United States] should stop
trying to [promote democracy]
alone.… [But I’d favor the idea
if the United States builds] an
alliance with the rest of the world
that will support our ideas.
— Denver, Colorado
I’m comfortable with promoting
the spread of democracy
as long as it doesn’t mean foist.
— Austin, Texas

19October 2004
tion they were given. It was also
revealing about their mind-set, which
is in part a carryover from the war in
Vietnam as well as a reaction to what
they’re seeing today. Generally, forum
participants reacted as if they believed
the United States has actively adopted
a policy that applies only in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And in both of those
cases, supporters of the policy would
say it is being employed only because
of a need to fight against exceptional
problems—terrorism and radical
Islamists.
A Model Democracy?
In a number of forums, support
for the idea of promoting democracy
was muted. Pointing to flaws and
shortcomings in our own democratic
system—such as the 2000 election;
especially the events in Florida—a
large number of participants said that,
before trying to promote democracy
abroad, the United States should get
its own house in order. A woman
from Austin, Texas, said that before
the United States attempts “to make
changes abroad, we should become
the change we want others to
become.” A moderator in New Haven,
Connecticut, reported that many in
her group were more concerned with
making democracy work better in
the United States than in promoting
it abroad. And in Overland Park,
Kansas, participants talked about
racism in the United States and the
fact that not everyone has health care,
adding that these should be priorities
before this country turns its attention
to promoting democracy elsewhere.
A Different Democratic Model
Generally, when people talked
about democracy, they thought only
in terms of the U.S. model, with its
procedures and institutions. But in a
handful of forums, people talked
about other forms of democracy. Some
people suggested that variations of
the U.S. democratic model might
be more appropriate for certain coun-
tries. Students at Gateway College in
Phoenix, for example, talked about
what the moderator called “Bedouin
democracy.” This form of democracy,
they said, is quite unlike the U.S.
model but might be more suitable
for some Middle-Eastern countries.
A West Virginia man said, “It
probably does a disservice to many
developing countries to say, ‘fit our
model and we’ll assist you, and if not
we’ll go against you.’ There are many
more political and economic struc-
tures in developing countries that
would be perfect at the local level.”
A man from Killeen, Texas, said,
“Democracy has many approaches,
many faces. It may not be exactly like
the [democracy here in the] United
States; we can’t travel around the
world making democracies in our
exact model because, in many places,
it’s just impossible. We cannot sell
universally the idea.”
The Importance of Human Rights
While many participants had
reservations about “imposing”
democracy on other countries, they
broadly agreed that the United States
should do whatever it realistically
can to promote human rights around
the globe. Students at a forum at
Pennsylvania’s Governor School were
particularly concerned about human
rights in Africa, saying it should be a
higher priority. College students at
Hofstra University and Virginia Tech
talked about the rights of women
and children. In Lafayette, Indiana,
people talked about women’s rights
in Afghanistan.
about using military force. People in
a number of forums, including those
Before the United States attempts
to make changes abroad, we
should be the change we want
others to become.
— Austin, Texas
Democracy has many approaches,
many faces.… It may not be
exactly like the [democracy here
in the] U.S.; we can’t travel
around the world making
democracies in our exact model
because, in many places, it’s
just impossible. We cannot sell
universally the idea of democracy
as we like it.
— Killeen, Texas

