By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Oct 20 1996 (IPS)

Conventional wisdom says political candidates who support U.S. involvement with the United Nations and foreign aid are likely to lose votes in next month’s Presidential elections.

This is all wrong, however, says a new study by the University of Maryland released here Friday. There is a “sharp divergence” between the public’s attitudes and leaders’ perceptions of those attitudes, according to I.M. Destler, who co-authored the report.

The American public is far more favourably disposed toward U.S. involvement in the United Nations and to foreign aid than both Washington policymakers and Congress currently believe, he said.

The new study is the latest in a series of surveys showing that public support for the United Nations and for a multilateral approach to foreign policy has fallen only slightly from a high of almost 90 percent during the Gulf War in 1991.

The result of a series of national and local polls, as well as extensive interviews with Washington insiders, the new study finds that the vast majority of the U.S. public rejects a unilateralist approach to foreign policy, even in Congressional districts whose elected representatives want the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

In those same districts, according to the report, majorities of respondents even favour U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping forces so long as Washington does not have to provide most of the troops.

The study, ‘Misperceiving the American Public on International Engagement,’ began with interviews of 83 government policymakers, lawmakers and their staff members, prominent media commentators, and leaders of non-governmental organisations active in foreign policy in Washington.

From those interviews, Destler and co-author Steven Kull, both of whom work at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, distilled six major assumptions made by Washington elites about public attitudes on foreign policy. These beliefs on current conventional wisdom , according to subsequent polling, turned out to be wrong.

The first assumption, for example, was that members of Congress who called for less U.S. engagement in the world were reflecting the views of their constituents. To test this, the authors polled residents in four Congressional districts whose representatives co- sponsored legislation to have the United States withdraw from the United Nations and opposed paying U.N. dues, contributing U.S. troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations, and foreign aid.

To their surprise, they found that public opinion in those districts – two in the South and two in the West – did not agree with those positions. In fact, opinion in those districts proved close to that of a national sample.

In the national sample, 22 percent of respondents favoured U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. In the four districts, 18 to 21 percent of respondents wanted Washington to leave the U.N.

Nationally, 81 percent of respondents thought that the United Nations should be strengthened; in the two test districts where the same question was asked, the comparable percentages were 76 and 77.

All of the Congressional offices polled in advance believed that eliminating U.S. foreign aid would prove very popular with constituents. But only 7-8 percent of district respondents were found to oppose foreign aid, and less than 20 percent believed that the current amount of foreign aid provided by United States — about 13 billion dollars or 1 percent of the federal budget — was too much.

These results led the authors to test a series of additional assumptions that might explain how policymakers formed their views about public opinion.

One explanation could lie in the relative strength and persistence of different views. Thus, it was theorised, support for engagement and aid might be seen as weak and fragile compared with the intensity and resilience of those expressing opposite views. If so, the opposition would likely be more committed to getting its views across to policymakers.

But, using a series of questions designed to test how strong respondents felt about their positions – including challenging their views by giving counterarguments – the study found that support for engagement was at least as intense as opposition, and, in some cases, more resilient.

Yet another long-held belief tested by the pollsters was that an incumbent officeholder who voted for foreign aid, and supported the United Nations, would be highly vulnerable to attacks by any challenger.

To test this theory, the survey presented respondents with competing 30-second radio ads on the two issues for both the theoretical incumbent and the challenger. After the presentations, a strong majority of respondents said they preferred the incumbent over the challenger.

Excerpt:

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Oct 20 1996 (IPS)

Conventional wisdom says political candidates who support U.S. involvement with the United Nations and foreign aid are likely to lose votes in next month’s Presidential elections.

This is all wrong, however, says a new study by the University of Maryland released here Friday. There is a “sharp divergence” between the public’s attitudes and leaders’ perceptions of those attitudes, according to I.M. Destler, who co-authored the report.

The American public is far more favourably disposed toward U.S. involvement in the United Nations and to foreign aid than both Washington policymakers and Congress currently believe, he said.

The new study is the latest in a series of surveys showing that public support for the United Nations and for a multilateral approach to foreign policy has fallen only slightly from a high of almost 90 percent during the Gulf War in 1991.

The result of a series of national and local polls, as well as extensive interviews with Washington insiders, the new study finds that the vast majority of the U.S. public rejects a unilateralist approach to foreign policy, even in Congressional districts whose elected representatives want the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

In those same districts, according to the report, majorities of respondents even favour U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping forces so long as Washington does not have to provide most of the troops.

The study, ‘Misperceiving the American Public on International Engagement,’ began with interviews of 83 government policymakers, lawmakers and their staff members, prominent media commentators, and leaders of non-governmental organisations active in foreign policy in Washington.

From those interviews, Destler and co-author Steven Kull, both of whom work at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, distilled six major assumptions made by Washington elites about public attitudes on foreign policy. These beliefs on current conventional wisdom , according to subsequent polling, turned out to be wrong.

The first assumption, for example, was that members of Congress who called for less U.S. engagement in the world were reflecting the views of their constituents. To test this, the authors polled residents in four Congressional districts whose representatives co- sponsored legislation to have the United States withdraw from the United Nations and opposed paying U.N. dues, contributing U.S. troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations, and foreign aid.

