This article was originally published in tandem with an article by R. Jeffrey Smith on IWatch, a publication of the Center for Public Integrity.

What do average Americans say when they are faced with the budget tradeoffs on national security that policymakers face today? When polls ask in the abstract about defense spending, Americans are often reluctant to cut it. However when Americans are asked to consider the deficit and presented with tradeoffs, majorities cut defense and cut it more than any other area of the budget. Furthermore when they learn how much of the budget goes to defense, large majorities cut it, on average quite deeply.

(Image Credit: Greg West)

This issue has become confused in public discussion, because many polls simply ask Americans whether they favor cutting defense, increasing it, or keeping it the same. These find that more favor cuts than increases, but those favoring cuts are still fewer than half of those surveyed. A February 2011 Pew poll found only 30% ready to cut, while fewer (13%) favored increases, and most (53%) said they accepted current levels.

When pollsters frame the issue in terms of the budget deficit, the number ready to cut defense may rise to about half. Most recently, an October Washington Post/Bloomberg Poll asked respondents whether they supported or opposed "reducing military spending" to help reduce the nation's budget deficit. Fifty-one percent supported it and 42 percent were opposed. Some polls have found lower numbers in support.

As respondents are given more information, support for reductions rises. When Quinnipiac University in March simply told respondents that defense, Social Security and Medicare together constitute more than half of the federal budget, 54% favored cutting defense spending.

And when they are asked to choose between defense and other programs, defense is consistently the most popular program to cut. When CBS/NY Times, on several occasions over the least year asked respondents to choose where they would prefer to cut Medicare, social security or the military, 45-55 percent chose the military, 16-21 percent Medicare, 13-17 percent Social Security.

If respondents are given choices between large and small cuts, overall support for cutting rises even more. In a Kaiser Foundation poll conducted in September, 67% favored some reduction in defense to address the deficit, with 28% favoring a major reduction and 39% a minor reduction.

So how much is a minor cut and how much is a major cut? Two other polls have given respondents some actual numbers. A National Journal poll last September asked respondents whether they favored the plan for "reducing the growth of defense spending by about $350 billion over 10 years," and 55% said they favored it.

A unique poll conducted in December 2010 by my colleagues and I at the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with the University of Maryland, went much further. It informed respondents how much was being spent on 31 of the largest categories in the federal discretionary budget, and asked whether and how much they wanted to adjust those amounts. As they made choices, it gave them constant feedback about the effect of their decisions on the deficit. In this information-rich context, 70 percent cut defense spending. The average respondent cut defense $109 billion, or 18 percent of the department's annual spending (outside of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan). This was by far the largest cut, constituting two-thirds of all the cuts made.

Many observers may find it bewildering that these responses vary, depending on the different ways the questions were asked. But this is not a chaotic process. There is a fairly clear pattern: The more Americans are asked to think like policymakers -- where they consider the deficit, make trade-offs against other budget priorities and, perhaps above all, when they understand the relative amount devoted to defense -- the more they cut defense. When respondents have less information or are asked the question in isolation, they mostly tend to endorse the status quo.

It should be noted, though, that such endorsements can be misinterpreted or misrepresented as a public endorsement of recent policy. Over the years, including over the entire last decade, a steady rise in the defense budget has not conformed to the public's preference, in which only small minorities favored such increases. Possibly because the public was unaware of what was happening, most embraced the new status quo in later polls. But they reiterated that they opposed further increases, which subsequently occurred.

The tendency of public officials to muddle their discussion of projected budget changes has contributed to this confusion. For example, the President's newest defense budget is most often depicted as a cut of $487 billion over ten years. To many Americans, this means the United States will be spending less than it is now. But the plan actually calls for increases, above inflation -- just smaller than those planned earlier.

The fact that the number of Americans who favor lower defense spending rises so dramatically with more complete information about the size of the defense budget strongly suggests that most Americans do not have this information. Indeed, when I have conducted focus groups and described the make-up of the federal budget, they often express astonishment at the relative share devoted to defense.

So what does this tell us about how the American public is likely to respond this year and next year? These findings show there is an underlying conservatism and a readiness to accept what the military establishment supports (the status quo) -- and that a politician who wants to portray another as weak on defense for bucking the establishment may be able to make some political hay. However, they also suggest that as Americans become more fully engaged with the challenge of deficit cutting, and especially as they seek to make tradeoffs with other spending, support for defense cuts will likely rise.

Steven Kull, a political psychologist who has conducted polls on public policy for two decades, is director of the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

As the World Economic Forum begins its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, amid concerns that the economic slowdown in the wealthy countries is undermining public support for economic aid, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion reveal continued underlying public support for development assistance to poor countries, though there has been a slight softening of support in the United States.

In the European Union, very large majorities in all 27 member states support aid to people in developing countries, and majorities in 25 of them say that the EU should fulfill its past pledge to increase aid, despite the economic downturn. In the United States support for economic aid in principle has softened a bit but still commands the backing of a large majority. At the same time, public support for aid levels continues to be weakened by extreme overestimations about the amount of the U.S. budget that actually goes to aid.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and U.S. polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on economic development can be found here and the digest of U.S. polling here. Analysis of these findings by CFR's Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

Very large majorities in all twenty-seven European Union member states think it is important to "help people in developing countries" (Eurobarometer 2010). On average, 89 percent took this position while only nine percent said it was not important. Publics most supportive of aid included those in Sweden (96 percent), Ireland (95 percent), as well as Denmark, Finland, and Spain (all 94 percent). The lowest majority among countries polled was a still robust 79 percent in Bulgaria.

Most significant, majorities of Europeans are willing to stand behind past pledges to increase aid, even in the midst of the financial crisis. Respondents were told "The European Union has promised to increase the level of its aid towards developing countries" and asked "Given the current economic situation" whether the E.U. should increase aid to the level promised, increase it above the level promised, not increase aid, or reduce it. Majorities in 25 of the 27 countries favored keeping the pledge. On average, 64 percent said the EU should keep its promise by increasing aid (50%), with some (14%) saying aid should be increased beyond promised levels. Fifteen percent said aid should not be increased and 14 percent said it should be reduced.

In the United States, majorities continue to support economic aid in principle, though the size of the majorities appears to have diminished. In a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA), as compared to 2004, those favoring the provision of "food and medical assistance" abroad slipped from 82 to 74 percent support, and "aid to help needy countries develop their economies" from 70 to 62 percent support in 2010 poll by the Council on Global Affairs.

As in years past, Americans tend to say that their government should cut back on economic aid, but this attitude seems to rest on persistent, extreme overestimations of how much the United States is spending. Sixty percent of Americans said in the 2010 CCGA poll said that their government should cut back on economic aid to other nations--up from 55 percent in 2008.

But when a 2010 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll asked respondents to estimate the percentage of the federal budget going to foreign aid, respondents on average reckoned 27 percent (median 25 percent). Most significantly, when asked what an appropriate percentage would be, the average response was 13 percent (median: 10 percent)--or ten times the actual percentage. Similar responses have been found in previous polls for decades now.

When Americans were asked to deal with the budget in some detail as part of a larger exercise for reducing the deficit, they did not single out foreign aid, especially its more altruistic forms for cuts. A representative sample of Americans in an online exercise was presented with the U.S. discretionary budget, broken out into 31 areas, and given the opportunity to make changes as they saw fit, getting constant feedback about the impact of their decisions on the deficit (Program for Public Consultation 2011). Respondents actually increased levels of humanitarian aid by 18 percent on average, and only lightly nicked global health (cut 2 percent); development assistance received a bit more in cuts (14 percent). Combined, respondents cut these three programs just 3 percent--even in the context of seeking to reduce the federal budget deficit. This was significantly less than the average cut of 11 percent they advocated across the 31 programs. Respondents did make substantial cuts, however, to U.S. aid programs with less altruistic and more strategic objectives: the Economic Support Fund (cut 23 percent) and military aid (cut 15 percent).