trade is in everyone’s long-term
interest. A man from New Orleans
said, “An open market is a good
thing,” adding that if a product can
be manufactured less expensively in
another country, “we shouldn’t be
interfering with the choice [of
consumers to buy it].”
Participants said trade not only
increases prosperity, it also enhances
national security. As many as 59
percent felt that when developing
countries become more prosperous,
they are less likely to threaten other
countries. In Columbia, Missouri,
people felt that economic interde-
pendence makes conflict less likely.
A man in El Reno, Oklahoma, agreed,
saying, “When wealth is created,
countries don’t want to go to war.
No two countries that have a
McDonald’s will go to war.” In
Killeen, Texas, a forum participant
saw other national security benefits:
“We need the ability to expand our
commerce throughout the world and
maybe that would help achieve many
of the other objectives we’ve been
talking about, like [promoting the
spread of] democracy.” Others said
that trade raised the standard of living
in both China and India, pointing to
the fact that those countries, which
were formerly hostile or politically
unstable, are no longer military or
political threats.
The High Cost of Free Trade
At the same time, many people
saw trade’s benefits only vaguely, in
terms of “lower prices” and “more
choices”; however, many participants
felt directly and personally connected
to trade’s downside. A Virginia Tech
student sorrowfully described the
impact of seeing her father’s job as an
engineer, which he had held for more
than 20 years, outsourced to India.
At a forum at Erskine College in
Conway, South Carolina, people
in Overland Park, Kansas, were par-
ticularly concerned about genocide.
Some participants approved of using
force in Kosovo and disapproved of
the failure of using force in Rwanda,
saying that was a case in which the
United States should have intervened
militarily. A New Jersey woman
drew a clear distinction between
democratic practices and human
rights, “As long as they’re not killing
their people, dismembering their
people, [we should] let them run their
own country.” A man in that forum
agreed, saying, “For years the blacks
were slaughtered in South Africa.
And the United States did absolutely
nothing.… Shouldn’t we have sent
someone in there to stop what they
were doing?”
Economic
Development
and Free Trade
People in a great many forums
said they supported free trade and
opposed protectionism. In the
post-forum questionnaire, people
agreed—by a margin of nearly two
to one—that free trade benefits
consumers by lowering prices, and
60 percent called for the reduction or
elimination of trade barriers whenever
possible.iv
Similar thoughts often surfaced
during deliberations. People in
Overland Park, Kansas, felt that free
trade means lower prices. A group at
the University of Montana supported
NAFTA, even with the loss of jobs
associated with it, saying that free
An open market is a good
thing…[if a product can be
manufactured less expensively
in another country,] we shouldn’t
be interfering with the choice
[of consumers to buy it].
— New Orleans, Louisiana
We need the ability to expand
our commerce throughout the
world and maybe that would
help achieve many of the other
objectives we’ve been talking
about, like democracy.
— Killeen, Texas
iv For Questionnaire results on this approach see

talked about “massive” unemployment
in the textile industry caused by
what they regarded as unfair trade.
In Minneapolis, a woman said her
neighbor, a laid-off computer pro-
grammer, had taken a job hanging
wallpaper. In a Memphis forum, a
woman said:
Look at all the empty warehouses.
All the people I’ve known personally
[who worked] at Firestone…which
shut down here in Memphis. I
knew men that committed suicide.
I knew men that became homeless
when Kimberly Clark shut down.
[They] lost their families, [they got]
divorces.… They couldn’t handle
it.… And it’s all because of that
[free trade] garbage.
Beyond job loss, people raised
other issues about trade. In Overland
Park, Kansas, for example, people
said that human rights should be part
of world trade agreements. Others
linked human rights to trade and
questions of dependence. “Do we
really want to be without a steel
industry and be completely depen-
dent [for steel] on [a totalitarian
country and an unreliable source like]
North Korea?” one person asked.
Others raised questions about
inconsistencies and double standards,
suggesting that trade’s proponents
would not feel the same if they
themselves were affected. For
example, a Texas participant talked
about a man who argued for free
trade in a Wall Street Journal editorial
but then took a protectionist view
regarding a Dallas conflict in which
his own industry was threatened.
Many people wanted to ensure that
trade would not be promoted at the
expense of labor standards or human
rights. A Denver man said, “Free
trade is a good place to start. But as a
country we need to say, we’re going
to trade with this country [but]…if
they’re pulling something like [child]
labor, we’ll either pull back or go
somewhere else.” People in New
21October 2004
Haven were concerned about poor,
unsafe working conditions. A New
Hampshire moderator said that,
although her group was reluctant to
intervene in private enterprise, they
wanted a global institution to protect
human rights and regulate labor
conditions.
Finally, in some forums, including
those in Modesto, California, and
Overland Park, Kansas, people talked
about the power and political agenda
of multinational corporations. In
Killeen, Texas, a moderator also
reported that there was “a huge lack
of trust in multinationals” with people
asking who holds these corporations
accountable because they can bypass
a given country’s political system
and courts.
Fair Trade Not Free Trade
about the need for what they called
fair trade. A man in New Orleans
said, “Fair is fair but most countries
don’t play fair. In order to have free
trade it has to be fair.” Several people
in the forum in New Haven felt that
“all countries should play by the same
rules.” Complaining about the
absence of organized labor in devel-
oping countries, a New Jersey man
said, “Any time another country starts
manufacturing something that we
manufacture here, they do it for 12
cents a day as opposed to 20 bucks
an hour.”
Another equity-related issue
involved the distribution of wealth.
In a forum held in a private home
near Austin, people felt that the
problem with globalization is not
so much production as equitable
distribution. A student from Hofstra
University suggested that people
would not equally benefit from free
trade, saying, “A rising tide may lift
all boats, but yachts will rise a lot
higher than row boats.”
Look at all the empty ware-
houses. All the people I’ve
known personally [who worked]
at Firestone…which shut down
here in Memphis. I knew men
that committed suicide. I knew
men that became homeless when
Kimberly Clark shut down. [They]
lost their families, [they got]
divorces.… They couldn’t handle
it.… And it’s all because of
that [free trade] garbage.
— Memphis, Tennessee
Free trade is a good place to
start. But as a country we need
to say, we’re going to trade with
this country [but]…if they’re
pulling something like [child]
labor, we’ll either pull back or go
somewhere else.
Fair is fair, but most countries
don’t play fair. In order to have
free trade it has to be fair.
A rising tide may lift all boats, but
yachts will rise a lot higher than
row boats.
— Hempstead, New York