To their surprise, they found that public opinion in those districts – two in the South and two in the West – did not agree with those positions. In fact, opinion in those districts proved close to that of a national sample.

In the national sample, 22 percent of respondents favoured U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. In the four districts, 18 to 21 percent of respondents wanted Washington to leave the U.N.

Nationally, 81 percent of respondents thought that the United Nations should be strengthened; in the two test districts where the same question was asked, the comparable percentages were 76 and 77.

All of the Congressional offices polled in advance believed that eliminating U.S. foreign aid would prove very popular with constituents. But only 7-8 percent of district respondents were found to oppose foreign aid, and less than 20 percent believed that the current amount of foreign aid provided by United States — about 13 billion dollars or 1 percent of the federal budget — was too much.

These results led the authors to test a series of additional assumptions that might explain how policymakers formed their views about public opinion.

One explanation could lie in the relative strength and persistence of different views. Thus, it was theorised, support for engagement and aid might be seen as weak and fragile compared with the intensity and resilience of those expressing opposite views. If so, the opposition would likely be more committed to getting its views across to policymakers.

But, using a series of questions designed to test how strong respondents felt about their positions – including challenging their views by giving counterarguments – the study found that support for engagement was at least as intense as opposition, and, in some cases, more resilient.

Yet another long-held belief tested by the pollsters was that an incumbent officeholder who voted for foreign aid, and supported the United Nations, would be highly vulnerable to attacks by any challenger.

To test this theory, the survey presented respondents with competing 30-second radio ads on the two issues for both the theoretical incumbent and the challenger. After the presentations, a strong majority of respondents said they preferred the incumbent over the challenger.

Excerpt:

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Oct 20 1996 (IPS)

Conventional wisdom says political candidates who support U.S. involvement with the United Nations and foreign aid are likely to lose votes in next month’s Presidential elections.

This is all wrong, however, says a new study by the University of Maryland released here Friday. There is a “sharp divergence” between the public’s attitudes and leaders’ perceptions of those attitudes, according to I.M. Destler, who co-authored the report.

The American public is far more favourably disposed toward U.S. involvement in the United Nations and to foreign aid than both Washington policymakers and Congress currently believe, he said.

The new study is the latest in a series of surveys showing that public support for the United Nations and for a multilateral approach to foreign policy has fallen only slightly from a high of almost 90 percent during the Gulf War in 1991.

The result of a series of national and local polls, as well as extensive interviews with Washington insiders, the new study finds that the vast majority of the U.S. public rejects a unilateralist approach to foreign policy, even in Congressional districts whose elected representatives want the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

In those same districts, according to the report, majorities of respondents even favour U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping forces so long as Washington does not have to provide most of the troops.

The study, ‘Misperceiving the American Public on International Engagement,’ began with interviews of 83 government policymakers, lawmakers and their staff members, prominent media commentators, and leaders of non-governmental organisations active in foreign policy in Washington.

From those interviews, Destler and co-author Steven Kull, both of whom work at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, distilled six major assumptions made by Washington elites about public attitudes on foreign policy. These beliefs on current conventional wisdom , according to subsequent polling, turned out to be wrong.

The first assumption, for example, was that members of Congress who called for less U.S. engagement in the world were reflecting the views of their constituents. To test this, the authors polled residents in four Congressional districts whose representatives co- sponsored legislation to have the United States withdraw from the United Nations and opposed paying U.N. dues, contributing U.S. troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations, and foreign aid.

To their surprise, they found that public opinion in those districts – two in the South and two in the West – did not agree with those positions. In fact, opinion in those districts proved close to that of a national sample.

In the national sample, 22 percent of respondents favoured U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. In the four districts, 18 to 21 percent of respondents wanted Washington to leave the U.N.

Nationally, 81 percent of respondents thought that the United Nations should be strengthened; in the two test districts where the same question was asked, the comparable percentages were 76 and 77.

All of the Congressional offices polled in advance believed that eliminating U.S. foreign aid would prove very popular with constituents. But only 7-8 percent of district respondents were found to oppose foreign aid, and less than 20 percent believed that the current amount of foreign aid provided by United States — about 13 billion dollars or 1 percent of the federal budget — was too much.

These results led the authors to test a series of additional assumptions that might explain how policymakers formed their views about public opinion.

One explanation could lie in the relative strength and persistence of different views. Thus, it was theorised, support for engagement and aid might be seen as weak and fragile compared with the intensity and resilience of those expressing opposite views. If so, the opposition would likely be more committed to getting its views across to policymakers.

But, using a series of questions designed to test how strong respondents felt about their positions – including challenging their views by giving counterarguments – the study found that support for engagement was at least as intense as opposition, and, in some cases, more resilient.

Yet another long-held belief tested by the pollsters was that an incumbent officeholder who voted for foreign aid, and supported the United Nations, would be highly vulnerable to attacks by any challenger.

To test this theory, the survey presented respondents with competing 30-second radio ads on the two issues for both the theoretical incumbent and the challenger. After the presentations, a strong majority of respondents said they preferred the incumbent over the challenger.

Excerpt: