Two years after September 11, despite
the various high-profile efforts of the war on
terrorism, 76% of Americans say that over the
last two years they have not come to feel safer
from the threat of terrorism, according to a new
PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll of 1,217 Americans,
conducted August 26 through September 3. A repeat
of a trendline question asked regularly over the
last two years also found no reduction in concern
about the possibility of terrorist attacks against
the US.
A majority
thinks the Bush administration is overemphasizing
assertive and military approaches. Fifty-eight
percent said that in the effort to fight terrorism,
the Bush administration should put more emphasis
on diplomatic and economic methods, while only
35% thought there should be more emphasis on military
methods. In general, over the last two years 54%
said that the Bush administration has been too
assertive in relation to other countries, while
14% said it was too cooperative; and 28% said
it has the right balance.
Sixty-four
percent said that US military presence in the
Middle East increases rather than decreases the
likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US,
and 64% think that the US should reduce its military
presence there over the next 5-10 years. Fifty-eight
percent said that “The US is playing the
role of world policeman in the Middle East more
than it should be.”
A very
strong majority believes that reactions to US
foreign policy in the Islamic world are creating
conditions that make it easier for terrorist groups
to grow. Sixty-five percent perceive that in the
Islamic world since September 11, feelings toward
US foreign policy have grown worse, and 73% think
that the majority of people there share many of
al- Qaeda’s feelings toward the US. An overwhelming
77% believes that “when there are widespread
negative feelings in the Islamic world toward
US foreign policy…this creates a climate
in which it is easier for terrorist groups to
recruit new members and raise funds.”
Majorities
think the US should make greater efforts to improve
relations with people in the Islamic world (78%
in favor), and 60% reject the idea that an underlying
clash of cultures makes it impossible to find
common ground.
On the
domestic front the public, has grown cool toward
provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Two-thirds
are concerned that removing limitations on the
government’s ability to monitor and detain
individuals may lead the government to go too
far. When presented the arguments about the USA
Patriot Act, 52% side with those who say that
it has gone too far in compromising constitutional
rights. Support for further removing limits on
US government powers to monitor and detain individuals
is extremely low (28%). Eight in ten think that
American citizens detained under suspicion of
being part of a terrorist group should have the
right to meet with a lawyer and three in four
are not aware that, with the USA Patriot Act,
this is not the case.
<resume
reading>
Despite these implicit criticisms
of the administration’s policies, few say
that due to his handling of terrorism, they are
less likely to vote for the President (26%), and
more say that as a result they are more likely
to vote for him (41%) (no effect, 31%). Steven
Kull, director of the Program on International
Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland,
comments: “Other polls have also found a
reluctance to criticize the President directly
when it comes to terrorism. At the same time,
when asked specifically about various policies
that the administration is pursuing against terrorism,
majorities say these policies are not making headway
and may even be counterproductive. It appears
that there is a persisting sense that when it
comes to terrorism, the US is under threat, and
thus the public should rally round the president--even
as they seem ready to prod the administration
to pursue some different approaches.”
When asked what kinds of policies
they would like to see on the foreign policy front,
the public favors a higher level of emphasis on
cooperative approaches. An overwhelming 81% said
that the more important lesson of September 11
is that the US needs to work more closely with
other countries to fight terrorism. Presented
a series of methods for approaching terrorism,
methods for working multilaterally were the most
popular—ideas for working more extensively
through the UN were endorsed by three out of four.
The least popular were military methods--overthrowing
the government of Iran and Syria was endorsed
by just 30% and 21% respectively.
An overwhelming majority showed
a desire for a higher priority on homeland security,
especially in regard to monitoring US borders.
Seventy-nine percent favored greater emphasis
on putting more extensive checks on people entering
the US. (However, only 43% endorsed the argument
in favor of an across-the-board reduction in visas,
while 53% simply opposed the idea or favored a
more selective screening process.) A very large
75% wanted a higher priority for “increasing
the monitoring of goods entering the US.”
About two out of three also wanted a higher priority
for “increasing airport security” (70%)
and “increasing security at buildings and
locations that have political, economic and cultural
importance” (60%). The idea of “putting
more government functions under the Department
of Homeland Security,” however, elicited
enthusiasm from just 37%.
The PIPA/KN poll was conducted
with a nationwide sample of 1,217 respondents,
August 26-September 3. The margin of error was
plus or minus 3-4%,[change] depending on whether
the question was administered to the whole sample,
three-quarters, or half of the sample.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge
Networks using its nationwide panel, which is
randomly selected from the entire adult population
and subsequently provided internet access. For
more information about this methodology, go to
www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
Funding for this research was
provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and
the Ford Foundation.
For more information on the PIPA/KN
study see:
Report
of Findings
Questionnaire
Media
Release