Long-term
Threats
The deliberations also considered
a qualitatively different set of chal-
lenges to national security, including
those stemming from global poverty,
environmental degradation, and
worldwide health problems, including
epidemics like AIDS. Many saw these
as urgent issues. For example, 81
percent agreed that “the real threats
to us are long-term global problems,
such as AIDS and pollution that know
no national borders.” As many as 90
percent wanted the United States to
lead global efforts to combat the
spread of AIDS and other contagious
diseases while 81 percent said “the
United States should take the lead in
forging international agreements on
the environment.” Finally, 78 percent
said global poverty should become a
higher priority.v
World Health
World health was a particular con-
cern for young participants. College
students in Pittsburgh “universally
felt that health problems should
receive top priority” and that “AIDS
in Africa has both a human and an
economic impact which, in turn,
leads to a breeding ground for terror-
ism and human rights violations.”
High school students in St. Cloud,
Minnesota, said the United States
should lead international efforts
to deal with AIDS because it is a
humanitarian issue and in the coun-
try’s self-interest since epidemics
eventually come here. Pointing to
AIDS, SARS, and Avian flu, a woman
at a Minneapolis senior center echoed
this thought, saying “disease doesn’t
stop at the border.”
Poverty and Foreign Aid
Other themes ran through people’s
comments about global poverty and
foreign economic problems. Beyond
emergency assistance, the kind of
foreign assistance that enjoyed broad-
est support focused on promoting
self-sufficiency. An Indiana moderator
summed up his group’s sentiments
by saying, “They wanted to teach
someone to fish, [instead of feeding
him]. They felt that self-sustaining
efforts are good.” In this same vein,
an Austin, Texas, group favored
foreign aid that would support educa-
tion in developing countries.
Global Environmental Issues
As they deliberated about the
environment, people’s comments also
reflected their broad, global orienta-
tion. A woman in Memphis said,
“Just in our lifetime, [we’ve] seen
global warming, how the weather has
changed…. If we don’t try to take it
on ourselves to do this, who’s going
to?” In Overland Park, Kansas, a
participant said an interconnected
world “calls for different strategies
than were envisioned by the
Founding Fathers.” This statement
by a Killeen, Texas, man reflected
the views of many:
The planet does not belong to us.
It [also] belongs to future generations,
our children and grandchildren. We’ve
done a lot to protect the environment
in this country [but] we have a long
ways to go. We don’t take regard for
our industries polluting and spoiling
the land in other countries. We don’t
take a global view of…things we
hold dear.
People said this country has a
responsibility to lead the world, in
part because only the United States
has the economic resources along with
the scientific and technological know-
An interconnected world
“calls for different strategies
[from those] envisioned by
the Founding Fathers.”
— Overland Park, Kansas
Disease doesn’t stop at the
border.
— Minneapolis, Minnesota
If we don’t try to take it on
ourselves to do this, who is
going to?
— Memphis, Tennessee
v For Questionnaire results on this approach see

23October 2004
how to play this role. A Denver man
said, “Yes, indeed, we have marvelous
[medical] knowledge that we need
to be able to share. [In addition to
helping foreigners, fighting AIDS
will] help protect our country from
becoming diseased.”
A Role for the Individual
Many said they would accept
personal tradeoffs to tackle these
problems. In Overland Park, Kansas,
people said the country must become
less dependent on fossil fuels and
Middle-Eastern oil. An Austin, Texas
participant said, “It’s not ‘giving up
our independence’ but ‘recognizing
our interdependence.’” In an online
forum cosponsored by Public
Television’s “By the People” series, a
Columbus, Ohio, participant wrote,
“We’re not spending enough money
on scientific research to develop
other forms of energy.” And in the
post-forum questionnaire, an 82
percent consensus said they favored
working with other countries to
address worldwide problems like
global warming even if that means
manufacturing higher-priced, more
fuel-efficient cars.vi
Global Leadership
Beyond making headway against
these pressing issues, some partici-
pants saw ancillary gains resulting
from assuming world leadership. A
woman from Dover, Delaware, said,
“If America addressed more world
problems we would be seen as more
of a team player and that would
produce more international good
will.” Another women in a Denver
forum agreed. Assuming global
leadership, she said, “would help
alleviate the America hating that we
get.... [People in other countries]
would see us more as people who are
willing to [help]...[instead of]...as
greedy big brothers.”
Quite a few people said the United
States is doing anything but lead the
world. A woman in Austin said, “The
environment is a time bomb. But in
rejecting [the] Kyoto [environmental
accord], we chose not to acknowledge
that problem.” A New Orleans
woman said, “There’s the clean air
act or whatever [it is].... The rest of the
world is...all ready to go with what
they have, but the United States—
we are holding out on it because we
don’t like some little provision in it.”
A participant at the LBJ Library said
the United States must recognize that
it is part of a global community,
adding, “We have failed to under-
stand that we have a shared fate with
the rest of humanity and that there
will be a reckoning.”
It’s not giving up our
independence, but recognizing
our interdependence. We
must walk our talk, not just
give orders.
— Austin, Texas
If America addressed more
world problems, we would be
seen as more of a team player
and that would produce more
international goodwill.
— Dover, Delaware
vi For Questionnaire results on this approach see

