Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Options in Canada

This article examines the role of public opinion in Canada'sattempt to lessen its dependence on the United States and seekcloser ties with European and Asian countries. Employing nationalsurvey data collected over a three-year period, the authorsargue that widespread public support for new directions in foreignpolicy has not developed in Canada in spite of the climate ofincreasing nationalism and the shift in government policy. Attitudestoward the problem of foreign investment, domestic economicissues, trade agreements, and Canadian participation in internationalpeacekeeping forces are also reported.     

Framing and immigration through the trump era

For the last decade, undocumented or illegal immigration has been one of the most contested policy issues in the United States, with significant news attention on policies affecting the undocumented population, ranging from deportations to comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Despite these prominent and multifaceted policy debates, scholarship on media framing and public opinion remain more focused on the portrayal of immigrants rather than policies affecting them. In general, scholars find that policy frames are far more consequential to public opinion than equivalency frames (variations in how news media describe unauthorized immigrants, either as “illegal” or “undocumented”) or episodic frames (whether news articles are heavy on human‐interest stories rather than policy facts and statistics). Also, negative frames generally have stronger effects than positive frames, and these effects sometimes vary by partisanship and family migration history. Finally, the relative infrequency of powerful frames in news stories, like a life spent in the United States, provides opportunities for advocates to move public opinion on immigration policy. These findings have important implications for future battles over immigration policy in the United States, which show no signs of abating.     

“The Politics of the HealthCare Reform Debate: Public Support of Including Undocumented Immigrants and Their Children in Reform Efforts in the U.S.”

Although U.S. immigration and health care policies appear to be highly correlated, scholarship has yet to gauge the public's views toward providing undocumented immigrants with health coverage at the state level. We analyze support for including undocumented immigrants in health care reform in New Mexico. Utilizing an original public opinion survey of New Mexico adults, we find that individuals are more supportive of the state providing health care to the children of undocumented immigrant than to their parents. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggest that factors such as liberal ideology and perceptions of commonalities with Latinos increase support levels. Despite a lack of support among a majority of respondents, the influence of perceived commonalities with immigrants suggests that reform advocates and political elites who mobilize along ethnic or human solidarity may be successful in creating conditions for the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the public provision of health care at the state level.     

Beyond Public Opinion Polls: Punitive Public Sentiment & Criminal Justice Policy

The punitive turn in criminal justice policy, epitomized by policies like three-strikes, truth in sentencing, and mandatory minimums, is often attributed in part to demand for harsher criminal justice responses from an increasingly punitive public. It has been argued that public opinion, known to be both largely uninformed and often misunderstood, might both indirectly and directly affect policy. This survey article on punitiveness in public opinion opens with a discussion of competing depictions of the nature of the relationship between a punitive public and increasingly punitive criminal justice policies. The article then focuses on some of the most influential explanations for variations in punitiveness within individuals and across groups. A review of what we know about public attitudes toward punishment and a brief explanation of how we know what we know (e.g. the methodologies by which we gauge public opinion) follow. The article concludes with the observation that as methodologies continue to improve and the literature in this area continues to grow, so too does our understanding of punitive public opinion in all of its complexity.     

American Attitudes toward Guest Worker Policies

In this study we use data from a 2004 New York Times/CBS News national survey to analyze public opinion toward a guest worker program and to compare predictors of support for guest worker and general immigration policies. In general, Americans tend to be divided in their attitudes toward a guest worker program, although support for temporary worker policies is stronger when legalization for unauthorized immigrants is conditioned on certain requirements, and when the program is coupled with enhanced border security. The results of the bivariate probit analysis indicate that individuals who favor reducing the immigration level also tend to oppose instituting a guest worker program. Perceptions of the “costs” of immigration emerged as the most important determinant of individuals’ attitudes toward immigration policies; such beliefs contributed to opposition to a guest worker policy and support for reducing the immigration level. We also found that residents of high‐immigration states and Latinos were more likely to support a temporary worker program. However, these characteristics do not appear to influence individuals’ judgments about the number of immigrants who should be admitted to the United States. Findings regarding the impact of political partisanship and ideology on attitudes toward the two policies were more ambiguous.     

THE AMBIGUITIES OF EXTERNAL MINORITY PROTECTION

This article focuses on the special and prominent place that the “Jewish question” occupied in the general discussion about Russian modernisation in the pre‐1914 period, both in American society and in the arena of US–Russian relations. It analyses the role that anti‐Jewish violence in Russia had in effecting a dramatic shift in the way Americans viewed the Russian Empire, which was being depicted by the American Jews and the leaders of the crusade for a “Free Russia” as a barbarous oppressor of political dissent and a savage persecutor of religious, national, and ethnic minorities. American society’s reaction to anti‐Jewish violence in the Russian Empire at the turn of the twentieth century helped, on the one hand, to shape the idea of the American belief that the United States bore special responsibility for carrying out reforms in Russia, and, on the other hand, to place relations between the two countries within such binary oppositions as “light and darkness,” “civilization and barbarity,” “modernity and medievalism,” “democracy and authoritarianism,” “freedom and slavery,” “the West and the Orient.” The article uses a broad range of verbal and graphic sources from the American press and new sources from archival collections. These sources help to illustrate one of the author’s principal tenets which holds that the United States’ view of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire was a result of the Americans’ projection of their own vision of the nature of the US foreign policy. In their official and public discourses, Americans considered Russia’s foreign policy an extension of Russia’s political regime. This study examines US foreign policy as a vital sphere in which national identity is redefined and reaffirmed and gives an opportunity to draw attention to the cultural and ideological dimensions of Russian–American relations, to understand the origins of dualistic American myths about Russia that have proven so enduring, and to demonstrate how a demonised Russia serves to revitalise American nationalism and how the Russian “Other” was used, in part, to construct the American “Self.”     

Following the "Mail Hawks": Alternative Measures of Public Opinion on Vietnam in the Johnson White House

Scholars argue that public opinion grew in importance duringthe Vietnam conflict, yet most find President Johnson was notresponsive to public opinion during the War. We amplify thesetheories by demonstrating the practical value of public opinionmail sent to the White House on Vietnam, reshaping theoriesabout the constraining role of public opinion in foreign policy.We find that the White House mail, but not opinion polling,favoring escalation of the War had a significant and positiveimpact on President Johnson's policy rhetoric. From these andsimilar findings, we conclude that the Johnson Administrationfollowed core "hawkish" political allies (those individualsdesiring a rapid escalation and quick end to the war) ratherthan those approving of a withdrawal, suggesting mail-gaugedopinion from electoral partners (and core political allies morebroadly) has value in foreign policy making.     

Compare Chinese with Americans: how trait comparisons shape public perception of Sino–US relationship and China policy issues

This study draws on social comparison theory and the spread activation literature to explore the effects of opinions about the personal traits of Chinese and Americans on the United States (US) public’s perceptions of the Sino–US relationship. The study also explores how perceptions of the Sino–US relationship predict the perceived importance of various Chinese policy issues. The analyses of the secondary survey data showed that comparisons of positive and negative traits had different effects on public opinion about the Sino–US relationship. The respondents who viewed China as a partner or as a competitor also thought that human rights, the freedom of Tibet, and economic issues were important. Those who viewed China as an enemy believed that the selling of arms to Taiwan was important. The implications of the findings for theory construction and national image campaigns are discussed.     

The fear of public relations in foreign affairs: an examination of the 1963 Fulbright Hearings into foreign agents

Public relations has long been looked at with suspicion given its use of persuasion to influence public opinion. That suspicion turns to fear when public relations is linked to propaganda. The 1963 Senate Foreign Relations Committee's investigation into the Foreign Agents Registration Act provides an opportunity to explore the fear of the public's susceptibility to propaganda and the perceived role of public relations in shaping public opinion. Public relations practitioners working for foreign clients were portrayed in the hearings as mercenaries who worked behind the scenes to influence American foreign policy.     

Race,Gender, and Attitudes Toward War in Chicago: An Intersectional Analysis1

Although prior research has documented persistent racial and gender differences in public opinion on war across U.S. military conflicts, there is little understanding as to how race and gender simultaneously shape war opinion. Using data from the 2008 Chicago Area Study, this analysis locates gender within an intersectional examination of black‐white differences in support for the U.S. war in Iraq. “Structural” and “racialized” explanations for blacks’ lower level of support relative to whites are tested, first using all respondents, and then for men and women. Exploratory analyses show the race gap in war support to exist solely among Chicago women. Racial differences in partisanship and education are most strongly associated with black‐white differences in Iraq War support among Chicago women. In addition, while affiliation with the Republican Party increases the odds of support among both men and women, education and political alienation decrease the odds of support only among women and the odds of support increase with age only among men. Results highlight the utility of an intersectional lens to the study of public opinion on foreign policy.     

Public opinion towards gambling and gambling regulation in Australia

In recent years, public opinion towards gambling has become a more important factor in shaping public policy. Using a national public opinion survey conducted in Australia in 2011, this paper examines public opinion towards gambling in general and towards the government regulation of gambling in particular. Australia is an important case study because of the internationally high prevalence of gambling among the public, combined with a strong regulatory framework. Public opinion is measured by a reduced form of a scale first developed in Britain. The results confirm the generally negative views that the public holds towards gambling, which have been found internationally. In addition, the Australian public is open to the introduction of further restrictions on gambling. Overall, the public views the liberalization of gambling as having moved as far as most citizens find acceptable; to meet public expectations, future policies need to address more adequately the negative social consequences associated with problem gambling.     

Rural Residence as a Determinant of Attitudes Toward US Immigration Policy

Between 1990 and 2000, the foreign-born population in the United States increased by 57 per cent, compared to a 13 per cent increase in the native-born population. This growth has fueled considerable media attention and has fomented some anti-immigrant sentiments. Although a number of authors have charted changes in support for restrictionist immigration policies, few have examined their determinants. In this paper, we focus on region of residence and use data from a 2004 telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 1888 adults to test the hypothesis that rural Americans are more likely to support restrictive immigration policies than individuals in urban and suburban communities. In a series of regression analyses, this hypothesis is confirmed; rural residents hold the most restrictionist views. Additional analyses indicate that this effect of rural residence on policy attitudes is mediated by attitudes toward multiculturalism, the perceived traits of immigrants, and perceptions about the costs of immigration. Ultimately, the analyses indicate that the perceived cost of immigration is the single strongest predictor of support for restrictive immigration policies, and that it best accounts for rural residents'more restrictionist views.     

ARE THE HOMELESS TO BLAME?

Dominant ideology and public arenas theories yield different hypotheses concerning the incidence and antecedents of public beliefs about the causes of homelessness. The analysis reported here, which tests these hypotheses with data from a 1988 national telephone survey, shows that (1) more Americans believe structural rather than individualistic factors cause homelessness, (2) personal statuses like gender, political orientation, and party affiliation significantly influence such causal beliefs, but (3) the single strongest determinant is the perceived presence of—and by implication, exposure to—homeless people in one's own community. Causal beliefs in turn affect policy attitudes: respondents who consider homelessness a structural problem are more likely to favor government action than those believing in individualistic causes. While mixed, the results as a whole provide somewhat greater support for the public arenas perspective.     

Abortion,Partial-Birth Abortion,and Adolescent Access to Abortion: An Overview for Social Workers

Although the U.S Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, intense controversy over access, legality, and morality has persisted ever since that landmark decision. National opinion data collected from 1975 to 2007 show that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to an abortion, but this right is increasingly under attack, and recent proposed changes to abortion access are not in line with how most Americans feel. This paper considers public opinion trends in the sharply divided arenas of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and adolescents' rights to access abortion with a critical eye to social work practice. We explore several opportunities for social workers to advocate for clients, including legislative advocacy, reform through litigation, social action, and social policy analysis.     

Invoking Public Opinion: Policy Elites and Social Security

Do policy elites invoke public opinion? When they do, are theirclaims based on evidence from public opinion surveys? To learnabout the claims that policy elites make, we examined statementsthe president and members of Congress, experts, and interestgroup leaders in congressional hearings made about Social Security.To learn about opinion data on Social Security, we conducteda Lexis-Nexis search of the archives of the Roper Center forPublic Opinion Research. Our analyses show that policy elitesdiscussing Social Security did invoke public opinion. Contraryto our expectations, however, few of the elite invocations ofpublic opinion cited specific surveys or concrete facts aboutthe distribution of opinion. Although claims directly contradictingsurvey evidence were relatively rare, only with the rather fewspecific claims by congressional elites did we find much clear-cutsupport in the available polling data. Relatively seldom couldwe find clear-cut support for the elites' general claims. Moreover,some of the most frequent claims about public opinion—couldhave been contested but seldom were. The highly visible andwell-polled case of Social Security suggests that specific,data-based elite invocations of public opinion may be even lesscommon on other, lower-visibility and less-polled issues. Italso suggests that survey research professionals might do wellto intensify their scrutiny of public discourse about publicopinion and to increase their efforts to bring scientific expertiseto bear upon such discourse.     

The Polls Trends: Twenty Years of Public Opinion about Global Warming

Over the past 20 years, there have been dozens of news organization,academic, and nonpartisan public opinion surveys on global warming,yet there exists no authoritative summary of their collectivefindings. In this article, we provide a systematic review oftrends in public opinion about global warming. We sifted throughhundreds of polling questions culled from more than 70 surveysadministered over the past 20 years. In compiling the availabletrends, we summarize public opinion across several key dimensionsincluding (a) public awareness of the issue of global warming;(b) public understanding of the causes of global warming andthe specifics of the policy debate; (c) public perceptions ofthe certainty of the science and the level of agreement amongexperts; (d) public concern about the impacts of global warming;(e) public support for policy action in light of potential economiccosts; and (f) public support for the Kyoto climate treaty.     

Random Drug Testing and Religion*

Research recently has begun to examine the link between religion and social control. It has been noted that religion, in particular Protestant conservatism, does play a role in shaping public opinion, and as a result, public policy on crime, crime control, and justice. The present research examines the issue of public support for random drug testing by focusing on the role of religion, specifically religious affiliation, in shaping public opinion. Analysis of survey data from a city in the Southwest identifies two separate dimensions of public support for random drug testing–a utilitarian dimension that is grounded in safety concerns, along with a normative dimension that reflects conservative moral beliefs, including a concern with the “evil” of drugs. Evidence from the data also indicates that conservative Protestants, compared to liberal-moderate Protestants, Catholics, and those with no affiliation, display higher levels of normative-based support for random drug testing. Researchers are encouraged to further explore the role of religion in shaping public support for the development of drug policies and other more general social control policies.     

Illusions of Learning

An argument is made that American social distress is exacerbated by the decline of public education, a decline fostered and maintained by systematic self-deception. Americans hold cherished beliefs about education, teaching, and learning that they know are not now, or cannot be, true. America's educational policies both reflect popular beliefs and give direction. Baffling public policy can make sense when seen in the broader context of public perceptions, beliefs, sentiments, ideologies, values, and opinions. This context shifts over time, circumstance, and group. Although this conceptual mix varies with geographic location and media attention, in this paper I have tried to touch on widely accepted, thus potent, national illusions that have confounded our understanding of public education and have misdirected educational policy.     

A Chronological Bibliography of the College Novel

Abstract

Although Muslims in the United States are highly assimilated into American society, they represent less than 1 percent of the total population. Therefore, most of the information Americans receive about this group comes from secondary sources. Two theoretical perspectives of opinion formation—image of God and low information rationality—shed light on the subject of trust in this marginalized group. For highly religious Americans, nearly two-thirds of the 2005 Baylor Religion Survey's national sample, Muslims may represent the ultimate outsiders. We compare the effect of the central religious narrative, or an image of God as creator or judge, to the effect of political ideology, or the likely exposure to forms of low information rationality such as framing, spinning, and buzzwords. We use indicators of these concepts in a multivariate analysis of trust in Muslims as a test of these competing perspectives of opinion formation. Using the 2005 Baylor Religion Survey data, we find that not only does trust in Muslims decrease with both a more conservative political ideology and a stronger view of God as vengeful and angry but that these effects interact to produce individuals who are far less likely to trust Muslims compared to their Democrat, Independent, and “loving God” counterparts.     

Pills in the Public's Mind

Abstract

We investigate the sources of public attitudes toward RU 486 to determine whether the drug will change public attitudes toward abortion. Not surprisingly, public attitudes toward RU 486 are influenced by the same factors that influence abortion opinion more generally. Two other considerations seem to influence opinion toward RU 486. First, the fact that the drug is administered early in pregnancy increases support, for many Americans take an emergent view of fetal rights and oppose abortions in the last several months of pregnancy. Second, opposition to the drug is highest among those who insist on consultation about the abortion decision, suggesting that at least some Americans fear that the drug will allow women to make hasty decisions about abortion without consulting family and friends. This latter finding suggests that pro-choice advocates should emphasize that RU 486 is prescribed after consultation with a doctor