Digest of International Opinion on Energy Security
Digest of US Opinion on Energy Security
Public Opinion on Global Issues homepage
Stewart Patrick analysis

As world energy markets react to Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz and the World Future Energy Summit convenes in Abu Dhabi this week, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion reveal very strong European and American public support for renewable energy development.

In the EU, majorities in all 27 member states support increasing the share of renewable energy by 20% by the year 2020. In the United States, an overwhelming nine in ten see it as important to invest in renewable energy--and eight in ten support tax incentives for this purpose. But American support has softened for the idea of emphasizing fossil fuel conservation over production of more fossil fuels.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and U.S. polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on energy security can be found here and the digest of U.S. polling here. Analysis of these findings by Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

Eurobarometer polled all twenty-seven EU member states in November 2010 on the goal "to increase the share of renewable energy in the EU by 20 percent by 2020". Majorities in all twenty-seven countries either approved of the goal or called for it to go further. In the EU-wide average, 57 percent thought the proposed goal was "about right" and 16 percent thought it was "too modest." Just 19 percent thought it was "too ambitious".

In the United States, an overwhelming 91 percent believed "investing in renewable energy" is important for the United States to remain competitive with other countries in the global economy, with 62 percent considering this very important (Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2010).

The same poll found strong support for tax incentives to encourage development of alternative energy sources specifically as a way to address dependence on foreign energy sources. Eight in ten (80 percent) favored such a step, 47 percent strongly. Only 17 percent were opposed.

These findings are consistent with earlier international polling. A 2008 WPO poll of 21 nations found strong support for putting greater emphasis on installing alternative energy systems. A majority in twenty of the twenty-one nations favored their country putting greater emphasis on installing solar and wind energy systems. On average, 77 percent supported more emphasis, 8 percent supported less emphasis, and 7 percent supported the same emphasis. Only in Russia did less than a clear majority (50 percent) support a great emphasis on these alternative energies.

Most also favored the government requiring utilities to use more alternative energy, such as wind and solar, even if this increases the cost of energy in the short run. In nineteen of twenty-one nations, a majority of respondents supported the proposal (WPO 2008).

In addition to support for increasing the share of renewable energy, the 2010 Eurobarometer poll found majorities in all 27 EU member states endorsing a proposed goal "to increase the energy efficiency in the EU by 20% by 2020." In the EU-wide average, 59% said this goal was "about right" and another 14% called it "too modest." Only 17% said it was "too ambitious."

In the United States, though, perhaps due to the economic downturn, there is a softening of a long-standing view that for fossil fuels, conservation matters more than increased production. Until March 2011, Gallup found consistent majority support for placing emphasis on "more conservation by consumers of existing energy sources" rather than "production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies." Whereas 61 percent favored this position in March 2008, the proportion fell, to 48 percent in March 2011. Still, this was greater than the 41 percent favoring emphasizing production.

Also, despite the downturn, Americans state they are prepared to make sacrifices to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. CCGA in 2010 found that two thirds of Americans (65 percent) supported "requiring auto-makers to increase fuel efficiency, even if this means the price of cars would go up." Thirty-one percent were opposed.

CCGA also developed a new question, asking Americans whether they favored creating a new international institution to "monitor the worldwide energy market and predict potential shortages." Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, favored the idea, with only 35 percent opposed.

Overall, majorities both in the United States and Europe, polled by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) in 2008, believed it likely that they would be personally affected by the threat of energy dependence over the next ten years.

This op-ed originally appeared in print on January 16, 2012 edition of The New York Times

The debate over how to handle Iran's nuclear program is notable for its gloom and doom. Many people assume that Israel must choose between letting Iran develop nuclear weapons or attacking before it gets the bomb. But this is a false choice. There is a third option: working toward a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. And it is more feasible than most assume.

Attacking Iran might set its nuclear program back a few years, but it will most likely encourage Iran to aggressively seek -- and probably develop -- nuclear weapons. Slowing Iran down has some value, but the costs are high and the risks even greater. Iran would almost certainly retaliate, leading to all-out war at a time when Israel is still at odds with various Arab countries, and its relations with Turkey are tense.

Many hawks who argue for war believe that Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel. They assume Iran is insensitive to the logic of nuclear deterrence and would be prepared to use nuclear weapons without fear of the consequences (which could include killing millions of Palestinians and the loss of millions of Iranian civilians from an inevitable Israeli retaliation). And even if Israel strikes, Iran is still likely to acquire nuclear weapons eventually and would then be even more inclined to use them.

Despite all the talk of an "existential threat," less than half of Israelis support a strike on Iran. According to our November poll, carried out in cooperation with the Dahaf Institute in Israel, only 43 percent of Israeli Jews support a military strike on Iran -- even though 90 percent of them think that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons.

Most important, when asked whether it would be better for both Israel and Iran to have the bomb, or for neither to have it, 65 percent of Israeli Jews said neither. And a remarkable 64 percent favored the idea of a nuclear-free zone, even when it was explained that this would mean Israel giving up its nuclear weapons.

The Israeli public also seems willing to move away from a secretive nuclear policy toward greater openness about Israel's nuclear facilities. Sixty percent of respondents favored "a system of full international inspections" of all nuclear facilities, including Israel's and Iran's, as a step toward regional disarmament.

If Israel's nuclear program were to become part of the equation, it would be a game-changer. Iran has until now effectively accused the West of employing a double standard because it does not demand Israeli disarmament, earning it many fans across the Arab world.

And a nuclear-free zone may be hard for Iran to refuse. Iranian diplomats have said they would be open to an intrusive role for the United Nations if it accepted Iran's right to enrich uranium for energy production -- not to the higher levels necessary for weapons. And a 2007 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that the Iranian people would favor such a deal.

We cannot take what Iranian officials say at face value, but an international push for a nuclear-free Middle East would publicly test them. And most Arab leaders would rather not start down the nuclear path -- a real risk if Iran gets the bomb -- and have therefore welcomed the proposal of a nuclear-free zone.

Some Israeli officials may also take the idea seriously. As Avner Cohen's recent book "The Worst-Kept Secret" shows, Israel's policy of "opacity" -- not acknowledging having nuclear weapons while letting everyone know it does -- has existed since 1969, but is now becoming outdated. Indeed, no one outside Israel today sees any ambiguity about the fact that Israel possesses a large nuclear arsenal.

Although Israeli leaders have in the past expressed openness to the idea of a nuclear-free zone, they have always insisted that there must first be peace between Israel and its neighbors.

But the stalemate with Iran could actually delay or prevent peace in the region. As the former Israeli spy chief, Meir Dagan, argued earlier this month, Israel's current stance might actually accelerate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and encourage Arab states to follow suit. Moreover, talk of an "existential threat" projects Israel as weak, hurts its morale, and reduces its foreign policy options. This helps explain why three leading Israeli security experts -- the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former military chief of staff, Dan Halutz -- all recently declared that a nuclear Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel.

While full elimination of nuclear weapons is improbable without peace, starting the inevitably long and arduous process of negotiations toward that end is vital.

Given that Israelis overwhelmingly believe that Iran is on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons and several security experts have begun to question current policy, there is now an opportunity for a genuine debate on the real choices: relying on cold-war-style "mutual assured destruction" once Iran develops nuclear weapons or pursuing a path toward a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, with a chance that Iran -- and Arabs -- will never develop the bomb at all.

There should be no illusions that successfully negotiating a path toward regional nuclear disarmament will be easy. But the mere conversation could transform a debate that at present is stuck between two undesirable options: an Iranian bomb or war.

Shibley Telhami is a professor of government at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Steven Kull is director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

Newly updated digests of American and international public opinion polls reveal substantial consensus on concepts of world order. Large majorities support a world order based on international law and a stronger United Nations. American as well as international opinion favors the United States playing a less dominant but still active role in world affairs.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and U.S. polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on world order can be found here and the digest of U.S. polling here.

International Law

Most people around the world support an international order based on international law and treaties. In a 2009 WPO poll of 16 nations, in 14 a majority (including in the US) and in 2 a plurality said that international laws create obligations like domestic law, and believe that nations should feel obliged to abide by international law even when doing so is at odds with their national interest. Americans were among the most enthusiastic in endorsing this view, at 69 percent, slightly behind the Chinese at 74 percent.

Various polls have shown that Americans believe international law imposes constraints on the use of force and coercion. A 2006 WPO poll found 79 percent of Americans approved of "the international law that prohibits a nation from using military force against another nation except in self defense or to defend an ally." A 2006 Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans thought that Central Intelligence Agency officers should be required to abide by the Geneva Conventions when questioning "suspects whom they believe have information about possible terror plots against the United States."

Americans show strong support for U.S. participation in a variety of international treaties. A 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) found large majorities favoring U.S. participation in Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (82%), the Biological Weapons Convention (89%) the International Criminal Court (70%), and a new international treaty to combat climate change (67%, down from 76% in 2008). A large majority also favors having an international body, such as a court, to judge compliance with treaties to which the United States is party.

Role of the UN

Large majorities around the world endorse a stronger role for the United Nations. They support giving the UN a variety of expanded powers, including having a standing peacekeeping force, the authority to investigate human rights violations, and the power to regulate the international arms trade. National publics are more divided when it comes to giving the United Nations the capacity to impose a tax.

U.S. polling by CCGA in 2010 found majority American support for having a standing UN peacekeeping force (64%), giving the United Nations the authority to go into countries to investigate violations of human rights (72%), creating an international marshals service that could arrest leaders responsible for genocide (73%), giving the United Nations the power to regulate the international arms trade (55%), and having a "UN agency control access to all nuclear fuel in the world to ensure that none is used for weapons production"(64%). However, support for giving the United Nations the power to impose a small tax on such things as the international sale of arms or oil was just 44%.

Support for working through the United Nations is somewhat tempered, especially among smaller countries, when poll questions highlight the prospect of subordinating national policies to collective decision-making processes.

Large majorities around the world favor the United Nations having the right to authorize the use of military force for a wide range of contingencies. The approval of the UN Security Council plays a powerful--and in many cases a necessary--role in conferring legitimacy on the use of military force. Perhaps most dramatic, equally large majorities approve of the United Nations using military force to forcibly deliver urgent humanitarian aid if the relevant government tries to block the aid, and to protect people from severe human rights abuses even against the will of the government.

Publics in most nations say that when there are concerns about the fairness of elections, countries should be willing to have UN observers monitor the elections. Most countries polled, including developed democracies, say that their own country would benefit from such monitoring.

America's Role in the World

Large majorities in countries around the world, including the US, reject a dominant role for the United States, but do want the United States to participate in multilateral efforts to address international issues. Majorities, including among Americans, say that the US is playing too dominant a role.

In 2006, WPO and CCGA asked respondents in fifteen countries to choose the ideal role for the United States in world affairs. Presented three options, the least popular was, "As the sole remaining superpower, the United States should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems" with an average of only 11 percent choosing this option. However there was little support for the US to simply "withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems"--on average, just 24 percent favored this option.

By far the preferred option was that "the United States should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries." On average, 56 percent endorsed this position, which was the preferred position in thirteen of the fifteen nations.

CCGA polling of Americans in 2010 found Americans still largely in step with world opinion. Just 8 percent favored the US being the preeminent world leader, 19 percent favored U.S. disengagement, while 71 percent favored the US taking a cooperative approach.

Gallup has gotten similar results when it has asked Americans about "the role the United States should play in trying to solve international problems." Consistently, only small minorities have endorsed the option of the United States playing "the leading role," most recently 16 percent in 2011. At the same time, few Americans support the idea of playing only a "minor role" (25%) or "no role" (7%). The most popular option is for the United States to "take a major role, but not the leading one" (50% in 2011).

American and international opinion tend to agree that the US plays too dominant a role in the world. The 2010 CCGA poll found 79 percent agreed with the statement that "The U.S. is playing the role of world policeman more than it should be." When WPO/CCGA asked this question in 15 countries around the world in 2006, majorities in 13 of 15 countries polled agreed.

Modest Support for Employer's Payroll Tax Cut

Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings (PDF)

When a representative sample of Americans was presented a detailed explanation of the costs and potential benefits of extending the payroll tax cut for employees, including strongly stated arguments for and against the idea, 68% favored the idea. This included 65% of Republicans as well as 74% of Democrats.

There were, however, partisan divisions on how to pay for the tax cut. While overall 56% preferred a higher tax on earnings above $1 million, including three in four Democrats and a majority of independents supported a higher tax, three-fifths of Republicans preferred reducing the federal workforce and lengthening the freeze on its pay.

The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland. "Public consultation" seeks to reveal how the public responds when it hears the kind of information and arguments that policymakers hear when making decisions, thus eliciting a clearer presentation of the public's values.

Respondents were told that extending the payroll tax cut for employees, and reducing it to 3.1%, would reduce projected government revenue by $175 billion for the year and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would add 350,000 to 1,225,000 jobs.

Respondents were also presented and asked to evaluate pro and con arguments. The pro argument stated that "A payroll tax cut puts money in the pockets of people who are then spending it at businesses, large and small. That gives them more customers, increases demand, and it gives businesses a greater incentive to hire." It was found convincing by 70%.

However, the con argument was also found convincing by 65% . It went, "Because so many people feel economically vulnerable right now, a payroll tax cut for employees is not going to create much economic activity. People will mostly pay debts or save the money."

As mentioned, two thirds or more of both parties ultimately came down in favor of the payroll tax cut for employees.

However, support was lower for such a payroll tax cut for employers. After being briefed on the idea and evaluating pro and con arguments for the sample overall, a slight majority of 51% favored it, but 46% were opposed. Curiously, majorities of both Republicans (57%) and Democrats (52%) favored it, but this was offset by a much lower level of support (43%) among independents.

As part of the briefing respondents were first told about how the reduction of the payroll tax cut from 6.2 to 3.1% would only apply to the first $5 million of payroll (thus primarily helping small business), that government revenue would be lowered by $65 billion and that jobs are estimated to increase by 350-850,000.

Two thirds found convincing the pro argument that focused on the economic logic of the proposal and the idea that smaller businesses would primarily benefit. The con argument raised the possibility that employer behavior would not respond to a payroll tax cut in the way policymakers intended. This was also found convincing by two thirds. Partisan differences were minor.

The poll was fielded from December 3 to 9, 2011 as part of a larger study with a sample of 907 adult Americans. Each section was partially sampled, however, so the sample size was 565 for each question released. Thus, with a design effect of 1.6431, the margin of error was 5.3%. Please contact PPC if you would like a detailed sample design.

The poll was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

With the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion reveal a remarkable degree of consensus on principles of human rights, consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and US polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on human rights can be found here and the digest of US polling here. Analysis of these findings by Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

Majorities in all nations polled, including those with authoritarian governments, endorse the principles that:

• people should be free to express their opinions, including criticism of the government;
• people should have the right to demonstrate peacefully;
• the media should be free of government control;
• people should be treated equally irrespective of religion, gender, race or ethnicity;
• governments should be responsible for ensuring that their citizens can meet their basic needs for food, healthcare and education (this includes large majorities of Americans);
• the will of the people should be the basis for the authority of government and government leaders should be selected through free elections with universal suffrage.

At the same time, asked to consider difficult conditions such as the potential for political instability, publics in a few nations say that their government should have the right to limit the expression of certain views. However, in most nations this is not the case.

Large majorities in all nations polled (on average 7 in 10) also support the idea that the UN should make efforts to promote the human rights established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In nearly all countries, majorities favor the UN increasing these efforts, and a similar number favor the idea of giving the UN power to go into countries to investigate human rights abuses.

The most comprehensive source of data is a major study of attitudes on the UDHR that was conducted in 25 nations around the world by WorldPublicOpinion.org in 2008.

A new study conducted this year by Pew in six majority-Muslim countries, in the wake of the Arab Spring, also shows majorities saying it is important that people can "say what they think and can criticize the government," that "people of all faiths can practice their religion freely," and "women hav[ing] the same rights as men."

A 2010 Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) found that 72 percent of Americans endorsed "giving the UN the authority to go into countries in order to investigate violations of human rights," while 26 percent of respondents were opposed.

Summaries of findings:

The Role of the United Nations in Human Rights
Majorities or pluralities in all nations polled express support for the United Nations (UN) playing an active role in promoting human rights and reject the argument that this would be improper interference in the internal affairs of a country. Publics in most countries favor the UN playing a larger role than it presently does to promote human rights and favor giving it greater power to go into countries to investigate human rights abuses. Large majorities in nearly every country say that the UN should try to further women's rights even when presented the argument that this would conflict with national sovereignty. When asked which should make the decision on matters related to human rights, more respondents prefer either the UN or regional organizations rather than national governments, though an average of four in ten respondents prefer national governments.

Freedom of Expression
The principle that individuals have a right to freedom of expression--including criticism of government and religious leaders--appears to be nearly universally supported by people throughout the world. However, when asked whether government should have the right to limit expression of certain political and religious views, the consensus is not as strong. While majorities in most countries say the government should not have such a right, in several countries a majority (and in another few a large minority) says that it should have such a right. At the same time there is widespread consensus that individuals should have the right to demonstrate peacefully against the government.

Media Freedom
Internationally there is robust support for the principle that the media should be free of government control and that citizens should even have access to material from hostile countries. With just a few exceptions, majorities say that the government should not have the right to limit access to the internet. But while most publics say the government should not have the right to prohibit publishing material it thinks will be politically destabilizing, in a significant minority of countries a majority of the respondents say that governments should have such a right.

Religious Freedom
Publics around the world believe it is important for people of different religions to be treated equally. Majorities in most, but not all, nations affirm that followers of any religion should be allowed to assemble and practice in their country. At the same time, discomfort with proselytizing--trying actively to convert others to one's own religion--is quite widespread. Majorities in more than half of the countries polled do not favor extending religious freedom to a right to proselytize.

Women's Rights
Large majorities in all nations support the principle that women should have "full equality of rights" and most say it is very important. Large majorities believe their government has the responsibility to seek to prevent discrimination against women. Large majorities in nearly every country polled favor the United Nations playing an active role in this agenda.

Racial and Ethnic Equality
Large majorities in all countries say people of different races and ethnicities should be treated equally. In nearly every country large majorities say that employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on race or ethnicity and that it is the government's responsibility to stop this from happening. In general, large majorities agree that governments should take action to prevent racial discrimination.

Norms on Torture and Detention
Large majorities support having international rules against torture. However, significant minorities favor making an exception in the case of terrorists who have information that could save innocent lives. Limited polling has found that views are more mixed on prohibiting threatening torture or treating detainees in a humiliating or degrading manner. Commanders are generally seen as responsible if their subordinates carry out torture. All countries polled disapprove of allowing the United States to use their airspace to conduct extraordinary renditions.

Social and Economic Rights
Large majorities in every country say their government should be responsible to take care of the poor and for ensuring that citizens can meet their basic needs for food, healthcare, and education. However, there are wide variations in how people perceive their governments to be fulfilling these responsibilities.

A majority of Americans professing a belief in God, favor cooperative international efforts to combat climate change, environmental degradation, and the spread of nuclear weapons says a new public opinion poll conducted jointly by the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and its Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

The nearly 1,500 Americans surveyed include large numbers of Catholics and Evangelicals.

The study, Faith and Global Policy Challenges: How Spiritual Values Shape Views on Poverty, Nuclear Risks, and Environmental Degradation, also finds that a majority of "believers" consider addressing global poverty a "spiritual obligation," and think that the United States should work cooperatively with other nations to reduce it.

"This research challenges common political stereotypes that pigeonhole religious Americans as liberal or conservative on environmental and nuclear proliferation issues," says University of Maryland Public Policy Professor and study co-author John Steinbruner, who directs CISSM.

"These findings demonstrate the public's strong moral impulse to address global policy challenges - an impulse that if applied properly could break the current impasse on these issues," Steinbruner adds.

Though most believers in the study do not consider addressing environmental and nuclear risks to be spiritual obligations, they do understand these issues as a part of "good stewardship," the study finds.

"While for many believers there is a tenuous connection between their spiritual values and issues related to the environment and the risk of nuclear war, they are nonetheless very responsive to the idea that there is an obligation to protect God's creation, or to be good stewards of the earth," explains study co-author Steven Kull, director of PIPA.

Specific Findings

Stewardship: 3 out of 4 believers embrace the idea that they have an obligation to act as good stewards of the environment; 4 out 10 believers say the obligation to be a good steward of the environment includes the obligation to prevent nuclear war.

Environmental Laws: 2 out of 3 believers agree that there is an obligation to care for God's creation by supporting environmental laws and regulations.

Binding International Agreements: Majorities of believers approve of the United States entering into binding international agreements aimed at protecting the environment (including by reducing greenhouse gases) and reducing the risk of nuclear war.

• 7 in 10 believers reject the argument that reducing greenhouse gases would be too harmful to the economy in favor of the idea that in the long run it will help the economy through greater energy efficiency.
• 8 in 10 believers support negotiating an international agreement to lower the number of nuclear weapons on high alert.
• A majority of believers support pursuing the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Only four in ten (three in ten among Evangelicals) think that there is a consensus among scientists that urgent action on climate change is needed and that enough is known to take action. Those who perceive such a consensus are more supportive of taking action on climate change. Those who perceive such a consensus are also more likely to see it as a spiritual obligation.

Polling Details

The poll was fielded from September 9 to 19, 2011 with a sample of 1,496 adult Americans. The poll was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

The margin of error for the general population is plus or minus 3.3 percent. The subgroup margins of error: for Evangelicals, plus or minus 6.4 percent and plus or minus 5.7 percent for Catholics.

At the beginning of the poll, all respondents were asked, "Would you say you believe in God or do not believe in God?" Eighty-five percent of respondents said that they did believe in God, while 14 percent said they did not. When respondents were asked whether they felt "there are spiritual obligations to act in certain ways," or whether they did "not think in these terms," 67% said they felt there are spiritual obligations; 32% said they did not think in these terms.

A new poll of Israeli Jews finds that 64% favor establishing a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, even when it was spelled out that this would mean that Israel as well as Iran would give up the option of having nuclear weapons.

(Image Credit: takomabibelot)

Pressure has grown for such a nuclear free zone in response to the potential for Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, possibly leading to a regional arms race. Next year the United Nations will sponsor a conference devoted to trying to get the possibility of a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone back into play, but the Israeli government continues to resist the idea.

The logic of the Israeli Jewish public is clear. Less than half (43%) say they support an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Recently, even leading voices within Israel's defense community have said that such a strike would merely slow, but not stop Iran and that Israeli cities would be vulnerable to retaliation.

At the same time the Israeli public is far from sanguine about Iran's potential for acquiring nuclear weapons. An overwhelming 90% say that it is likely that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons.

Asked which would be better--for both Israel and Iran to have nuclear weapons, or for neither to have nuclear weapons--a robust 65% say that it would be better for neither to have them. Only 19% say it would be better for both to have them.

The poll of 510 Israeli Jews is a joint project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Anwar Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland, and was fielded by the Dahaf Institute in Israel. Interviews were conducted by telephone November 10-16. The margin of error is +/-4.3%.

The results were released in conjunction with the start of the Saban Forum on US-Israeli Relations at the Brookings Institution.

Highly significant to negotiations with Iran, Israeli Jews not only expressed support for the long term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the region but also for an interim step of making their nuclear facilities transparent together with Iran.

Asked about having all countries in the region, including Israel as well as Iran, "agree to have a system of full international inspections of all facilities where nuclear components could be built or maintained," 60% favored it.

"If Israel and Iran were to indicate a readiness to join a process toward turning the Middle East nuclear free zone this would be a major game changer in negotiations on Iran's nuclear program," comments Steven Kull director of PIPA.

"I find the findings surprising given the long held assumption that the Israeli public is not prepared to even discuss the nuclear issue given their deep seated sense of insecurity," adds Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development.

As representatives of most countries of the world meet in Durban, South Africa to try to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion reveal that publics around the world and in the United States say their government should give global warming a higher priority and strongly support multilateral action to address it.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and US polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on the global environment can be found here and the digest of US polling here. Analysis of these findings by Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

Prior to the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, publics worldwide gave robust majority support to the proposal that their government should agree to limit their country's greenhouse emissions as part of an international agreement. A WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) poll for the World Bank found majorities in all sixteen countries polled saying that at the conference their country should "be willing to commit to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions as part of such an agreement"--on average 87%, including 82% of Americans.

WPO also asked about how much their government is doing to deal with the problem of climate change (2009). A majority in 13 of the 16 countries said their government is not doing enough, with three countries divided. In the average of all countries polled, 63 percent said their countries were not doing enough. The Chinese were higher than the global average, with 77% saying their government is not doing enough, while Americans were below the global average with 58% taking this position. Only very small minorities in all countries said their government is doing too much. Steven Kull, director of PIPA commented, "There seems to substantial support for action."

Across several multi-country polls, covering most of the world's population, a majority in every country polled says that global warming is a problem or a threat. For example, in a 2010 Pew poll of 24 countries, majorities in 23 countries and a plurality in one said global warming is a serious problem--on average, 84%.

A large majority of Americans agree--although this percentage has been declining over the last few years, so that American concern is significantly lower than the global average--70% as compared to 84%. Majorities in most countries, including the United States, believe that climate change is related to human activity.

Majorities in many countries believe climate change is already harming people in their country and, if unchecked, will have negative impacts on many critical areas of life. Among Americans only a minority thinks that they are being affected now, but a large majority thinks that they will be personally affected eventually.

Despite this public consensus about the reality of climate change, only about half of respondents across many countries polled believe that scientists themselves have reached agreement on the need for urgent action on climate change. In the United States only 38% perceive that such scientific consensus exists. Unsurprisingly, those who do not perceive such a consensus are less likely to perceive climate change as a serious threat.

Steven Kull comments, "Those who seek to increase support for action on climate change would do well to work harder to establish the reality of scientific consensus in the mind of the public. It is surprising that people will support as much action as they do, given their uncertainty about the science."

A major point of contention at the Durban conference will be over what role the developing countries should play in the effort to limit climate changing emissions. Among the public, majorities in developing as well as developed countries think that developing countries have a responsibility to limit their emissions. In eighteen of the twenty-one countries polled, respondents rejected the view that "Because countries that are less wealthy produce relatively low emissions per person, they should not be expected to limit their emissions of climate changing gases" in favor of the view that "Because total emissions from less-wealthy countries are substantial and growing, these countries should limit their emissions of climate changing gases," including 68% in China (BBC/GlobeScan/PIPA 2007).

Among most countries--both developed and developing--there is also a consensus that developed countries should provide developing countries with aid to help the latter limit their greenhouse-gas emissions. In all of the twenty-one countries polled a majority or plurality (including 70% of Americans) said that developed countries should provide such aid if developing countries agree to limits on their emissions.

In addition to efforts to mitigate climate change, another issue will be whether the developed countries should assist poor countries with adaptation. In 2009 a WPO poll asked respondents in 16 countries if their country should or should not contribute to international efforts to help poor countries deal with climate-induced changes such as widespread flooding. A majority in 15 countries, including developing ones, said their country should contribute to international efforts to help poor countries deal with the effects of global warming, including 54% of Americans.

To motivate changes in energy usage, publics in most countries are willing to increase the cost of energy that causes climate change. Indeed, majorities in most countries say they would accept increased costs equal to 0.5 percent of GDP. A majority of Americans are willing to accept increases costs of about $20 a month. Majorities also favor requiring increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and reducing subsidies for private transportation-- even if this increases the cost to the consumer. However, Americans express optimism that increased energy efficiency will bring long-run economic benefits.

The idea of raising taxes on energy from fossil fuels meets with mixed responses worldwide. However, support becomes high, including among Americans, if respondents are told that the resulting tax revenues will be explicitly earmarked to address the problem of climate change, or will be offset by tax reductions elsewhere.

To deal with climate change, majorities in most countries favor limiting the construction of coal-fired plants, even if this increases the cost of energy. To reduce reliance on oil and coal, large majorities favor creating tax incentives to encourage alternative energy sources and requiring automakers to increase fuel efficiency. Views are more mixed on building new nuclear power plants. Majorities also support preserving or expanding forested areas to create carbon sinks.

Publics around the world in recent years have largely disapproved of how the United States is handling the problem of climate change. In general, the United States has been most widely seen as the country having the most negative effect on the world's environment, followed by China. Germany has received the best ratings.

As the leaders of the United States and other members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum prepare for the annual APEC summit with an eye to furthering free trade in the Pacific region, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion present some striking findings on what US citizens think about trade.

Despite the economic downturn, American public support for international trade and globalization remains fairly strong. Nevertheless, American support for free trade agreements with Pacific nations, after rising before the economic crisis, has since softened.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relation's International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and US polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of US opinion on the global economy can be found here and the digest of comparative international polling here. Analysis of these findings by Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

The digest of US opinion found various polls showing Americans continue to view globalization with a broadly positive attitude. For example, in a 2011 Pew poll, 67% of Americans said that "the growing trade and business ties between our country and other countries" is positive for the United States--the same proportion of people who felt this way in 2009 (65%) and 2010 (66%).

However, US public support for free trade agreements with specific nations, including Asian nations, has fallen off recently. Polling from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that examined willingness to "have a free trade agreement that would lower barriers such as tariffs" with several Pacific countries elicited more negative responses. For Japan, China, and South Korea, support dropped between 2008 and 2010 after having risen substantially between 2006 and 2008.

Support for a free trade agreement with Japan was at majority levels in 2010, with 52% in favor. However this was down from 59% in 2008.

Only 37% of Americans supported a free trade agreement with China in 2010, down from 41 % in 2008. This may be related to the same poll's finding that 63% assumed that Chinese trade practices were unfair.

Attitudes about free trade with South Korea--with which the US just ratified a free trade agreement in October--have varied depending on how it was asked. In the 2010 CCGA poll, when simply asked whether the US should have a free trade agreement with South Korea, support was just 37%, down from 49% in 2008.

However, when respondents were asked to consider the pros and cons of a free trade agreement, support was substantially higher. With a separate sample CCGA first presented arguments saying "supporters...argue [the FTA] will create new jobs in the United States, and strengthen our relationship with an important strategic and trading partner," while "opponents argue that the agreement would not provide enough access to South Korean markets" and "would result in lost jobs for American workers." Presented this way, support was 10 points higher at 47 percent, with 44 percent opposed.

Furthermore, once Congress was considering the free trade agreement and Gallup asked in 2011 about how Congress should act, 53 percent said that Congress should pass it. Presumably, just the fact that Congress was considering the agreement lent it greater credibility.

The digests also reveal that trade adjustment assistance (TAA), which retrains workers in industries that suffer as a result of the agreements, may have a significant effect on support for free trade agreements. As TAA is a hotly debated issue during trade agreement negotiations in Congress, the polls provide a vital resource to policymakers.

In a 2010 CCGA poll that asked about "agreements to lower trade barriers" and included the option of the government having "programs to help workers who lose their jobs," only 36 percent still opposed free trade agreements. Fifty-seven percent favored them--43% with the condition of trade adjustment assistance and 14% without it.

Key findings from the digest of international opinion are as follows:

General Views of Globalization and International Trade
International polls find strong support for globalization, though views lean moderately toward the position that the pace of globalization is too fast. People generally see international trade as positive for their country, their nation's companies and a bit less so for their self and family. However, views are more mixed about the impact of international trade on jobs and the environment.

Response to Economic Downturn
Polling conducted in the spring of 2009--during the depths of the global recession--found some softening of majority support for globalization in general with majorities in many nations favoring a temporary increase in protectionism in light of the recession. Europeans have responded to the downturn by looking to the EU to play a stronger role in the European economy.

International Regulation of Financial Institutions
Global publics show very strong support for the broad idea of having a global regulating body to ensure that big financial institutions follow international standards. However, publics are divided on whether nations should be free to regulate their own banks that operate internationally. This suggests that some people have not thought through the implications of international regulation of financial institutions. Europeans favor the European Union taking a strong role in reforming how international financial markets are regulated.

Including Labor and Environmental Standards in Trade Agreements
Consistent with concerns about the impact of international trade on jobs and the environment, overwhelming majorities around the world, including in developing countries, support including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.

Assessments of Countries' Fairness in Trade
Inhabitants of developing countries generally see rich countries as not playing fair in trade negotiations with poor countries. Africans perceive that they do not benefit from trade as much as rich countries do. Europeans have mixed views on whether U.S. trade practices are fair, but lean toward seeing Japan as fair.

Regional Trade Relations
Pacific Rim nations place a high priority on economic relations with each other and generally favor creating free trade relations with each other, though Americans have more mixed views. China, Japan, and South Korea favor a free trade agreement with the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN). They also favor an East Asia free trade area, but differ on whether to include the United States in it. Views are divided as to whether growing economic relations increase or decrease the likelihood of military conflict. Europeans and Americans favor a new initiative to enhance transatlantic trade and investment ties.

The World Bank and IMF
In general, majorities in most countries express a positive view of the influence of international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While both get mildly positive ratings in nearly all countries, the World Bank is more popular than the IMF and a few countries, particularly Argentina and Brazil, have distinctly negative views of the IMF. Publics in many beneficiary countries show high levels of enthusiasm, while those in donor countries are more modest in their support, though still predominantly positive.

The World Trade Organization
The World Trade Organization has a positive international image and there is support for strengthening it. Most countries polled, including the United States, say that their government should comply with adverse WTO decisions.

Global Corporations
Views of the international role of global corporations are mixed. Generally speaking, people are inclined to believe they have a positive influence internationally, but also lean toward not trusting them to operate in the best interests of their society. Africans, especially, hold a very positive view of global corporations and trust them to operate in the best interests of their society.

Foreign Investment
Publics in most countries have a negative view of foreigners buying companies in their country.

Trade and Poverty Reduction
Majorities in most developed and developing countries believe that, to reduce poverty, rich countries should allow more imports from developing countries.

Originally published on CNN's Global Public Square on September 5, 2011

On the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, many Americans are wondering whether the risk of a terrorist attack against America has been reduced. The picture is mixed. With the death of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda is weaker. With revolutions in several Arab countries, frustrations with unpopular autocratic governments -- a recruiting theme for terrorist groups - have been mitigated. But one important contributing factor has not improved - widespread anger at America in the Muslim world. While views have improved in Indonesia, throughout the Middle East and South Asia, hostility toward the United States persists unabated.

This does not mean that most Muslims support terrorist attacks on America. On the contrary, overwhelming majorities reject terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, as morally wrong. Al Qaeda is quite unpopular.

Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America By Steven Kull For more information and to purchase, click here

However, anger at America does contribute to an environment in which it is easier for anti-American terrorist groups to recruit jihadists, to generate funding and to generally operate with little government interference - witness how bin Laden operated in Pakistan and the widespread anger there when the Pakistani military failed to prevent the United States from taking him out.

Trying to understand Muslims' feelings toward America has been the focus of a five-year study I recently completed that included conducting focus groups and surveys throughout the Muslim world. I sat for many hours trying to understand as Muslims explained to me why they are so mad at America.

Muslims have much they do not like about how America treats them. But there is one thing that is the most fundamental: their perception that America seeks to undermine Islam - a perception held by overwhelming majorities.

The fact that many Americans blithely brush off this accusation without really understanding it is one reason this anger persists. To understand it one must go deeper into the Muslim worldview.

Muslims tend to view current events through the lens of a long-standing historical narrative. According to this narrative, going back to the Middle Ages Christian forces from the West have persistently sought to break the grip of Islam on its people. By holding fast, Muslims believe, they were able to flourish as a civilization, at times superseding the West in many dimensions.

Today, they believe, that struggle continues - except today the challenge is greater. Western cultural products are seen as seductively undermining Islamic culture. More importantly, Western powers have gained extraordinary military might that is seen as threatening and coercively dominating the Muslim world and propping up secular autocrats ready to accommodate the West. U.S. support for Israel, sometimes described as 'America's aircraft carrier in the region', is seen as integral to U.S. plans for domination. All this is seen as also serving Western economic interests, such as in securing oil, which dovetails with the agenda of keeping Islam under foot.

Muslims overwhelmingly believe that the 9/11 attacks, and any attacks on civilians, are contrary to Islam. However, many Muslims do believe that America must back away from the Muslim world.

America did not back away after 9/11. Rather, it advanced into Afghanistan, into Iraq, and expanded its forces based in the Gulf. Many Muslims, with their penchant for conspiracy theories, even wonder if the United States somehow engineered the 9/11 attacks to justify this advance. When George W. Bush, in what has to go down as one of the greatest public diplomacy missteps of all time, announced a "crusade" against terrorism, the assimilation of American actions into the long-standing narrative of Western hostility to Islam was all but complete.

Like most Americans I initially viewed this as a big misunderstanding. Muslims, it seemed, underestimated the pluralism of Western society and with an overactive historical imagination had strung together various elements - each with their own good explanation - into a paranoia-tinged narrative of American hostility to Islam.

And yet with time it became clearer to me what it was about Americans that gave them this impression. Sure, Americans are happy to have Muslims go to their mosques. If they want to sneak away to pray 5 times a day - fine.

But for many Muslims this pluralistic bonhomie masks an American narrative that is actually quite oppressive. This narrative is one that some Muslims think they see even more clearly than Americans themselves.

According to this American narrative - which Muslims perceive as arrogant and dismissive - human society naturally and inevitable evolves through the stages that the West has gone through. As in the Renaissance, religion is largely banished from the public sphere, thus allowing pluralism and diversity of beliefs in the private sphere while maintaining a secular public sphere. This leads naturally to the elevation of individual freedoms and the emergence of democratic principles that make the will of the people the basis of the authority of law rather than revealed religious principles.

From this assumed American perspective, Muslim society is seen as simply behind the West in this evolutionary process. Retrogressive forces in Muslim society are seen as clinging to Islamic traditions that make Sharia the basis of law, not the will of the people, and inevitably keep women in their traditional oppressed roles and minority religions discriminated against.

Muslims see this narrative as being used to justify America actually violating democratic principles in relation to the Muslim world. Even if it is contrary to the will of the people, the United State props us autocratic governments on the basis that they are relatively more progressive - according to the assumed Western narrative - than what the people would do if they had their way. When the Algerian military in 1991 overturned the results of a democratic election when it appeared that an Islamist party would prevail, America and other Western governments turned a blind eye. When democratic forces arose in Tunisia and Egypt, Muslims perceive that the United States only joined the parade when the outcome was irreversible. Still, America supports autocratic forces in Bahrain in the face of pro-democratic forces calling for change.

A particularly frustrating feature of the U.S. narrative, for Muslims, is that it divides Muslim society into a progressive liberal and secular sector on one hand and on the other a regressive Islamist sector that seeks to impose backward Islamic traditions. America then seeks to promote the liberal forces and to undermine the Islamist forces.

This is not simply imagined. Currently in Congress there are efforts to ensure that U.S. funding of democracy promotion in Egypt only benefits liberal, secular parties and does not in any way benefit Islamist parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

To most Muslims this American perspective on Muslim society is simply incorrect and American efforts to choose the winner is really about America seeking to impose its Western secular model of governance and to eradicate the role of Islam in the public sphere. Since to Muslims Islam is, by definition, meant to be in the public sphere, American efforts are seen as seeking to undermine Islam itself.

The assertion that America is misreading Muslim society is supported by polling data. While Americans do tend to divide the Muslim public into secular and Islamist groups, polls show that Muslims do not divide so neatly.

Overwhelming majorities endorse liberal principles including that the will of the people should be the basis of governance, government leaders should be chosen through free elections and that there should be full freedom of religion.

At the same time, equally large majorities say that Sharia should be the basis of government, that all laws should be vetted by Islamic scholars to ensure they are consistent with the Koran and that Muslims should not be allowed to convert to another religion.

Obviously there are some serious contradictions here. But these contradictions are not primarily between sectors of Muslim society but rather within Muslim individuals. This could be described as an "internal clash of civilizations."

Muslims are well aware of these tensions. They are drawn to the liberal ideas of democracy and pluralism and they want to find a way to incorporate them into their societies. Al Qaeda's model of rejecting all Western influences in favor of purely traditional society garners little support.

At the same most Muslims want to preserve the Islamic foundations of their society and want their public life to be infused with Islamic principles. Most want Sharia to play a greater role. They want a quality of piety to pervade their culture. Integrating these aspirations with liberal ideas of democracy and freedom of religion is a decidedly challenging endeavor.

So it is particularly infuriating to Muslims when America intervenes in a way that is destabilizing, trying to root for one imagined side against another, in what Americans conceive of as an inevitable evolution toward the victory of one side.

If this were in fact a conflict between external groups, such interventions may in fact strengthen one side over the other. But because the conflict is actually primarily an internal conflict, America's interventions produce a backlash, making Muslims feel that they need to do more to defend their Islamic foundations and making advocates of liberal ideas suspect.

There are reasons to believe that this effect was al Qaeda's intended goal of the 9/11 attacks. By provoking America into military action against Muslim targets, al Qaeda hoped to revive the age-old narrative of the crusading West and to drive the Muslim people into the arms of al Qaeda's vision of a purely traditional Islamic society devoid of liberal or Western elements.

Al Qaeda did not succeed in drawing in most Muslims. Al Qaeda's terrorist methods are seen as wrong and its vision as too extreme. The hold of liberal ideas is not easy to shake. However, al Qaeda did succeed in pulling the United States into a position in the Muslim world that has alienated much of Muslim society.

By intervening in ways that have enhanced the polarization of secular and Islamist forces the United States has also made it more difficult for Muslims to build a political space within which they can find a middle ground that integrates these elements into a more coherent whole.

As America begins to gradually disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan there is the potential for negative feelings toward the United States to begin to abate. Muslims generally perceive U.S. military forces in the region as a threatening presence designed to keep the region the way America wants it to be. Any lightening of America's military footprint will further mitigate this sense of being coerced.

But perhaps most fundamentally, America's relationship is most likely to improve as it comes to understand, accept and embrace the whole of Muslim society and the course of development that it has chosen for itself. Muslims believe that they are on a different path than the West . This path is central to their notion of their freedom to practice their religion. When they feel that America is threatening their religion and their aspirations, they grow resolutely hostile.

As Americans we may believe that it is not possible to blend such a form of religiosity and liberal values. Maybe Muslims will conclude this too. But only when Muslims perceive America as no longer being an obstacle to their endeavor will they be able to move forward in their discovery. And it is only then that America's relationship with the Muslim world will become more amicable.

Steven Kull is director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes and author of the recently released book, Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America.

Full report (PDF)
Questionnaire with findings (PDF)

Six in ten Americans believe that that the U.S. weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined. This view is highly correlated with the belief that the U.S. overspent in its post-9/11 response efforts -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland)

Since 9/11, American views of Islam have grown more negative. However, views of Arab and Muslim people are moderately warm, and majorities continue to feel that the attacks of 9/11 do not represent mainstream thinking within Islam and that it is possible to find common ground between Islam and the West.

When asked what they think of the Obama administration's plan to strengthen the Afghan army while reducing U.S. forces and attempting negotiations with the Taliban, 69% say they approve.

These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. The polling project was directed by Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, and Shibley Telhami, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and the Anwar Sadat Professor at the University of Maryland.

The poll of 957 Americans has a margin of error +/-3.2% and was fielded August 19-25 by Knowledge Networks.

Though 50% of Americans think the U.S. over invested in the Afghan war, 57% still see the initial decision to enter Afghanistan as the right thing to do. At this point, a large majority (73%) wants the U.S. to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, but less than half (44%) want troops withdrawn completely.

Fifty-five percent say that the U.S. has spent too many resources in the Iraq war, while a plurality of 49% called the Iraq war a mistake (45% right decision). This criticism is a bit lower than other polls that asked similar questions in 2010 and found a majority ranging from 51 to 62% saying that it was not the right decision.

Support for the decision to go to war is highly correlated with beliefs held by substantial and undiminishing minorities that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda (46%) and either had a WMD program or actual WMDs (47%). Among those with such beliefs, large majorities say the war was the right thing while among those without such beliefs large majorities have the opposite views.

A modest majority (53%) believes that the U.S. should withdraw its troops according to schedule even if the Iraqi government asks the US to stay another year.

"Americans clearly are looking for the U.S. to ramp down the military operations and significantly reduce costs related to its post-9/11 actions," Steven Kull said.

In October 2001, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, an ABC News poll showed that a plurality of Americans (47%) had a favorable opinion of Islam, while 39% had an unfavorable response. Over the subsequent years, when the same question was asked, the favorable number declined. In the current poll, only a third (33%) had a generally favorable opinion, while six in ten had an unfavorable opinion.

However a 53% majority say they have a favorable view of Arab people and a plurality of 49% say they have a favorable view of Muslim people in general.

"This is an interesting finding that contrasts with more negative views of the Muslim religion. We don't fully know if the positive view of the Arab peoples is partly a function of the mostly peaceful Arab uprisings, but from indicators in an earlier poll, we suspect that these uprisings had a positive impact," said Shibley Telhami.

In addition, a stable majority continues to think that the 9/11 attacks do not represent mainstream Islam. A robust 73% said the terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks were "part of a radical fringe"; only 22% said the terrorists' views are close to the mainstream teachings of Islam. Fifty-nine percent say it is possible to find common ground between Islam and the West (down from 68% in a 2001 PIPA poll taken shortly after 9/11).

Americans' most widely held picture now of the ongoing events of the Arab Spring is that they are about both a struggle for democracy and an effort by Islamist groups to seek political power--a view held by 45%. Thirty-three percent said the uprisings are "more about ordinary people seeking freedom and democracy," while 17% thought the Arab Spring is "more about Islamist groups seeking political power."

A majority (56%) feels the events of the Arab Spring have not increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the United States, including 10% who think it has decreased the risk. About a third (36%) thinks the risk has increased because of the uprisings.

Six in ten see the Arab-Israeli conflict as one of the five most important issues for U.S. interests. A clear majority (61%) says that the U.S. should not take sides in its efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while just 27% want the U.S. to lean toward Israel (5% toward Palestinians).

The partisan divide here is strong: while large majorities of Democrats (71%) and independents (67%) want the U.S. to not lean toward either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is true of just 45% of Republicans, while 50% say the U.S. should lean toward Israel.

This study was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. Additional technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

This article originally appeared in Politico on July 27, 2011.

As Democrats and Republicans head perilously closer to federal default on the debt, like teenagers heading toward a cliff in the game of chicken, we might ask "What would the public do?"

Is the partisan impasse a mirror of a polarized public?

Polls repeatedly show that the public would be ready to make a deal. Even if a representative sample of Republicans and Democrats were to sit down, majorities on both sides could find common ground. Contrary to Republicans in Congress, the GOP public is ready to accept some increases in taxes. Contrary to Democrats in Congress, the Democratic public is ready to show flexibility on entitlements.

In a July 7-10 Gallup Poll, only 26 percent of Republicans said they insist on dealing with the deficit through spending cuts alone, while 68 percent indicated a readiness to accept at least some tax increases.

In a July 14-17 Washington Post poll, 54 percent of Republicans favored increasing taxes on those with incomes more than $250,000, 55 percent favored increases in taxes on oil and gas companies and 50 percent favored increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier retirees.

When the Program for Public Consultation presented a representative sample of Americans the projected federal budget in some detail, as well as a list of possible revenue sources, and asked them to do their own budget, Republicans did make substantial cuts in spending -- on average $101 billion per year. However, they increased revenues even more -- on average $230 billion per year.

More than six in 10 Republicans favored raising the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax to at least $156,000.

Democrats showed substantially more flexibility on entitlements than their representatives in Congress. The PPC survey presented respondents a list of options for dealing with the Social Security shortfall, with Congressional Budget Office scores for how much it would take to solve the problem.

To deal with the projected Social Security shortfall, 63 percent of Democrats favored raising the retirement age to 68 by the year 2034. Majorities of Democrats (53 percent) were not enthusiastic about slowing the rate of increase in Social Security benefits but said they could tolerate the idea. They were also ready to tolerate increasing Medicare premiums.

Democrats also showed a readiness to make cuts in discretionary spending. On average, they cut spending $157 billion.

Republicans and Democrats alike agreed to significant cuts in a wide range of areas. The biggest cut -- for both Republicans and Democrats -- was defense. The Republicans cut it on average $56 billion, while Democrats cut it $131 billion.

Overall, with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, Republicans cut the deficit by an average of $331 billion, the Democrats by $496 billion. And this was just for one year.

This number does not include the changes they made to Social Security. Indeed, a majority of Republicans and Democrats were ready to make enough changes to solve the Social Security shortfall, according to the scoring parameters established by CBO.

With government leaders reaching an impasse that is jeopardizing the U.S. economy, it might be better if they listen to those they claim to represent.

Steven Kull is director of the Program for Public Consultation, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

Try the Interactive Budget Exercise

A new study finds that when average Americans are presented the federal budget in some detail, most are able to dramatically reduce the budget deficit and resolve the Social Security shortfall.

(Image Credit: cjbrenchley)

In December the Chairs of the President's Fiscal Commission released their proposal for addressing the budget deficit and the projected shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare. This new study shows how the American public would deal with these challenges.

Through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, on average, respondents cut the discretionary budget deficit projected for 2015 by seventy percent. Six in ten solved the problem of the projected Social Security shortfall through adjustments in payroll taxes, premiums, and benefits. The projected Medicare shortfall was also dramatically reduced.

The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, and fielded by Knowledge Networks. Unlike conventional polls PPC consults with the public by first presenting respondents with information on policy issues and a range of options for addressing them.

Steven Kull, director of PPC comments, "When given information and a chance to sort through their options, most Americans do a pretty good job of dealing with America's budget problems--better than most politicians."

Respondents were presented 31 of the major line items of the discretionary federal budget with a description of each one, the amount budgeted for 2015, and the projected deficit. They were then given a chance to increase or decrease each item as they saw fit and to try to reduce the deficit.

On average respondents made net spending cuts of $145.7 billion. The largest cuts included those to defense ($109.4 billion), intelligence ($13.1 billion), military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ($12.8 billion) and the federal highway system ($4.6 billion)--all of which were cut by majorities.

On average respondents increased revenues by $291.6 billion. The largest portion was from income taxes which were raised by an average of $154.8 billion above the levels currently in place. Majorities increased taxes on incomes over $100,000 by 5% or more and increased them by 10% or more for incomes over $500,000.

Majorities also made increases in corporate taxes and alcohol taxes as well as new sources of revenue, including a tax on sugary drinks, treating 'carried interest' income as ordinary income (also known as the hedge fund managers' tax), and charging a crisis fee to large banks. A plurality (49%) favored a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. But a sales tax was rejected by 58 percent of respondents.

For the estate tax, a majority (77%) favored reverting at least to the 2009 levels, taxing estates over $3.5 million at a 45% rate. Only 15% of respondents supported the estate tax levels recently passed: taxing estates over $5 million at a 35% rate.

Most respondents also successfully dealt with the problem of Social Security. Respondents were presented eight possible steps for dealing with the Social Security shortfall that will occur when the baby boom generation retires.

Six in ten respondents selected enough steps to resolve the problem. This was the case even though many of them also chose to make the problem more difficult by increasing benefits to low income retirees.

The most popular approaches--selected by large majorities--were raising the limit on wages subject to the payroll tax at least to $156,000 and increasing the retirement age at least to 68. Substantial numbers also selected gradually increasing the payroll tax rate, and recalculating downward the inflation rate for the benefits of new beneficiaries and cost-of-living increases for all benefits.

Because the effect of the new Health Care law on Medicare in the future has not been fully analyzed, it was only possible to have respondents evaluate a series of options for reducing the Medicare deficit, rather than a full exercise in which respondents could work to resolve that deficit.

Some options were found at least "just tolerable" by majorities. These included raising Medicare premiums to $135 a month, raising the payroll tax rate by 1 percentage point, reducing payments to doctors by 5%, and gradually raising the age of eligibility to 68. Views were divided on the tolerability of raising the payroll tax by 2 percentage points.

A separate sample was also asked to consider reducing or eliminating certain tax deductions for individual incomes taxes. A majority found the following at least "tolerable": limiting the amount of mortgage interest that can be deducted to $25,000; reducing the amount of mortgage interest that can be deducted by half; eliminating the exclusion of income earned overseas; reducing the benefit of 'cafeteria plans'; and eliminating the child tax credit to children 13 and over. However, less than half found it tolerable to completely eliminate the child tax credit.

Majorities also favored raising the maximum tax rate for both capital gains (58%) and for dividends (56%) at least back to the 20% that was in place before the Bush tax cuts.

The study was conducted in two waves. A sample of 1,250 respondents was fielded October 8-22 and a second sample of 793 respondents was fielded December 18-29. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel©, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.