At the close of each forum,
participants were asked what impact
the event had had on their thinking
about the issues. While some changed
their views, most said the real impact
had been to give them an increased
awareness of the complexity and
interconnectedness of the problems
related to national security and the
definition of the nation’s role in
the world.
Many came to the forums initially
with doubts about their own abilities
to engage the issues and offer insights
—particularly when more technical
issues like economics are concerned.
As one Texas participant put it,
“I do not feel I know how to think
about economics, so I turn to politics
because it’s an easier discussion.”
As they deliberated, however, people
became increasingly confident in their
ability to contribute meaningfully.
They did not feel like experts on a
particular issue, but they came away
convinced that their thoughts about
the values and tradeoffs involved
were something worth sharing and
something that should be heard. They
became aware of their ability to take
part in deliberation.
Key Effects
Beyond that, the act of deliberat-
ing, they suggested, had had at least
three key effects.
First, participants developed a
more expansive definition of national
security. As one forum participant said,
When I, before, thought about [the
safety] of our country, I always
thought of it in terms of enemy
threats and terrorists and things like
that. [But now I think] more about
the threat we are to ourselves. And,
you know, I never thought about
that as much when I thought of the
safety of our country.
Second, deliberation enhanced
participants’ understanding of other
points of view. They “dissolved
stereotypes” as one forum goer in
Austin, Texas, put it. They were
surprised how willing others were to
talk about the issues and listen. As
an attendee of a forum in Denver,
Colorado, explained,
I was surprised how moderate
everyone was. I mean, it’s such a
supercharged topic. Yet all of us,
none of us seemed like we were just
day and night way far apart. We
all seemed to be able to talk to each
other, respect people’s point of view.
I found it pretty optimistic.
This was particularly true of
forums that included participants
from other countries. For example,
some foreigners, especially Muslims,
talked about how they were treated
in the aftermath of 9/11. Many talked
about how the United States is
perceived abroad, contrasting the
sympathy the world felt for this
country after 9/11 with the disregard
and even fear of the United States
there is today because of the Iraq war.
In Missouri, a Japanese couple said
their Japanese-American daughter
considers herself Japanese but not
The Effects of Deliberation:
The Impact of Forums
on People’s Thinking
When I, before, thought about
[the safety] of our country, I
always thought of it in terms of
enemy threats and terrorists and
things like that. [But now I think]
more about the threat we are to
ourselves. And, you know, I never
thought about that as much when
I thought of the safety of our
country.
I was surprised how moderate
everyone was. I mean, it’s such a
supercharged topic. Yet all of us,
none of us seemed like we were
just day and night way far apart.
We all seemed to be able to talk
to each other, respect people’s
point of view. I found it pretty
optimistic.

25October 2004
American because of her own anti-
American sentiments. A moderator
from Carroll County, Maryland,
said forums there with international
students took on a broader perspec-
tive, especially with regard to global
problems, such as poverty, the
environment, and health-related
issues like AIDS.
Third, deliberation left many
participants stewing about the issues.
Some, in fact, found the complexity of
the issues daunting, even depressing.
Most, however, left the forums feeling
not only engaged in the issues, but
also obligated to speak out. One of the
most heartfelt comments came from a
participant in Denver:
If we walk away from here and
we don’t talk to our [elected]
representatives, I mean talk to
them, write them, and let them
know how we feel about these
things…. We’re pretty much in
agreement on a lot of this stuff.
If we don’t let them know what
we’ve done in here, it’s valueless.
I haven’t talked to my represen-
tative. I haven’t written him a
letter on these kinds of issues.
I think we need to do that. And
if we don’t do that, we haven’t
learned anything here tonight.
Bringing Citizens Together
By engaging citizens in a discus-
sion of the issues, forums offer a way
of engaging participants not only with
others in their community, but also in
the search for solutions to pressing
public problems. Rather than partisan
and divided, the forums revealed
how much common ground there
was on this often-divisive issue. From
students to senior citizens, many
reported that they enjoyed having the
chance to speak out in a nonadversari-
al, nonargumentive environment. The
discussion, they said, gave them not
only a welcome chance to be heard,
but also a welcome chance to hear
from others whose views were differ-
ent from their own. Together, they
learned, they could work through dif-
ficult choices and begin defining a
common ground for action. As one
participant at a forum in Kansas sum-
marized, “This kind of discussion is
healthy for our country and our
democracy.”
We’re pretty much in
agreement on a lot of this
stuff. If we don’t let them know
what we’ve done in here, it’s
valueless. I haven’t talked to
my representative. I haven’t
written him a letter on these
kinds of issues. I think we need
to do that. And if we don’t
do that, we haven’t learned
anything here tonight.
This kind of discussion is
healthy for our country and our
democracy.
— Overland Park, Kansas

Appendix A:
Questions and Answers
about the Forums
including supporters and opponents
of the decision to wage war in Iraq—
were concerned about both U.S.
and Iraqi civilian casualties. Both
supporters and opponents of the war
expressed concern about not only the
violence and abuse suffered by the
Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein,
but also about the casualties they have
suffered during the Iraq war.
4. How do the public’s assumptions about
this issue compare to the assumptions held
by leadership?
Many leaders assume that the
main threats to the United States
are military in nature and stem from
conflicts like the war in Iraq and
from attacks by terrorist groups like
al Qaeda. In contrast, while seeing
both Iraq and terrorism as urgent
problems, people in the forums
were also troubled about long-term
threats to the environment and to
world health.
5. What values were at play in
the discussion?
Security. People were deeply con-
cerned about an array of both military
and nonmilitary threats to national
security.
Freedom. Participants broadly agreed
that people have a right to self-
determination.
Tolerance. People felt that each country
has a right to preserve its own cultures,
traditions, and beliefs. All of these
deserve respect.
1. Does the public connect to the issue as
the conventional wisdom suggests?
No. Conventional wisdom suggests
that when it comes to foreign policy,
Americans are indifferent and ill
informed. In fact, Americans care
deeply about our nation’s role in the
world and its image abroad, saying it
is a critical part of our long-term
national security. Conventional wis-
dom also holds that when it comes to
America’s global role, the public’s
views are polarized—roughly corre-
sponding to the red-blue divisions
between states in the 2000 presidential
elections. Yet, while our research did
find deep divisions about the war in
Iraq, on almost every other issue there
was much upon which people agreed.
2. How does the public approach
the issue?
Pragmatically and in personal
terms. People tend to evaluate each
approach in terms of its workability.
Their opinions are rooted in personal
experiences and in their deeply held
values, not in a sophisticated philoso-
phy or worldview.
3. Are there other dimensions of the issue
that people in the forums see?
Yes. Contrary to what one might
expect in light of the observations of
most political commentators and most
press coverage of public attitudes on
these issues, people in these forums—

27October 2004
Human Rights. While saying “countries
have a right to their own traditions,”
people did not want foreign govern-
ments to have a free hand to abuse
their citizens. People said that a set
of international human rights norms
exists and that the United States
should stand up for and promote
these norms when it comes to
preventing genocide and protecting
the rights of women and children.
Cooperation. People repeatedly called
for international cooperation, saying
it is in this country’s self-interest
to work with other nations when it
comes to using force, promoting democ-
racy and free trade, and dealing with
long-term threats. Many wanted the
United States to take global leadership
on these issues.
Education. People valued education
in three respects. First, many said
that Americans need to learn more
about foreign countries, global prob-
lems, and foreigners’ views. Second,
people valued cultural exchange,
having Americans study abroad and
having foreign students study in
this country. Third, many favor sup-
porting international AIDS education
programs as well as public education
in developing countries.
6. What mattered to people as they
deliberated?
As they weighed America’s role
in the world, people’s ethical and
humanitarian concerns were tempered
or even trumped by pragmatic consid-
erations about what was workable
and affordable. While the welfare of
Americans was paramount, people
in the forums also took into considera-
tion the views of foreigners, saying
the greatest challenges facing this
country are global in nature, not
national.
7. Was any firm common ground for
action revealed?
Yes. In terms of the use of the mili-
tary, people agreed that the country
needs a strong defense, and that force
should be used as a last resort—and
only after sufficient public debate and
in cooperation with other countries,
preferably through the United
Nations. But while they wanted the
United States to work more closely
with international partners, they also
said that the country should not
police the world.
People said that, because demo-
cratic countries are less aggressive
and warlike, it is in the United States’
national interest to promote the
spread of democracy. At the same
time, people did not want to “impose”
democracy on other nations, saying
the wishes, cultures, and traditions of
foreigners must be respected. They
wanted the country to stand up for
human rights, especially regarding
genocide and the rights of women
and children. Finally, they called for
foreign aid that would promote eco-
nomic self-sufficiency.
Participants favored free trade
and opposed protectionism, saying
prosperity leads to peace. However,
many also said that current trade
agreements unfairly disadvantage
U.S. workers and should be renegoti-
ated. There was also broad agreement
that the United States should take
the lead in international efforts to
respond to threats to the environment
and to world health.
Finally, most forum groups wanted
to take both a long- and a short-term
view when weighing the challenges
facing this country.
8. What stage is the public at on this issue?
Has the public’s thinking evolved?
People are uneasy about America’s
current place in the world, saying the
threats to the country from Iraq, from
terrorism, and from long-term threats
could hardly be more serious. They
are paying close attention to the news

and thinking seriously about these
issues, working through conflicted
feelings and values.
That being said, people’s attitudes
on the issues have clearly evolved.
They are no longer thinking about
international politics in terms of a
balance of power—as was the case
during the Cold War—nor in terms of
an isolationist framework that would
keep the country aloof and distant
from world affairs.
Instead, they are clearly ready
for the United States to take a more
cooperative role in its position as the
world’s sole remaining superpower—
a sharp change from the attitudes
of only a decade or two ago. Forum
participants are not sharply partisan
or ideological. They support an
internationalist approach in which the
country provides military, economic,
scientific, and moral leadership on
issues like security, human rights,
economic development, global health,
and environmental protection. To do
this, participants envision the United
States working with other countries
and coalitions to address what they
see as the problems behind the prob-
lem of national security and global
stability.
9. What needs to happen next in the
national dialogue?
The outcomes of these forums
suggest that our national leadership
enjoys a rare opportunity. Beyond
the clamor of division about Iraq—
beneath the surface, under the din—
Americans agree about a wide variety
of issues related to our country’s
global role. There is, in fact, a great
deal of political permission on the
issue—a wide range of politically
permissible actions.
That common ground is not always
readily visible in public opinion polls
or in public hearings, but it can be
more clearly revealed by providing
citizens with an opportunity to delib-
erate about the issues within a public
framework like that provided by the
National Issues Forums. Accordingly,
public officials and policymakers
who craft a foreign policy within
the boundaries of this political per-
mission, stand a far better chance
of finding that their policies enjoy
broad and deep support among the
American people.

29October 2004
Appendix B:
Questionnaire Results
Total Total
Percent Percent
“Agree” “Disagree”
47% 50%
28% 65%
Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?
America should not hesitate to use military force to deal
with threats to our national security.
Our reluctance to use force before September 11, 2001,
encouraged terrorists to attack.
Total Total
Percent Percent
“Favor” “Oppose”
45% 48%
16% 76%
53% 39%
Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?
The United States should be willing to strike first against enemies who
have weapons of mass destruction and a proven willingness to use them.
The United States should reinstate the draft to ensure military readiness.
The United States must be willing to use force to deal with threats to
our national security, EVEN IF that results in many casualties among U.S.
service personnel and civilians in other countries.
Statements about the Use of Force and Military Power
Table 1 — Post-Forum Questionnaire Responses

Total Total
Percent Percent
83% 11%
63% 27%
Support of emerging democracies will, in the long run, enhance our own
national security.
Working to spread and maintain democracy in other countries
will increase stability in the world.
Total Total
Percent Percent
60% 33%
42% 48%
53% 37%
Our goal as Americans in the twenty-first century should be to help
citizens of other countries develop stable democracies.
We should cut ties with foreign dictators who refuse to honor
democratic values.
We must invest heavily in helping to build democracy in unstable
countries like Afghanistan, EVEN IF this is very costly.
Statements about Promoting Democracy in Other Countries
Total Total
Percent Percent
59% 34%
54% 29%
When developing countries become more prosperous,
they are less likely to threaten other countries.
Free trade benefits U.S. consumers by lowering prices.
Total Total
Percent Percent
60% 25%
54% 27%
44% 41%
We should reduce or eliminate trade barriers wherever possible.
We should make it easier for foreigners to invest in businesses in the
United States.
We must promote free trade policies, EVEN IF this sometimes causes
American workers to lose their jobs.
Statements about Economic Development and Free Trade

Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (7)

Semelhante a Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

Semelhante a Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf (11)

Mais de University of Phoenix

Mais de University of Phoenix (6)

Último

Último (20)

Public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf