public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

A KETTERING FOUNDATION REPORTOctober 2004P r e p a r e d b y J o h n D o b l e R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s

P U B L I C T H I N K I N G A B O U T

Americans’ Role in the World

An Analysis of Results from the 2003-2004 National Issues Forums

Copyright © 2004 by the Kettering Foundation

The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation, chartered in 1927, that does not makegrants but welcomes partnerships with other institutions (or groups of institutions) and individuals whoare actively working on problems of communities, politics, and education. The interpretations and con-clusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of theauthor or authors and not necessarily those of the foundation, its trustees, or officers.

www.kettering.org

About This Report 1

About the Forums: A Framework for Public Deliberation 4

Key Findings: Americans on America’s Role in the World 6

The Nature of Public Thinking: How Citizens Approach Complex Issues of Politics and Policy 8

Forum Results: Toward a Common Ground for Action 13

The Effects of Deliberation: The Impact of Forums on People’s Thinking 24

Appendices:A. Questions and Answers about the Forums 26B. Questionnaire Results 29C. Forum Transcript Excerpts 32D. Methodology 38E. Demographics 40F. Issue Map 42

About Doble Research 44About National Issues Forums 45About the Kettering Foundation 46

Contents

October 2004

Public Thinking about Americans’ Role in the World

When it comes to foreign policy,conventional wisdom suggests that Americans are indifferent and ill informed. Their views are too simplistic. They care little for the complexities of charting a new coursefor the United States in the post-ColdWar and post-9/11 world.

The results of a two-year researchproject by the Kettering Foundation,however, suggest something quite different, namely, that Americans caredeeply about our nation’s role in theworld and they are thinking about itin complex ways. They see clear linksnot only between national securityand our image abroad, but alsobetween national security and issueslike human rights, trade, and the waron AIDS—and they wish public officials and policymakers were making the same connections.

The project’s findings are based on the results of more than 100deliberative forums in 37 differentstates and represent the collectivejudgment of thousands of citizensfrom all walks of life. Organized by the National Issues Forums (NIF) network, the forums took place overthe course of some 15 months, beginning in early 2003, during thebuildup to the Iraq War. The results of these forums are explored in detail in this report by John DobleResearch Associates, a nonpartisanresearch firm that specializes in analyzing public opinion about complex policy issues.

While opinion polls and pressaccounts at the time—and since—

have suggested that Americans’ viewson foreign policy and the war arepolarized and extreme, these forumsrevealed something quite different:common ground. After a decade of uncertainty, Americans are beginning to find their way through the post-Cold War world and the perplexing realities of globalizationand terrorism. Rather than simplyfalling back on political ideology,those taking part in these deliber-ative forums had the ability to struggle with difficult issues andtradeoffs. Their thinking was highlynuanced. Their views, in fact, were far more sophisticated than policy-makers and political commentatorscommonly realize.

Americans are interested in effectiveness and ethics—defining not only the reasonable thing to do, but also the right thing to do. Adecade after the collapse of the SovietUnion—and the disappearance of our traditional communist enemy—Americans are clearly beginning tofind their voice. They are beginning to define the kind of world they wantto live in and the kind of world theywant to pass on to their children andgrandchildren.

Key Findings:• Military power and Moral

Authority. When it comes to protecting national security andcombating terrorism, as forum participants see it, internationalstanding is as important as military strength. In fact, while

1

About This Report:What Americans have to say about America’s role in the world and why it mattersBY HAROLD H. SAUNDERS AND KENNETH A. BROWN

2 Kettering Foundation


their belief in the importance of a strong military is almost unanimous, they see our global reputation as an almost decisiveelement in our ability to both play a leading role in the world and defend ourselves. After 9/11,participants say, the United Stateslost an invaluable opportunity tostrengthen alliances with traditionalallies and build relationships withold opponents—particularly in theMuslim world. Instead, the sympa-thy and goodwill that followed the terrorist attacks in New Yorkand Washington, D.C., have beenreplaced by distrust and enmity.

• Building Alliances and the Use of Force. Like the public at large,forum participants were deeplydivided about the war in Iraq. Yet,whether they thought the decisionwas right or wrong, in terms oflong-term national security, fewthought it was the best decision.While they believe the UnitedStates needs a strong military todefend its interests and has theunquestionable right to defenditself against imminent attacks, they are concerned about the moral and financial costs of going it alone.Force, forum participants say,should be used only as a last resortand only in conjunction with others. The United States, theyargue, should be neither isolationistnor the world’s policeman. Instead,we should work more closely with others to build the kind ofworld we want to live in together.

• Human Rights and Democracy.While forum participants generallybelieve that the spread of democ-racy would make both the UnitedStates and the world safer in thelong run, they also feel that tryingto impose democracy is counter-productive. We need, they explain,to be careful to respect others’

cultural traditions and political realities. They believe our prioritiesand principles would be betterserved by pushing for the protectionof basic human rights—particularlywhere ethnic minorities, women,and children are concerned. Fromthe perspective of forum goers, aworld in which basic human rightsare respected is one in which allnations can begin to work togetherto solve those problems that nonation can solve alone.

• Focusing on the Long Term. In addition to developing alliancesand protecting human rights, forumparticipants say, the United Statesneeds to pay more attention to larger global problems, for example,AIDS, economic inequality, andglobal warming. In terms of long-term global stability, these comprisethe problem behind the problem.Often, forum participants approachthese issues from a very differentperspective from that of experts.Instead of free trade, for instance,forum participants spoke of fairtrade: treaties and trade agreementsthat not only protect American jobs,but also promote the health andsafety of workers in the developingworld. Rather than sitting on thesidelines, participants say, theUnited States should play a leadingrole in attacking these kinds of issues.

To some observers, these results willno doubt seem like wishful thinking orthe products of well-informed andwell-thought-out hindsight. However,it is important to remember that muchof the data in this report was gatheredin forums that took place during theactual buildup to the Iraq War. Thatthey look and sound so different fromthe picture of public opinion and public thinking painted by opinionpolls and political commentary of thattime should come as no surprise.

3October 2004


The findings in this report are notthe product of traditional opinionpolls or a collection of expert theories.They are the result of something farmore profound: public deliberation—the collective judgment of citizensfrom all across the country, as expres-sed in locally organized, nonpartisanforums.

Forums are not popularity contests.Participants do not merely argue orvote. They work together, carefullyweighing the costs and benefits of different approaches, struggling todefine a collective course for action.For the press and public officials alike,forums offer a glimpse into citizens’most deeply held beliefs and desires—invaluable information whether one’sgoal is covering the news or develop-ing policy.

About the Kettering FoundationFor more than 20 years, the

Kettering Foundation has been usingforums to study Americans’ viewsabout foreign policy and America’srole in the world. Studies have cov-ered public thinking in this regard oneverything from the nuclear arms raceto terrorism. Coupled with thisresearch has been extensive work inpublic diplomacy—bringing citizensand policymakers together throughsuch initiatives as the DartmouthConferences on U.S.-Soviet relationsduring the height of the Cold War aswell as present-day programs like theU.S.-China Dialogues and others inRussia, Thailand, and Tajikistan.

Other international research proj-ects include collaborative work withcommunity and human rights groupsaround the world to demonstrate boththe widespread roots and the wide-spread reach of democratic practicesat the national, state, and communitylevel. Nonpartisan and nonpolitical,the foundation’s key research question

is “What does it take to makedemocracy work as it should?”

A healthy democracy depends on public participation, not just inregularly scheduled elections, butalso in the ongoing and much harderbusiness of finding solutions to persistent public problems. Nowhereis that fact more critical today than inthe task of developing a sustainableand effective approach for protectingthe nation’s security and defining its role in the world. For far too long,that job has been considered onesolely for professionals and politicalleaders. The public need not apply.

By offering a framework for public deliberation, forums help citizens find solutions to the prob-lems that concern them—a way ofconnecting both with others in theircommunity and with their electedofficials. They help put the publicinto public policy, whether the issue is local public schools orour nation’s role in the world.

People cannot act together untilthey decide together. Deliberation is not just about talking over issues,but about talking through them—bringing divided interests together to find a common ground for action.

Hal Saunders is the head of theInternational Institute for SustainedDialogue and the director of Inter-national Programs at the KetteringFoundation. A former Assistant Secretary of State, in 1978 he helped draft the Camp David Accords and in 1980-1981 helped negotiate the release of American hostages in Iran.

Ken Brown is a program officer at the Kettering Foundation. He works regularly with the NIF network onresearch questions involving public-government relations and the media. He has worked as a journalist in Africa,Latin America, and the United States.



This report is about public thinkingon Americans’ role in the world—thethoughts, insights, and values of 1,486everyday Americans as expressed indeliberative forums organized aroundthe country by the National IssuesForums (NIF) network. Between early 2003 and mid-2004, the forumsbrought citizens together in highschool, college, literacy, and ESLclassrooms; churches, synagogues,and mosques; community and senior centers; public libraries; privatehomes; and even prisons to deliberateabout U.S. foreign policy and ournation’s role in world affairs.

Behind this analysis of the public’sthinking, of course, is the forumprocess itself: the framework used tostructure public deliberation in thesepublic forums and the question of values at stake. The outcomes of theseforums reveal not only a number ofimportant insights about the nature of the public’s thinking on Americans’role in the world, but also the natureof public thinking in general—howcitizens reason together and how lasting public views about questionsof politics and policy take shape— in short, how people struggle withdifficult public issues. Together, theyhelp reveal that citizens are ready todefine a clear course of action and arewilling to make the tradeoffs required.

An Analysis of Public ThinkingWhen people come together

in a National Issues Forum, they deliberate for up to three hours with a trained, impartial moderator. Thedeliberations occur within a frame-work designed to present an array of approaches for dealing with a complex issue, including the costs and consequences of each approach.National Issues Forums are designedto help people see that even the mostcomplex issues can be approached,understood, and deliberated about by ordinary citizens.

Although the people who attend a National Issues Forum comprise ageographically and demographicallydiverse group of American citizens,they are not, as pollsters often seek, a random (or national probability)sample.i As a further distinction, whilepollsters commonly sample opinionover only a few days, these forumstook place over many months.Consequently, the results of forumsand those of polls fundamentally differ. While a poll provides a statisti-cally precise snapshot of what thepublic thinks at a given time, forumsyield a richer, more stable, and moredifferentiated set of results. Forumresults enable us to analyze and

About the Forums:

A Framework forPublic Deliberation

i See Tables and Methodology at the end of this report for a description of who attended these forums. To check our results we also conducted a series of Research Forums or Focus Groups. See pages 38–41 for details.

The outcomes of these forums

reveal not only a number of

important insights about the

nature of the public’s thinking

on Americans’ role in the world,

but also the nature of public

thinking in general—how

citizens reason together and

how lasting public views about

questions of politics and policy

take shape—in short, how

people struggle with difficult

public issues.

National Issues Forums are

designed to help people see

that even the most complex

issues can be approached,

understood, and deliberated

about by ordinary citizens.

While a poll provides a

statistically precise snapshot

of what the public thinks at a

given time, forums yield a

different, richer, more

differentiated set of results.

During deliberation, people considered each approach in turn. At the end of the forums, moderatorsand recorders asked the groups toconsider what they had agreed on,where they had disagreed, and whatcommon ground for action, if any,they had identified.ii

The Boundaries of Political PermissionThe eminent social scientist

Daniel Yankelovich has written that the appropriate role of citizens in ademocratic society is to establish abroad set of guidelines, or what hecalled “the boundaries of political permission,” within which policy canbe carried out. It is unrealistic andunwise, Yankelovich writes, to expect average citizens to acquire the expert’s level of knowledge or in-depth understanding and then provide clear dictates for the enact-ment of public policy. However, a“deliberative public,” a public thathas the opportunity to learn anddeliberate about even the most complex issues, can establish a set of clearly identifiable boundarieswithin which policymakers can act.This report describes some of theboundaries of political permissionforum participants established forAmericans’ role in the world.

5October 2004


iiFor a more detailed description of the issue map see Appendix F pages 42–43.

map people’s thinking by revealingthe values people draw on and theconsiderations they bring to bear asthey struggle with an issue over along period of time. Forums enable us to explore what we might call the “public mind,” including the tension points and strains in people’sthinking as they deliberate about how to deal with an issue as complexas Americans’ role in the world.

A Framework for Public DeliberationFor their deliberations in these

forums, people from across the country used the same frameworkand considered the same broadapproaches, each of which was pre-sented with pro and con argumentsand an array of costs and conse-quences. Every direction or course ofaction involved risks, uncertainties,and tradeoffs. Thus, preferences were associated with costs.

Using an issue book and startervideo, forum participants consideredfour perspectives on defining thenation’s role in the world:

• Promoting international order by using our power to secure the peace

• Fostering global stability by promoting democracy and supporting human rights

• Working to promote equality and stability around the worldthrough free trade and economicdevelopment

• Securing a safe future by addressing worldwide health and environmental problems such as AIDS and global warming

The appropriate role of citizens

in a democratic society is to

establish a broad set of guide-

lines, or boundaries of political

permission within which policy

can be carried out.

A public that has the opportunity

to learn and deliberate about

even the most complex issues,

can establish a set of clearly

identifiable boundaries within

which policymakers can act.

Defining National SecurityWhen it comes to national security,

forum participants have what mightbe considered a surprisingly broadperception of the issues involved.They see it as including not only ourability to respond to military and terrorist threats, but also our interna-tional standing: how the rest of theworld views us and perceives ourintentions. The United States, manysaid, not only failed after 9/11 to seizethe opportunity to build bridges andcement alliances, but also caused the goodwill foreigners felt in theaftermath of that attack to be replacedby enmity, especially in the MiddleEast and among Muslims. People felt the country should work to under-stand and address these sentiments.

While sharp divisions existedabout the current U.S. involvement in Iraq, forum participants agreed ona great deal. There was consensus that the United States needs a strong military, for example, and agreementthat force should be the option of lastresort and then only after extensivepublic debate. Except in cases of direemergency, forum participants alsoagreed that the country should useforce only in concert with othernations. The belief in the need forleadership through internationalcooperation was so strong, in fact, that it played a role in a host of



Key Findings:

Americans on Americans’ Role in the World

other issues as well—everything from promoting democracy and economic development to protectingthe environment and public health.

Supporting Democracy and ProtectingHuman Rights

People said the United Statesshould promote the spread of democracy around the globe becauseit would enhance national securityand make the world a safer place. At the same time, they felt that thiscountry should not use military forceto “impose” democracy on othercountries. The United States, forumparticipants said, needs to be moresensitive to the beliefs and values ofother countries.

Pointing to problems in the 2000presidential election and the inequali-ties in our current health care systemand national economy, many forumparticipants said America shouldaddress its own shortcomings beforetrying to spread its political and economic system internationally.

Protecting Human RightsWhile urging respect for other

cultures and traditions, people strong-ly felt that the United States shouldpromote basic universal standards ofhuman rights, especially those for the protection of ethnic minorities,women, and children. As in forums

When it comes to national

security, forum participants have

what might be considered a

surprisingly broad perception of

the issues involved. They see it

as including not only our ability to

respond to military and terrorist

threats, but also our international

standing: how the rest of the

world views us and perceives our

intentions.

While sharp divisions existed

about the current U.S. involve-

ment in Iraq, forum participants

agreed on a great deal. There

was consensus that the United

States needs a strong military, for

example, and agreement that

force should be the option of last

resort and then only after exten-

sive public debate.

7October 2004


in previous years, participants drew a distinction between protectinghuman rights and promoting thespread of democracy, giving the protection of human rights an unqual-ified endorsement. Although forumparticipants believe that the spread of democracy can help make theworld a safer place in the long term,they believe protecting human rightsis of more immediate concern.

Promoting Economic DevelopmentParticipants generally opposed

protectionism and favored free trade,but they found it easier to identify the downsides of trade, both here and in developing countries, than the benefits free trade brings to con-sumers. Consequently, a great deal of people’s support for free tradeappeared to be qualified.

While support for free trade waswidespread at the start of most forumdiscussions, many participants saidthat recent trade agreements unfairlydisadvantage American workers andneed adjustment. Many were moreinterested in promoting what theycalled fair trade—a vision of global-ization that protected American jobswhile promoting the health and safetyof workers overseas, particularly inpoorer nations.

Long-term Global ThreatsParticipants strongly believe that

preserving the country’s securityrequires the United States to take thelead in forging international partner-ships with other nations to addresslong-term global threats. People saidthe United States should address theseproblems not only for humanitarianreasons, but also out of self-interest. In the long term, they saw addressingthese issues as closely tied to preserv-ing political stability around the

world and controlling or even eliminating the threat of terrorism.

Many who deliberated in theseforums, however, saw economic considerations as critical. They felthard-pressed personally and said theUnited States lacks the resources to be overly involved in global affairs.For some, the costs of the militarywere onerous. Others talked about theeconomic effects of trade. Still othersquestioned whether the country hasthe resources to afford foreign aid,promote the spread of democracy, ordeal with global threats when thereare so many urgent needs here in theUnited States.

Even so, they broadly agreed that world health and environmentalthreats should receive a higher priori-ty than they currently do, with a largemajority saying they would be willingto make lifestyle changes to addressglobal warming and reduce ourdependence on Middle-Eastern oil.Addressing long-term global threatswas seen as a key part of ensuring our long-term national security.

People said the United States

should promote the spread of

democracy around the globe

because it would enhance national

security and make the world a

safer place. At the same time,

they felt that this country should

not use military force to “impose”

democracy on other countries.

While support for free trade

was widespread at the start of

most forum discussions, many

participants said that recent

trade agreements unfairly

disadvantage American workers

and need adjustment.

Participants strongly believe that

preserving the country’s security

requires the United States to take

the lead in forging international

partnerships with other nations to

address long-term global threats.



National Issues Forums enable us toexplore both the substance and natureof public thinking, that is, what peo-ple think about the issue along withhow they think. Below we discussfirst the focus and characteristics ofpublic thinking and then the approachpeople in these forums took to the issue.

FocusPERSONALLY CONNECTED. Whilesome forum participants found theissue of Americans’ role in the worldunfamiliar, many connected to it inintensely personal terms. Some ofthem talked about the impact of thewar in Iraq. “The son of a man in our forum is on his way to Iraq,”reported a forum moderator inColumbia, Missouri. Feelings randeep at Tyndall Air Force Base inFlorida and in communities near theU.S. Army’s Fort Hood in Texas, notonly among service personnel, butalso among their families and friends.At forums in other communities, participants talked about the impactof globalization and free trade, theirtrials with lost jobs, factory closings,and corporate relocations. For some,the issue brought up memories of persecution and prejudice. Duringdiscussions of the anti-Muslim preju-dice that has sprung up since 9/11, for example, one Japanese-Americandescribed being interned duringWorld War II when anti-Japanese

sentiments ran similarly high in theUnited States. Another, an educatorwho advises international students,spoke of a Saudi Arabian student who“took his family home [after 9/11], saying, ‘they’ll feel safer there.’”

A number of forum participantsemphasized the importance of gettingto know citizens of other countries.They called attention to the value ofcultural and educational exchanges,saying this country benefits whenAmericans study abroad and when foreigners study here. Often a develop-ing country’s strongest advocates of democracy, they explained, are those who were educated in the United States. Many participants alsolamented that Americans know so little about foreign people and their traditions, pointing out that this lack of knowledge has led the country to commit foreign policy blunders in the past and, in the opinion of many, to blunder again today in theMiddle East.

NATIONALLY FOCUSED. While citizens felt personally connected to the issues at stake in their deliberationson Americans’ role in the world, theirdeliberations quickly focused on the appropriate role for the nation.They talked about America’s role in theworld, about what role the countryshould or should not play in the twenty-first century, rather than theirrole as Americans and what they coulddo. With respect to other NIF forums,

The Nature of Public Thinking:

How Citizens ApproachComplex Issues ofPolitics and Policy

While citizens felt personally

connected to the issues at

stake in their deliberations on

Americans’ role in the world,

their deliberations quickly focused

on the appropriate role for the

nation. They talked about

America’s role in the world,

about what role the country

should or should not play in the

twenty-first century.

Many participants also lamented

that Americans know so little

about foreign people and their

traditions.

9October 2004


that shift was unique. Participants did not approach this issue on the same personal terms used when, for example, forums were held on drugs,crime, education, health care, affirma-tive action, social security, or even theeconomy. Virtually without exception,participants in these forums framedthe issue in national terms.

With regard to public thinking, thisphenomenon was a clear indication of just how strongly the public’s tendency is to reframe issues in theirown way. Initially, the central questionfor consideration in these NationalIssues Forums involved the role individual Americans should play. Both the issue book and the video that framed the topic were carefullyconstructed so that participants,instead of conversing about U.S. foreign policy, would talk about therole they as individual American citizens might play in the world of the twenty-first century. In addition,each approach in the framework presented an array of actions individ-ual citizens might take—all to noavail. However personally connectedthey might have felt to the issue of Americans’ role in the world, they believed it was an issue thatdemanded a national approach.

GLOBALLY AWARE. When consider-ing economic issues, people’s mainconcerns were national. They focusedon the self-interest of American workers and consumers. However,when people talked about the use ofmilitary force, promoting the spreadof democracy, or dealing with AIDSand the environment, their focus shifted from the national to the international. They discussed globalefforts and the importance of theUnited States taking a leadership role,often through existing internationalorganizations such as the UN. Awoman from New Orleans said that to tackle global problems, “you

have to have [strong, international]relationships already, and not necessarily with government [butwith] entities within the country.”

INTERESTED IN THE LONG TERM.Again and again, people in theseforums stressed the importance ofconsidering the long-term effects of an approach or idea. For example,both critics and supporters of the war in Iraq talked about long-termconsequences. Critics argued that the conflict had caused lasting damage to this country’s imageabroad, especially among Muslims. At the same time, supporters of thewar also talked about the long-termdangers the war addressed. Similarly,discussions about the environment,health, and even trade and global-ization were often framed within a 10- or 20-year context, as people discussed what had happened andspeculated about what would happenin this country should trends contin-ue. Not only were discussions aboutglobal problems usually viewed froma long-term perspective, so too weremany of the specific solutions, such aseducation, to which people gravitated.

CharacteristicsNON-IDEOLOGICAL. Commonly,experts and leaders have a well-developed philosophy or worldview;often, they look at issues related totheir country’s role in the worldthrough an ideological prism. To thatextent, observers can forecast to a reasonable degree what positions vari-ous experts and leaders will take onan issue, even as those issues are justemerging. By contrast, participants inthese forums usually did not have acoherent, sophisticated philosophy orworldview. They did not approach theissues in ideological terms.

When considering economic

issues, people’s main concerns

were national. They focused on

the self-interest of American

workers and consumers. However,

when people talked about the use

of military force, promoting the

spread of democracy, or dealing

with AIDS and the environment,

their focus shifted from the

national to the international.

Again and again, people in these

forums stressed the importance of

considering the long-term effects

of an approach or idea.

Commonly, experts and leaders

have a well-developed philosophy

or worldview; often, they look

at issues related to their country’s

role in the world through an

ideological prism.…By contrast,

participants in these forums

usually did not have a coherent,

sophisticated philosophy or

worldview. They did not approach

the issues in ideological terms.



Forum participants, for example,did not generally endorse the use ofpreemptive force; but instead of rulingit out, they saw such use of force as an option to employ under certain,limited circumstances, to be decidedon a case-by-case basis. Similarly, people were generally not ardent free-market capitalists; they felt thatthe U.S. free enterprise system hadsome drawbacks, which might make it unattractive for some countries or cultures to adopt. And participantswanted to assess health and environ-mental issues case by case, weighingin turn the likely effectiveness of eachproposed solution, rather than judg-ing the issues on an ideological basis.

ETHICAL. When people deliberatedabout different approaches, theybrought ethical considerations toevery aspect of the issue. No matterhow they felt about the issue, partici-pants repeatedly asked whether thiscountry had the right or the responsi-bility or even the moral obligation topursue a given course of action.

When addressing the often-divisivequestion of Iraq, participants also considered the issue in terms of itsethical dimensions. A man in anAustin forum said, “Before I wouldsend somebody else off [to war], I[would] need to be absolutely convinced that it’s worth risking thatperson’s life and destroying whoeverI’m going to attack.” But people with a different point of view alsospoke in terms of ethics as theydescribed Saddam Hussein’s brutalityor the need to fight in Iraq in order to prevent another terrorist attack onthe United States.

Similarly, when the deliberationfocused on the question of trying to promote global prosperity byexpanding free trade, a great manyparticipants framed their responses in ethical terms. They talked about

“unfair” competition or job loss in the United States or about child labor and sweatshops in developingcountries.

Again and again, participantschecked their moral compasses asthey deliberated. Young people in particular were concerned abouthuman rights, especially with regardto protecting the rights of women and children and preventing geno-cide. Others talked about issues ofpollution, resource management, and global health. For example, severalstudents in a forum at DutchessCommunity College in Poughkeepsie,New York, said that it was the coun-try’s moral obligation to lead a broadinternational effort to combat thespread of AIDS.

PRAGMATIC. As they deliberated,forum participants also weighed near-ly every approach in pragmatic terms.For example, when consideringwhether this country should try topromote the spread of democracyaround the globe, people spoke notonly about whether it was the “right”thing to do, but also about the idea’sfeasibility. Did the approach have arealistic chance of success? Some people questioned the feasibility ofestablishing a stable democratic government in Iraq and the likelihood of raising the standard of living indeveloping countries through expand-ed trade. As one West Virginia mansaid, “Countries that have virtually noeconomy all of a sudden are expectedto trade on an equal basis with largecountries? That is simply unrealistic in terms of developing the weakercountries.” Others doubted whether it was realistic to expect progresswhen it came to combating the globalspread of HIV or tackling worldwideenvironmental problems. Here again,no matter which side of the issue anindividual took, forum participants

When people deliberated about

different approaches, they

brought ethical considerations

to every aspect of the issue.

When addressing the often-

divisive question of Iraq,

participants also considered the

issue in terms of its ethical

dimensions. A man in an Austin

forum said, “Before I would send

somebody else off [to war], I

[would] need to be absolutely

convinced that it’s worth risking

that person’s life…But people

with a different point of view

also spoke in terms of ethics as

they described Saddam Hussein’s

brutality or the need to fight

in Iraq.

As they deliberated, forum

participants also weighed nearly

every approach in pragmatic

terms. For example, when

considering whether this country

should try to promote the spread

of democracy around the globe,

people spoke not only about

whether it was the “right” thing

to do, but also about the idea’s

feasibility.

11October 2004


viewed the issue through a practical,no-nonsense lens.

ApproachINDUCTIVE, OR BOTTOMS-UP.Another difference between howexperts and forum participants thinkis that often, if not usually, expertsthink from the top down, applying awell-developed philosophy, ideology,or worldview to a given situation.Experts think deductively. In contrast,forum participants use, to borrow a term from Daniel Yankelovich, a bottoms-up approach. That is, theydraw on their particular experienceand develop their ideas inductively.Speakers in these forums oftenreached a conclusion after beginningwith comments such as:

“When I went to Italy, I met peoplewho…”

“My son was stationed in SouthKorea and he said…”

“I have a friend who’s fromPakistan and she said…”

“On ‘60 Minutes,’ there was a storyabout…”

“We learned about AIDS in schooland…”

“There used to be a factory herethat employed 90 people, includingmy cousin, and it moved to Mexicobecause of NAFTA, and now she’sout of a job.”

COMPLEX. As forum participantsdeliberated, it became apparent that even though their thinking wasnon-ideological and inductive, it was anything but simplistic. Theymade connections between short-range problems like terrorism andlong-range problems like economicunderdevelopment or AIDS. Whenweighing such issues as efforts toincrease global prosperity or promote

the spread of democracy, participantswere clearly learning from one another. Instead of gravitating towardany single solution, a great many people expressed sentiments such as, “I think that we need a little fromeach approach because each has elements I like and don’t like.”

COMPASSIONATE. No matter howthey felt about the issue, people in these forums had humanitarian concerns. Both those who favored andthose who opposed the war in Iraq,for example, expressed concern aboutnot only U.S. military casualties, butalso Iraqi civilian casualties. Whileproponents of the war tended to focus on Saddam Hussein’s brutalityand opponents talked more about the deaths that have resulted from thewar, both groups were concernedabout the loss of innocent life.Participants expressed humanitarianconcerns on other international matters as well. Some discussed thepainful effects of job loss as a result of trade or the suffering and deathcaused by AIDS. Others focused theircompassion on the aforementionedproblems of sweatshops, child labor,and women’s rights. A woman from a forum in Austin, Texas, said, “Wewant to make sure that the peoplemanufacturing things [that Americansbuy] are treated humanely.”

CAUTIOUS. The thinking of forumparticipants was often quite cautious.Even when they called for boldchange in America’s approach to theworld—as often occurred—peoplewanted a smooth transition from thepresent course rather than a suddenlurch in a new direction. While therewere deep divisions about the wisdom of the U.S. actions in Iraq,even those who ardently opposed the war did not want to withdrawAmerican troops precipitously. Nearlyeveryone agreed on the importance

Experts think from the top

down, applying a well-developed

philosophy, ideology, or

worldview to a given situation.

Experts think deductively.…

forum participants use…a

bottoms-up approach.…

they draw on their particular

experience and develop their

ideas inductively.

As forum participants deliberated,

it became apparent that even

though their thinking was non-

ideological and inductive, it was

anything but simplistic. They

made connections between short-

range problems like terrorism

and long-range problems like

economic underdevelopment

or AIDS.

The thinking of forum

participants was often quite

cautious. Even when they

called for bold change in

America’s approach to the

world—as often occurred—

they wanted a smooth

transition from the present

course rather than a sudden

lurch in a new direction.



of Iraq being stabilized, if not democratized—preferably under aninternational or UN banner—beforethe U.S. brings its forces home.

CONDITIONAL. In addition to beingcautious, the thinking of forum parti-cipants was often conditional; that is,they approved a course of action onlyon certain conditions. For example,while most supported free trade andopposed protectionism, significantnumbers of participants also felt that the United States has come out on the short end of recent trade agree-ments. As a result, American workershave lost jobs and U.S. companieshave been unfairly forced to competeagainst cheap labor abroad. Therefore,many participants favored what they called “fair trade” and defined as trade agreements negotiated onterms that were “fairer” to Americanworkers.

Participants also spoke conditional-ly when they talked about promotingthe spread of democracy around the globe. Commonly, they cautioned that the United States should help afledgling democracy only if it is invited by that government to do so.Greater support for stepped-up U.S.action was expressed when discussion

turned to global health or the environ-ment, though here, again, participantswanted this nation to act in concertwith other developed countries. Many believed that, rather than actingimmediately or unilaterally, theUnited States should take the leader-ship role in a coordinated, long-terminternational effort. The problemsinvolved, they insisted, are too greatfor any country, including the UnitedStates, to deal with in isolation.

Conditions were also important to people’s thinking about militaryaction in Iraq. Participants were farmore inclined to support such actionif the effort had greater internationalsupport and if American forces andAmerican taxpayers were not bearingthe lion’s share of the hazards andcosts. According to a forum modera-tor at Temple Israel in Columbus,Ohio, several World War II veterans in his group were concerned aboutgoing to war in Iraq without multi-lateral support, with one reminiscing,“at least in World War II we wereinvolved with allies.”

In addition to being cautious, the

thinking of forum participants was

often conditional; that is, they

approved a course of action only

on certain conditions.

Many believed that, rather than

acting immediately or unilaterally,

the United States should take the

leadership role in a coordinated,

long-term international effort.

13October 2004


Forum Results:

Toward a CommonGround for Action

The value of these deliberativeforums on America’s role in the world was not just the opinions andjudgments people came to, but theprocess itself—the discussions, disagreements, and deliberations participants took part in and whatthey revealed about the public’s thinking as they struggled with ideasover time.

In his book Coming to PublicJudgment, Daniel Yankelovich draws a distinction between people’s top-of-the-head opinions and theirconsidered, worked-through public judgments. Poll results, he writes, areoften terribly misunderstood becausepeople’s initial, top-of-the-head opinions, which are uninformed andunstable, are mistakenly assumed tobe their final judgment. Rather thanrevealing what people’s opinions are,then, these deliberative forums helpreveal where people’s opinions areafter they have time to think throughan issue. In addition to public thinking during the deliberations, the forums help reveal the publicjudgment they reach: the approachesand programs people are most likelyto support in the long term, and thesolutions they believe are most likelyto be effective. In the following sections we will explore how people’sthinking evolved over the course of these forums on Americans’ role in the world, how they considered theissues, where people disagreed, andwhere they found common ground.

Military Strengthand NationalSecurity

Participants in these National Issues Forums saw national security as the highest priority. As one womanat a forum in Panama City, Florida, put it, “The primary role of any government is to protect and defend the nation’s boundaries.” A strong military, accordingly, was seen at theoutset of many forums as essential forprotecting the country and achievingother vitally important goals. TheUnited States, said one man in anAustin, Texas, forum, “wouldn’t be able to…promote a stronger, free economy in the world, or…protect the environment and promote humanrights, or promote democracy if we didn’t have the strongest military in the world.”

Though they called for strength, participants said that a strong militarydoes not by itself guarantee security. In addition to military muscle, partic-ipants said, security depends on winning the battle for people’s minds.“Terrorism is an idea,” said one forum participant in Pennsylvania,“and you can’t conquer an idea with money or force.” Additionally, somesaid national security depends on

The primary role of any

government is to protect and

defend the nation’s boundaries.

— Panama City, Florida

Terrorism is an idea…and

you can’t conquer an idea with

money or force.

— Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

the country’s international standingand on other nations’ willingness towork with us. A number of peopleexpressed concern that foreigners seethis country as “arrogant” or “actinglike a bully.” A man in New Orleanssaid, “I’ve been to Europe four timessince September 11 and [Europeans]think we’re the most arrogant [peoplewho] have ever existed.” A woman at a forum in Texas said, “I’m con-cerned about our loss of credibilityabroad. I think we’re going to need to start by restoring some of our credibility before we can do much ofanything else.”

The Use of ForcePeople agreed that the United

States has every right to use force inresponse to an attack like PearlHarbor—or, for that matter, 9/11—with participants strongly endorsingthe invasion of Afghanistan. Most alsoagreed that the country has the rightto use force preemptively when it isdirectly and imminently threatened.In a broader sense, however, peopledid not agree about the idea of usingforce preemptively. An educator in ElReno, Oklahoma, said that having a strong military and being willing to use force preemptively, including in Iraq, “means peace around theworld.” But people at a forum atTemple Israel in Columbus, Ohio, said a policy of preemption “sets adangerous precedent, makes thiscountry look like a bully, and couldfuel the fire for terrorists.”

No matter how they felt aboutusing force preemptively, peopleagreed that force should be used onlyafter sufficient public debate and onlywhen absolutely necessary.i A manfrom Austin, Texas, as mentioned



before, said, “Before I would sendsomebody else off [to war], I [would]need to be absolutely convinced thatit’s worth risking that person’s lifeand destroying whoever I’m going toattack.” A woman from New Orleanssaid, “We need to be prepared to useforce, but it would have to be as a lastresort.”

Participants were also stronglyopposed to the United States playingthe role of “global cop.” As onewoman in a Memphis, Tennessee,forum put it, “Why do we think wehave to be the superpower anyway,the world’s police? We’re 5 percent of the world’s population.” Theremarks of one Vietnam veteran at aNew Jersey forum had a powerfuleffect on others:

I look back at [Vietnam] now and I say, what in the hell did we do? What did we do? Fifty-some odd thousand of our boys were killed. It could have been me, could have been my brother. I lost friends. What the hell did we do? And what were we thinking when we… [said] we’re the cops of the world?We’re not the cops of the world. We can’t be the cops of the world.

The War in IraqThe war with Iraq dominated

forums and sharply divided partici-pants. The split in the post-forumquestionnaire was almost even: 45 percent agreed and 48 percent disagreed with the statement, “TheUnited States should be willing tostrike first against enemies who haveweapons of mass destruction and aproven willingness to use them.”ii

Some said the Iraq war was necessary and justified. A servicemanat a forum at Tyndall Air Force Basesaid, “What we’re doing [in Iraq] isright; 9/11 changed the face of

Having a strong military and

being willing to use force

preemptively, including in

Iraq, “means peace around

the world.”

— El Reno, Oklahoma

I look back at [Vietnam] now

and I say, what in the hell did we

do? What did we do? Fifty-some

odd thousand of our boys were

killed. It could have been me,

could have been my brother. I

lost friends. What the hell did we

do? And what were we thinking

when we…[said] we’re the cops

of the world? We’re not the cops

of the world. We can’t be the

cops of the world.

— Englewood, New Jersey

“What we’re doing in [Iraq] is

right. September 11 changed the

face of America [and so] we’re

doing what has to be done.

— Panama City, Florida

i See Appendix B, Table 1 for Questionnaire results. iiFor Questionnaire results on this approach see AppendixB, Table 1. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be foundin Appendix C, pages 32–33.

15October 2004


America [and so] we’re doing whathas to be done.” A Texas participantsaid a takeover of Iraq by Islamic fundamentalists “could easily lead to World War III.”

Others advanced a number of reasons for taking the opposite view.Some argued that the Iraq war hasdecreased national security because itincreased anti-American sentiments,creating enormous hostility towardthe United States. A man in Englewood,New Jersey, said, “Around the worlda lot of people hate us.” Others questioned the gravity of the threat.For example, a student at a forum atHofstra University on Long Islandasked, “How could Iraq attack us?What means did they have?”

Those who questioned the war also said that the situation in Iraq hasdiverted the country’s attention andresources from what they saw as more serious threats, including Osamabin Laden, al Qaeda, the war inAfghanistan, and the nuclear threatposed by North Korea. And somewere concerned about the costs of thewar, saying it was draining resourcesneeded in this country. One partici-pant, in an online National IssuesForum conducted through SeniorNet,wrote, “That $87 billion [targeted forIraq] would help to solve many of ourmedical and economic ills and evenhelp train some people who mightcome up with some miracle break-throughs we’ve all been waiting for.”

Mixed EmotionsMany forum participants admitted

they were struggling with the issue.At a forum at the LBJ library, one man said, “In [my] 20 years in the military, I’ve always had faith in mygovernment.… But this war is atremendous price to pay. I would notwant my son to go to Iraq. I would go in his place.” Others, like thiswoman from a forum in Memphis,

Tennessee, supported the war butwere troubled by the reasons used tojustify the conflict:

I have mixed emotions about going towar [in Iraq]. I feel like we should goto war. I have a son in the Air Force,and he did go there and spend his sixmonths.… The only thing that wastroubling to me was the fact that[President Bush] said they had massweapons of destruction and they didn’t.

In an online forum conducted inconjunction with “By the People,”public television’s yearlong series onAmericans’ role in the world, one person wrote,

It truly shocked me that my Americaengaged in a preemptive strike againstsovereign nations. It is a brand-newapproach for American policy. In thepast, we’ve been compared to a “papertiger” because we have sustained somany provocations without severeretaliations.… Now I wonder, in mymore cynical and fearful moments, ifmy beloved country is on its way toestablishing a “Pax Americana.”Yet despite my shock, I can’t help wondering how many lives might havebeen saved if America had been blessedwith the foresight to move againstHitler in the 1930s…or against theJapanese before Pearl Harbor.… Can those past disasters constitute a rationale for current preemptivestrikes?Is there ANY way, short of a crystal ball, to determine WHICHevents or nations should be considered sufficiently dangerous to justify [preemptive] military action?

Others acknowledged that emo-tions had clouded their judgment.“On 9/12, I’d have favored war withIraq,” said a woman in El Reno,Oklahoma. “Now I’m less angry, lesshawkish [and I’m not so sure].” Andin some forums, people wanted tohear what others had to say. A Texasmoderator said, “People who opposedthe war with Iraq were desirous oftalking to those in favor and tried tounderstand their viewpoint.”

In [my] 20 years in the military,

I’ve always had faith in my

government.... But this war is a

tremendous price to pay. I would

not want my son to go to Iraq.

I would go in his place.

— Austin, Texas

On 9/12, I’d have favored war

with Iraq. Now I’m less angry,

less hawkish.

— El Reno, Oklahoma

People who opposed the war

with Iraq [wanted to talk] to

those in favor and tried to

understand their viewpoint.

— Austin, Texas

international support than it doesnow in Iraq. “We have to workwith other countries, our allies, toshow how we can strengthen oneanother and work [together to]protect each other,” said a womanfrom Killeen, Texas.

3. Increased Chances of Success: Broad international involvement, some suggested, would improve the chances that a military opera-tion would succeed. “Unilateral action is a very big risk,” said a man from Columbia, Missouri. A moderator in Carroll County, Maryland, said people there felt that when it came to Iraq, the United States was “stuck” because it had such limited international support.

4. Winning the Peace: Finally, people argued that an internationalized effort was preferable once the military phase was complete. “It helps to have the UN there to help clean up the mess [after thefighting],” a participant in Austin,Texas, said. People also felt thatusing force collectively wouldreduce internal opposition to a military action. A student atHofstra University said, for exam-ple, “UN control in Iraq wouldmean more help to the UnitedStates, increased Iraqi control, andtherefore reduced Iraqi oppositionto the occupation and less enmitytoward the American forces.”

Internationalizing the ConflictNo matter what their feelings

about the Iraq war, forum partici-pants strongly favored far more international involvement in that conflict. A moderator from Modesto,California, reported that his groupwas “concerned about the UnitedStates acting alone in Iraq.”

Many participants wanted thiscountry to work more closely with the United Nations. A moderator from West Lafayette, Indiana, report-ed that in a forum held at PurdueUniversity’s Duncan Hall, people said this country “should act in concert with the UN and not unilater-ally.” Forum goers in New Haven,Connecticut, had similar views. “Eventhough many in our group felt thatthe UN [was] not fulfilling its globalrole, they said the United Statesshould strengthen it instead of actingagainst it and weakening it as we didin the Iraq War.”

Forum participants presented fourprincipal reasons why any conflictshould be internationalized.

1. Greater Legitimacy: The use offorce, people said, has more legitimacy with broad internationalsupport, preferably through theUnited Nations. “Involving the UNis desirable because [military]action is less divisive from a globalperspective,” said a participant at aforum in Austin, Texas.

2. Fewer Casualties and Reduced Costs: People wanted to use force collectively to reduce American casualties and decrease the dollar costs to U.S. taxpayers. Some point-ed to the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan as conflicts in which this country enjoyed far more



Even though many in our group

felt that the UN [was] not

fulfilling its global role, they

said the United States should

strengthen it instead of acting

against it and weakening it as

we did in the Iraq War.

— New Haven, Connecticut

People wanted to use force

collectively to reduce American

casualties and decrease the dollar

costs to U.S. taxpayers.

We have to work with other

countries, our allies, to show how

we can strengthen one another

and work [together to] protect

each other.

— Killeen, Texas

17October 2004


Democracy andHuman Rights

At first glance, the results of theseNational Issues Forums suggest thatparticipants strongly believe theUnited States should do what it can topromote democracy around the globe.In the post-forum questionnaire, aresounding 83 percent agreed that the“support of emerging democracieswill, in the long run, enhance our ownnational security.” In addition, 63 percent said that “working to spreadand maintain democracy in othercountries will increase stability in theworld” and 60 percent said that ourgoal as Americans “should be to helpcitizens of other countries develop stable democracies.”iii

However, as deliberation pro-ceeded, it became clear that people’s thinking about the idea of promotingdemocracy globally was more complex and differentiated than thequestionnaire results might suggest.

Political Realities and Cultural SensitivitiesA number of participants raised

practical questions about the idea of promoting democracy abroad. A woman in a New Orleans forumasked if it was “realistic” to think that democracy could work in everycountry, saying, “How would you[promote democracy in] China? Howdo you do it?” Others suggested thatAmerica has a special relationship todemocracy. “It took us 200 years to get[where this country is in terms of itsdemocracy], and we expect others todo it immediately?” said one woman

in a Columbus, Ohio, forum. In an online forum hosted by SeniorNet,another participant wrote:

I would question the premise of promoting and expanding democracyworldwide. Why do we believe thatdemocracy will work for all countries,all citizens of the world? Thanks toour Founding Fathers, we started outwith democracy; most countries didnot. They either don’t want it, can’taccept its ideals, or are getting alongfine with another type of government.

In many groups, people talkedabout cultural sensitivities and the need to respect the values and traditions of others. “There is muchdiversity in the world,” said a serviceman from Panama City,Florida, “We can’t force our values on other people.” In New Haven,Connecticut, people said the “UnitedStates should not promote a form of democracy that may not be compatible in terms of a country’s culture, values, economy, and wishes.” High-school students inPittsburgh were conflicted about thisidea, saying “democracy is importantbut that the United States shouldn’tpush its values and morals down thethroats of other countries.”

Others were concerned that somecountries may not wish to movetoward democracy. A woman fromMemphis said the United Statesshould help only “if people are cryingout and saying, ‘we want to changebut we can’t do it ourselves.’” Somesuggested that the United States needed to wait for willing partners.“If we go and try to force our exactmodel on another nation where it’sunwelcome, it’s not going to be a success,” said one forum goer inCharleston, West Virginia. “[But] if we wait to be asked, we are muchmore likely to make a success.”Participants in New Orleans had asimilar view. “I think [promotingdemocracy] is a good idea. But wecannot be arrogant,” said one woman

It took us 200 years to get

[where this country is in terms of

its democracy] and we expect

others to do it immediately?

— Columbus, Ohio

I would question the premise

of promoting and expanding

democracy worldwide. Why do

we believe that democracy will

work for all countries, all citizens

of the world? Thanks to our

Founding Fathers, we started out

with democracy; most countries

did not. They either don’t want it,

can’t accept its ideals, or are

getting along fine with another

type of government.

— SeniorNet Online Forum

iii For Questionnaire results on this approach see Appendix B, Table 2. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be found in Appendix C, page 34.

there. “In some countries, it will beeasier to promote democracy, butother countries will not want tochange their ways.”

Furthermore, some people attacheda specific provision to their supportfor promoting the spread of democ-racy. “A magic word is global,” said one Denver man. I think [the UnitedStates] should stop trying to [promotedemocracy] alone.… [But I’d favor the idea if the United States builds] an alliance with the rest of the worldwho will support our ideas.” Peoplein Blacksburg, Virginia; New Haven;and Minneapolis expressed similarsentiments.

Democracy and Free EnterpriseIn some forums, people talked

about the link between democracyand free enterprise, saying some countries might accept the former aslong as it does include the latter.“Capitalism is not necessarily democracy,” said a man in El Reno,Oklahoma. Several participants sug-gested that while Muslim countriesmay accept a democratic system, theymight feel that a McDonald’s or aWalt Disney World are incompatiblewith their values. Indeed, people inforums in Philadelphia and at the LBJLibrary in Austin felt that the truemotive of the United States is freeenterprise, not the promotion of democratic governments. “It neverhas been about exporting democracy,”a Philadelphia man said. “What we’re really talking about is openingmarkets for the sake of capitalism.”

Democracy and Foreign AidWhile a narrow majority of partici-

pants, 53 percent, favored investingheavily to help build democracy inunstable countries like Afghanistan, a solid minority, 37 percent wereopposed. Moreover, a number of those



in opposition were solidly opposed.Some, like this man in a Memphisforum, worried about competingdomestic needs:

We, as a free nation, should help[developing countries] as much as we can. But don’t forget about hungrychildren [in the United States] and our homeless people on our home front. They have to be taken care offirst. I feel very strongly about that.

Imposing DemocracyIn the post-forum questionnaires,

people said the United States shouldtry to promote democracy around the globe. And the deliberation as presented by the moderator mainlyfocused on promoting the spread ofdemocracy through an array of non-military means, including aid, culturalexchanges, cutting ties to dictators,and persuasion; the use of force wasmentioned only when a democraticregime is threatened.

During deliberation, however, agreat many talked as if the centralidea under consideration was whetherthe United States should forcibly“impose” democracy on other coun-tries. Most participants stronglyopposed this formulation of the idea.A moderator from Phoenix said hergroup “did not want to impose theAmerican model of democracy andfelt that it would not be appropriatefor all cultures.” Others expressedsimilar sentiments. Reporting on aforum in Overland Park, Kansas, one moderator said that her group“thought it would be very difficult toinstall democracies in other parts ofthe world.” An Austin, Texas, mansummed up the thinking of manywhen he said: “I’m comfortable withpromoting the spread of democracy as long as it doesn’t mean foist.”

For many forum participants then,the issue they considered and stoutlyrejected was different from the ques-

A magic word is global. I think

[the United States] should stop

trying to [promote democracy]

alone.… [But I’d favor the idea

if the United States builds] an

alliance with the rest of the world

that will support our ideas.

— Denver, Colorado

I’m comfortable with promoting

the spread of democracy

as long as it doesn’t mean foist.

— Austin, Texas

19October 2004


tion they were given. It was alsorevealing about their mind-set, whichis in part a carryover from the war inVietnam as well as a reaction to whatthey’re seeing today. Generally, forumparticipants reacted as if they believedthe United States has actively adopteda policy that applies only in Iraq andAfghanistan. And in both of thosecases, supporters of the policy wouldsay it is being employed only becauseof a need to fight against exceptionalproblems—terrorism and radicalIslamists.

A Model Democracy?In a number of forums, support

for the idea of promoting democracywas muted. Pointing to flaws andshortcomings in our own democraticsystem—such as the 2000 election; especially the events in Florida—alarge number of participants said that,before trying to promote democracyabroad, the United States should getits own house in order. A womanfrom Austin, Texas, said that beforethe United States attempts “to makechanges abroad, we should becomethe change we want others tobecome.” A moderator in New Haven,Connecticut, reported that many inher group were more concerned withmaking democracy work better in the United States than in promoting it abroad. And in Overland Park,Kansas, participants talked aboutracism in the United States and thefact that not everyone has health care,adding that these should be prioritiesbefore this country turns its attentionto promoting democracy elsewhere.

A Different Democratic ModelGenerally, when people talked

about democracy, they thought onlyin terms of the U.S. model, with itsprocedures and institutions. But in ahandful of forums, people talked

about other forms of democracy. Somepeople suggested that variations ofthe U.S. democratic model might be more appropriate for certain coun-tries. Students at Gateway College inPhoenix, for example, talked aboutwhat the moderator called “Bedouindemocracy.” This form of democracy,they said, is quite unlike the U.S.model but might be more suitable for some Middle-Eastern countries.

A West Virginia man said, “It probably does a disservice to manydeveloping countries to say, ‘fit ourmodel and we’ll assist you, and if notwe’ll go against you.’ There are manymore political and economic struc-tures in developing countries thatwould be perfect at the local level.” A man from Killeen, Texas, said,“Democracy has many approaches,many faces. It may not be exactly likethe [democracy here in the] UnitedStates; we can’t travel around theworld making democracies in ourexact model because, in many places,it’s just impossible. We cannot selluniversally the idea.”

The Importance of Human RightsWhile many participants had

reservations about “imposing”democracy on other countries, theybroadly agreed that the United Statesshould do whatever it realistically can to promote human rights aroundthe globe. Students at a forum atPennsylvania’s Governor School wereparticularly concerned about humanrights in Africa, saying it should be ahigher priority. College students atHofstra University and Virginia Techtalked about the rights of women and children. In Lafayette, Indiana,people talked about women’s rights in Afghanistan.

In some forums, people talkedabout using military force. People in a number of forums, including those

Before the United States attempts

to make changes abroad, we

should be the change we want

others to become.

— Austin, Texas

Democracy has many approaches,

many faces.… It may not be

exactly like the [democracy here

in the] U.S.; we can’t travel

around the world making

democracies in our exact model

because, in many places, it’s

just impossible. We cannot sell

universally the idea of democracy

as we like it.

— Killeen, Texas

trade is in everyone’s long-term interest. A man from New Orleanssaid, “An open market is a goodthing,” adding that if a product can be manufactured less expensively inanother country, “we shouldn’t beinterfering with the choice [of consumers to buy it].”

Participants said trade not onlyincreases prosperity, it also enhancesnational security. As many as 59 percent felt that when developingcountries become more prosperous,they are less likely to threaten othercountries. In Columbia, Missouri, people felt that economic interde-pendence makes conflict less likely. A man in El Reno, Oklahoma, agreed,saying, “When wealth is created,countries don’t want to go to war. No two countries that have aMcDonald’s will go to war.” InKilleen, Texas, a forum participantsaw other national security benefits:“We need the ability to expand ourcommerce throughout the world andmaybe that would help achieve manyof the other objectives we’ve beentalking about, like [promoting thespread of] democracy.” Others saidthat trade raised the standard of livingin both China and India, pointing tothe fact that those countries, whichwere formerly hostile or politicallyunstable, are no longer military orpolitical threats.

The High Cost of Free TradeAt the same time, many people

saw trade’s benefits only vaguely, interms of “lower prices” and “morechoices”; however, many participantsfelt directly and personally connectedto trade’s downside. A Virginia Techstudent sorrowfully described theimpact of seeing her father’s job as anengineer, which he had held for morethan 20 years, outsourced to India. At a forum at Erskine College inConway, South Carolina, people



in Overland Park, Kansas, were par-ticularly concerned about genocide.Some participants approved of usingforce in Kosovo and disapproved ofthe failure of using force in Rwanda,saying that was a case in which theUnited States should have intervenedmilitarily. A New Jersey woman drew a clear distinction between democratic practices and humanrights, “As long as they’re not killingtheir people, dismembering their people, [we should] let them run theirown country.” A man in that forumagreed, saying, “For years the blackswere slaughtered in South Africa. And the United States did absolutelynothing.… Shouldn’t we have sentsomeone in there to stop what theywere doing?”

EconomicDevelopmentand Free Trade

People in a great many forums said they supported free trade andopposed protectionism. In the post-forum questionnaire, peopleagreed—by a margin of nearly two to one—that free trade benefits consumers by lowering prices, and 60 percent called for the reduction orelimination of trade barriers wheneverpossible.iv

Similar thoughts often surfacedduring deliberations. People inOverland Park, Kansas, felt that freetrade means lower prices. A group atthe University of Montana supportedNAFTA, even with the loss of jobsassociated with it, saying that free

An open market is a good

thing…[if a product can be

manufactured less expensively

in another country,] we shouldn’t

be interfering with the choice

[of consumers to buy it].

— New Orleans, Louisiana

We need the ability to expand

our commerce throughout the

world and maybe that would

help achieve many of the other

objectives we’ve been talking

about, like democracy.

— Killeen, Texas

iv For Questionnaire results on this approach see Appendix B, Table 3. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be found in Appendix C, page 35.

talked about “massive” unemploymentin the textile industry caused by what they regarded as unfair trade. In Minneapolis, a woman said herneighbor, a laid-off computer pro-grammer, had taken a job hangingwallpaper. In a Memphis forum, awoman said:

Look at all the empty warehouses. All the people I’ve known personally[who worked] at Firestone…whichshut down here in Memphis. I knew men that committed suicide. I knew men that became homelesswhen Kimberly Clark shut down.[They] lost their families, [they got]divorces.… They couldn’t handle it.… And it’s all because of that [free trade] garbage.

Beyond job loss, people raisedother issues about trade. In OverlandPark, Kansas, for example, people said that human rights should be partof world trade agreements. Otherslinked human rights to trade andquestions of dependence. “Do wereally want to be without a steelindustry and be completely depen-dent [for steel] on [a totalitarian country and an unreliable source like]North Korea?” one person asked.Others raised questions about inconsistencies and double standards,suggesting that trade’s proponentswould not feel the same if they themselves were affected. For example, a Texas participant talkedabout a man who argued for freetrade in a Wall Street Journal editorialbut then took a protectionist viewregarding a Dallas conflict in whichhis own industry was threatened.

Many people wanted to ensure thattrade would not be promoted at theexpense of labor standards or humanrights. A Denver man said, “Free trade is a good place to start. But as acountry we need to say, we’re going to trade with this country [but]…ifthey’re pulling something like [child]labor, we’ll either pull back or gosomewhere else.” People in New

21October 2004


Haven were concerned about poor,unsafe working conditions. A NewHampshire moderator said that,although her group was reluctant tointervene in private enterprise, theywanted a global institution to protecthuman rights and regulate labor conditions.

Finally, in some forums, includingthose in Modesto, California, andOverland Park, Kansas, people talkedabout the power and political agendaof multinational corporations. InKilleen, Texas, a moderator alsoreported that there was “a huge lackof trust in multinationals” with peopleasking who holds these corporationsaccountable because they can bypass a given country’s political system and courts.

Fair Trade Not Free TradeIn some forums, people talked

about the need for what they calledfair trade. A man in New Orleanssaid, “Fair is fair but most countriesdon’t play fair. In order to have freetrade it has to be fair.” Several peoplein the forum in New Haven felt that“all countries should play by the samerules.” Complaining about theabsence of organized labor in devel-oping countries, a New Jersey mansaid, “Any time another country startsmanufacturing something that wemanufacture here, they do it for 12cents a day as opposed to 20 bucks an hour.”

Another equity-related issueinvolved the distribution of wealth. In a forum held in a private homenear Austin, people felt that the problem with globalization is not so much production as equitable distribution. A student from HofstraUniversity suggested that peoplewould not equally benefit from freetrade, saying, “A rising tide may liftall boats, but yachts will rise a lothigher than row boats.”

Look at all the empty ware-

houses. All the people I’ve

known personally [who worked]

at Firestone…which shut down

here in Memphis. I knew men

that committed suicide. I knew

men that became homeless when

Kimberly Clark shut down. [They]

lost their families, [they got]

divorces.… They couldn’t handle

it.… And it’s all because of

that [free trade] garbage.

— Memphis, Tennessee

Free trade is a good place to

start. But as a country we need

to say, we’re going to trade with

this country [but]…if they’re

pulling something like [child]

labor, we’ll either pull back or go

somewhere else.


Fair is fair, but most countries

don’t play fair. In order to have

free trade it has to be fair.


A rising tide may lift all boats, but

yachts will rise a lot higher than

row boats.

— Hempstead, New York



Long-termThreats

The deliberations also considered a qualitatively different set of chal-lenges to national security, includingthose stemming from global poverty,environmental degradation, andworldwide health problems, includingepidemics like AIDS. Many saw theseas urgent issues. For example, 81 percent agreed that “the real threats to us are long-term global problems,such as AIDS and pollution that knowno national borders.” As many as 90percent wanted the United States tolead global efforts to combat thespread of AIDS and other contagiousdiseases while 81 percent said “theUnited States should take the lead inforging international agreements onthe environment.” Finally, 78 percentsaid global poverty should become ahigher priority.v

World HealthWorld health was a particular con-

cern for young participants. Collegestudents in Pittsburgh “universallyfelt that health problems shouldreceive top priority” and that “AIDSin Africa has both a human and aneconomic impact which, in turn, leads to a breeding ground for terror-ism and human rights violations.” High school students in St. Cloud,Minnesota, said the United Statesshould lead international efforts to deal with AIDS because it is ahumanitarian issue and in the coun-try’s self-interest since epidemicseventually come here. Pointing toAIDS, SARS, and Avian flu, a woman

at a Minneapolis senior center echoedthis thought, saying “disease doesn’tstop at the border.”

Poverty and Foreign AidOther themes ran through people’s

comments about global poverty andforeign economic problems. Beyondemergency assistance, the kind of foreign assistance that enjoyed broad-est support focused on promotingself-sufficiency. An Indiana moderatorsummed up his group’s sentiments by saying, “They wanted to teachsomeone to fish, [instead of feedinghim]. They felt that self-sustainingefforts are good.” In this same vein, an Austin, Texas, group favored foreign aid that would support educa-tion in developing countries.

Global Environmental IssuesAs they deliberated about the

environment, people’s comments alsoreflected their broad, global orienta-tion. A woman in Memphis said, “Just in our lifetime, [we’ve] seenglobal warming, how the weather haschanged…. If we don’t try to take it on ourselves to do this, who’s goingto?” In Overland Park, Kansas, a participant said an interconnectedworld “calls for different strategiesthan were envisioned by theFounding Fathers.” This statement by a Killeen, Texas, man reflected the views of many:

The planet does not belong to us. It [also] belongs to future generations,our children and grandchildren. We’vedone a lot to protect the environment in this country [but] we have a longways to go. We don’t take regard for our industries polluting and spoilingthe land in other countries. We don’ttake a global view of…things we hold dear.

People said this country has aresponsibility to lead the world, inpart because only the United Stateshas the economic resources along withthe scientific and technological know-

An interconnected world

“calls for different strategies

[from those] envisioned by

the Founding Fathers.”

— Overland Park, Kansas

Disease doesn’t stop at the

border.

— Minneapolis, Minnesota

If we don’t try to take it on

ourselves to do this, who is

going to?

— Memphis, Tennessee

v For Questionnaire results on this approach see Appendix B, Table 3. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be found in Appendix C, page 37.

23October 2004


how to play this role. A Denver mansaid, “Yes, indeed, we have marvelous[medical] knowledge that we need to be able to share. [In addition tohelping foreigners, fighting AIDS will] help protect our country frombecoming diseased.”

A Role for the IndividualMany said they would accept

personal tradeoffs to tackle theseproblems. In Overland Park, Kansas,people said the country must becomeless dependent on fossil fuels andMiddle-Eastern oil. An Austin, Texasparticipant said, “It’s not ‘giving upour independence’ but ‘recognizingour interdependence.’” In an onlineforum cosponsored by PublicTelevision’s “By the People” series, aColumbus, Ohio, participant wrote,“We’re not spending enough moneyon scientific research to develop other forms of energy.” And in thepost-forum questionnaire, an 82 percent consensus said they favoredworking with other countries toaddress worldwide problems likeglobal warming even if that meansmanufacturing higher-priced, morefuel-efficient cars.vi

Global LeadershipBeyond making headway against

these pressing issues, some partici-pants saw ancillary gains resultingfrom assuming world leadership. Awoman from Dover, Delaware, said, “If America addressed more worldproblems we would be seen as moreof a team player and that would produce more international goodwill.” Another women in a Denverforum agreed. Assuming global leadership, she said, “would help alleviate the America hating that we

get.... [People in other countries]would see us more as people who arewilling to [help]...[instead of]...asgreedy big brothers.”

Quite a few people said the UnitedStates is doing anything but lead theworld. A woman in Austin said, “The environment is a time bomb. But inrejecting [the] Kyoto [environmentalaccord], we chose not to acknowledgethat problem.” A New Orleanswoman said, “There’s the clean air act or whatever [it is].... The rest of theworld is...all ready to go with whatthey have, but the United States—we are holding out on it because wedon’t like some little provision in it.”A participant at the LBJ Library saidthe United States must recognize thatit is part of a global community,adding, “We have failed to under-stand that we have a shared fate withthe rest of humanity and that therewill be a reckoning.”

It’s not giving up our

independence, but recognizing

our interdependence. We

must walk our talk, not just

give orders.

— Austin, Texas

If America addressed more

world problems, we would be

seen as more of a team player

and that would produce more

international goodwill.

— Dover, Delaware

vi For Questionnaire results on this approach see Appendix B, Table 4. Excerpts from forum transcripts can be found in Appendix C, page 36.



At the close of each forum, participants were asked what impactthe event had had on their thinkingabout the issues. While some changedtheir views, most said the real impacthad been to give them an increasedawareness of the complexity andinterconnectedness of the problemsrelated to national security and thedefinition of the nation’s role in the world.

Many came to the forums initiallywith doubts about their own abilitiesto engage the issues and offer insights—particularly when more technicalissues like economics are concerned.As one Texas participant put it, “I do not feel I know how to thinkabout economics, so I turn to politicsbecause it’s an easier discussion.” As they deliberated, however, peoplebecame increasingly confident in theirability to contribute meaningfully.They did not feel like experts on aparticular issue, but they came awayconvinced that their thoughts aboutthe values and tradeoffs involvedwere something worth sharing andsomething that should be heard. Theybecame aware of their ability to takepart in deliberation.

Key EffectsBeyond that, the act of deliberat-

ing, they suggested, had had at leastthree key effects.

First, participants developed amore expansive definition of nationalsecurity. As one forum participant said,

When I, before, thought about [the safety] of our country, I alwaysthought of it in terms of enemy threats and terrorists and things likethat. [But now I think] more about the threat we are to ourselves. And,you know, I never thought about that as much when I thought of thesafety of our country.

Second, deliberation enhanced participants’ understanding of otherpoints of view. They “dissolvedstereotypes” as one forum goer inAustin, Texas, put it. They were surprised how willing others were totalk about the issues and listen. As an attendee of a forum in Denver,Colorado, explained,

I was surprised how moderate everyone was. I mean, it’s such asupercharged topic. Yet all of us, none of us seemed like we were justday and night way far apart. We all seemed to be able to talk to eachother, respect people’s point of view. I found it pretty optimistic.

This was particularly true offorums that included participantsfrom other countries. For example,some foreigners, especially Muslims,talked about how they were treated in the aftermath of 9/11. Many talkedabout how the United States is perceived abroad, contrasting the sympathy the world felt for this country after 9/11 with the disregardand even fear of the United Statesthere is today because of the Iraq war.In Missouri, a Japanese couple saidtheir Japanese-American daughterconsiders herself Japanese but not

The Effects of Deliberation:

The Impact of Forumson People’s Thinking

When I, before, thought about

[the safety] of our country, I

always thought of it in terms of

enemy threats and terrorists and

things like that. [But now I think]

more about the threat we are to

ourselves. And, you know, I never

thought about that as much when

I thought of the safety of our

country.


I was surprised how moderate

everyone was. I mean, it’s such a

supercharged topic. Yet all of us,

none of us seemed like we were

just day and night way far apart.

We all seemed to be able to talk

to each other, respect people’s

point of view. I found it pretty

optimistic.


25October 2004


American because of her own anti-American sentiments. A moderatorfrom Carroll County, Maryland, said forums there with internationalstudents took on a broader perspec-tive, especially with regard to global problems, such as poverty, the environment, and health-relatedissues like AIDS.

Third, deliberation left many participants stewing about the issues.Some, in fact, found the complexity ofthe issues daunting, even depressing.Most, however, left the forums feelingnot only engaged in the issues, butalso obligated to speak out. One of themost heartfelt comments came from aparticipant in Denver:

If we walk away from here and we don’t talk to our [elected] representatives, I mean talk to them, write them, and let them know how we feel about these things…. We’re pretty much in agreement on a lot of this stuff. If we don’t let them know what we’ve done in here, it’s valueless. I haven’t talked to my represen-tative. I haven’t written him a letter on these kinds of issues. I think we need to do that. And if we don’t do that, we haven’t learned anything here tonight.

Bringing Citizens TogetherBy engaging citizens in a discus-

sion of the issues, forums offer a wayof engaging participants not only withothers in their community, but also inthe search for solutions to pressingpublic problems. Rather than partisanand divided, the forums revealed

how much common ground there was on this often-divisive issue. From students to senior citizens, manyreported that they enjoyed having thechance to speak out in a nonadversari-al, nonargumentive environment. Thediscussion, they said, gave them notonly a welcome chance to be heard,but also a welcome chance to hearfrom others whose views were differ-ent from their own. Together, theylearned, they could work through dif-ficult choices and begin defining acommon ground for action. As oneparticipant at a forum in Kansas sum-marized, “This kind of discussion ishealthy for our country and ourdemocracy.”

We’re pretty much in

agreement on a lot of this

stuff. If we don’t let them know

what we’ve done in here, it’s

valueless. I haven’t talked to

my representative. I haven’t

written him a letter on these

kinds of issues. I think we need

to do that. And if we don’t

do that, we haven’t learned

anything here tonight.


This kind of discussion is

healthy for our country and our

democracy.

— Overland Park, Kansas



Appendix A:

Questions and Answersabout the Forums

including supporters and opponentsof the decision to wage war in Iraq—were concerned about both U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties. Both supporters and opponents of the warexpressed concern about not only theviolence and abuse suffered by theIraqi people under Saddam Hussein,but also about the casualties they havesuffered during the Iraq war.

4. How do the public’s assumptions aboutthis issue compare to the assumptions heldby leadership?

Many leaders assume that the main threats to the United States are military in nature and stem from conflicts like the war in Iraq and from attacks by terrorist groups like al Qaeda. In contrast, while seeingboth Iraq and terrorism as urgentproblems, people in the forums were also troubled about long-termthreats to the environment and toworld health.

5. What values were at play in the discussion?Security. People were deeply con-cerned about an array of both militaryand nonmilitary threats to nationalsecurity.

Freedom. Participants broadly agreed that people have a right to self-determination.

Tolerance. People felt that each countryhas a right to preserve its own cultures,traditions, and beliefs. All of thesedeserve respect.

1. Does the public connect to the issue asthe conventional wisdom suggests?

No. Conventional wisdom suggeststhat when it comes to foreign policy,Americans are indifferent and illinformed. In fact, Americans caredeeply about our nation’s role in theworld and its image abroad, saying itis a critical part of our long-termnational security. Conventional wis-dom also holds that when it comes toAmerica’s global role, the public’sviews are polarized—roughly corre-sponding to the red-blue divisionsbetween states in the 2000 presidentialelections. Yet, while our research didfind deep divisions about the war inIraq, on almost every other issue therewas much upon which people agreed.

2. How does the public approach the issue?

Pragmatically and in personalterms. People tend to evaluate eachapproach in terms of its workability.Their opinions are rooted in personalexperiences and in their deeply heldvalues, not in a sophisticated philoso-phy or worldview.

3. Are there other dimensions of the issuethat people in the forums see?

Yes. Contrary to what one mightexpect in light of the observations ofmost political commentators and mostpress coverage of public attitudes onthese issues, people in these forums—

27October 2004


Human Rights. While saying “countrieshave a right to their own traditions,”people did not want foreign govern-ments to have a free hand to abusetheir citizens. People said that a set of international human rights normsexists and that the United Statesshould stand up for and promotethese norms when it comes to preventing genocide and protectingthe rights of women and children.

Cooperation. People repeatedly calledfor international cooperation, saying it is in this country’s self-interest to work with other nations when itcomes to using force, promoting democ-racy and free trade, and dealing withlong-term threats. Many wanted theUnited States to take global leadershipon these issues.

Education. People valued education in three respects. First, many said that Americans need to learn moreabout foreign countries, global prob-lems, and foreigners’ views. Second,people valued cultural exchange, having Americans study abroad andhaving foreign students study in this country. Third, many favor sup-porting international AIDS educationprograms as well as public educationin developing countries.

6. What mattered to people as they deliberated?

As they weighed America’s role in the world, people’s ethical andhumanitarian concerns were temperedor even trumped by pragmatic consid-erations about what was workableand affordable. While the welfare ofAmericans was paramount, people in the forums also took into considera-tion the views of foreigners, sayingthe greatest challenges facing thiscountry are global in nature, notnational.

7. Was any firm common ground for action revealed?

Yes. In terms of the use of the mili-tary, people agreed that the countryneeds a strong defense, and that force

should be used as a last resort—andonly after sufficient public debate andin cooperation with other countries,preferably through the UnitedNations. But while they wanted theUnited States to work more closelywith international partners, they alsosaid that the country should notpolice the world.

People said that, because demo-cratic countries are less aggressive and warlike, it is in the United States’national interest to promote thespread of democracy. At the sametime, people did not want to “impose”democracy on other nations, sayingthe wishes, cultures, and traditions offoreigners must be respected. Theywanted the country to stand up forhuman rights, especially regardinggenocide and the rights of womenand children. Finally, they called forforeign aid that would promote eco-nomic self-sufficiency.

Participants favored free trade and opposed protectionism, sayingprosperity leads to peace. However,many also said that current tradeagreements unfairly disadvantageU.S. workers and should be renegoti-ated. There was also broad agreementthat the United States should take the lead in international efforts torespond to threats to the environmentand to world health.

Finally, most forum groups wantedto take both a long- and a short-termview when weighing the challengesfacing this country.

8. What stage is the public at on this issue?Has the public’s thinking evolved?

People are uneasy about America’scurrent place in the world, saying thethreats to the country from Iraq, fromterrorism, and from long-term threatscould hardly be more serious. Theyare paying close attention to the news



and thinking seriously about theseissues, working through conflictedfeelings and values.

That being said, people’s attitudeson the issues have clearly evolved.They are no longer thinking aboutinternational politics in terms of a balance of power—as was the case during the Cold War—nor in terms ofan isolationist framework that wouldkeep the country aloof and distantfrom world affairs.

Instead, they are clearly ready for the United States to take a morecooperative role in its position as theworld’s sole remaining superpower—a sharp change from the attitudes of only a decade or two ago. Forumparticipants are not sharply partisanor ideological. They support an internationalist approach in which thecountry provides military, economic,scientific, and moral leadership onissues like security, human rights, economic development, global health,and environmental protection. To dothis, participants envision the UnitedStates working with other countriesand coalitions to address what theysee as the problems behind the prob-lem of national security and globalstability.

9. What needs to happen next in thenational dialogue?

The outcomes of these forums suggest that our national leadershipenjoys a rare opportunity. Beyond the clamor of division about Iraq—beneath the surface, under the din—Americans agree about a wide varietyof issues related to our country’s global role. There is, in fact, a greatdeal of political permission on theissue—a wide range of politically permissible actions.

That common ground is not alwaysreadily visible in public opinion pollsor in public hearings, but it can bemore clearly revealed by providingcitizens with an opportunity to delib-erate about the issues within a publicframework like that provided by theNational Issues Forums. Accordingly,public officials and policymakers who craft a foreign policy within the boundaries of this political per-mission, stand a far better chance of finding that their policies enjoybroad and deep support among theAmerican people.

29October 2004


Appendix B:

Questionnaire Results

Total TotalPercent Percent“Agree” “Disagree”

47% 50%

28% 65%

Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?

America should not hesitate to use military force to deal with threats to our national security.

Our reluctance to use force before September 11, 2001,encouraged terrorists to attack.

Total TotalPercent Percent“Favor” “Oppose”

45% 48%

16% 76%

53% 39%

Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?

The United States should be willing to strike first against enemies whohave weapons of mass destruction and a proven willingness to use them.

The United States should reinstate the draft to ensure military readiness.

The United States must be willing to use force to deal with threats to our national security, EVEN IF that results in many casualties among U.S.service personnel and civilians in other countries.

Statements about the Use of Force and Military Power

Table 1 — Post-Forum Questionnaire Responses






83% 11%

63% 27%


Support of emerging democracies will, in the long run, enhance our ownnational security.

Working to spread and maintain democracy in other countries will increase stability in the world.


60% 33%

42% 48%

53% 37%


Our goal as Americans in the twenty-first century should be to help citizens of other countries develop stable democracies.

We should cut ties with foreign dictators who refuse to honor democratic values.

We must invest heavily in helping to build democracy in unstable countries like Afghanistan, EVEN IF this is very costly.

Statements about Promoting Democracy in Other Countries


59% 34%

54% 29%


When developing countries become more prosperous, they are less likely to threaten other countries.

Free trade benefits U.S. consumers by lowering prices.


60% 25%

54% 27%

44% 41%


We should reduce or eliminate trade barriers wherever possible.

We should make it easier for foreigners to invest in businesses in theUnited States.

We must promote free trade policies, EVEN IF this sometimes causesAmerican workers to lose their jobs.

Statements about Economic Development and Free Trade

31October 2004




81% 14%

81% 15%


The United States should take the lead in forging global agreements on the environment.

The real threats to us are long-term global problems, such as AIDS andpollution, that know no national borders.


90% 7%

78% 16%

82% 11%


The United States should take the lead in global efforts to combat the spread of contagious diseases, such as AIDS.

Working with other countries to tackle chronic poverty and similar problems overseas should be a higher priority for the United States than it is now.

We must work with other countries to address worldwide problems suchas global warming, EVEN IF that means requiring all manufacturers tobuild higher-priced, more fuel-efficient cars.

Statements about Leadership on Long-term Global Issues



Appendix C:

Forum Transcript Excerpts

An Example of Deliberation about the Use of ForceColumbia, Missouri, November 20, 2003

Moderator: Does the use of military power to secure the peace makethe United States safer?

First man: Yes, it does, because people respect power [and are there-fore less likely to be aggressive].

First woman: But history shows that you can’t keep that up [and thatmilitary power by itself is not sufficient]. Look at the Romans.Theyhad all that military power yet [even] they eventually fell.

First man: Yes, but the Romans were the first country to gain territo-ry and to rebuild what they conquered, [which is what the UnitedStates did in Japan and Germany, and what it will do again in Iraq].That’s why [the Romans] lasted so long.

Second man: Right, the U.S. strategy is not just a military strategy. Itincludes butter as well as guns.

Third man: But military strength by itself does not necessarily makeyou safer. [There are other considerations.]

Fourth man: [I oppose the preemptive use of force.] Taking unilateral military action is a very big risk. I think that countries should live bythe Golden Rule.

Second woman: But war generally can’t be avoided.

Third woman: Yes, but what happens when we run out of money topay for our wars?

Third man: [The war in Iraq has been counterproductive because]there are more terrorists now than there were two years ago.

Third woman: What I don’t understand is why we went to war againstIraq but not against North Korea.

Approach 1

33October 2004


An Example of Deliberation about the Preemptive Use of ForceDenver, Colorado, February 20, 2004

First man: If we look in history, when anything was forced on anation or a people—unless they were totally destroyed, such as the Indian nation in this country—there was always a very violentreaction.… I think that when we force ourselves on a nation or agroup of people it has [always] cost some tremendous number oflives.… It has proven in the past that it doesn’t work out.

Second man: If you look at East Timor or Rwanda, far more peopledied there than under Saddam…. Everyone knew there was going tobe a slaughter in Rwanda but [stopping it] would have taken a big tollin human casualties and it would not have been a popular war andour president would not have been elected. East Timor [is a conflict]we haven’t even heard about.

First woman: I think we’re on the verge, if not already crossing theline of being a bully.… I just disagree 95 percent with what we’redoing right now [in Iraq].

Third man: I disagree [with all of you]. You have to act. You can’t justsit back and wait for something to happen.

Second woman: Be prepared. As Americans we need to be prepared.Do we need to start the fight? Not necessarily.

Fourth man: I guess overall I’ve always been somewhat hawkish.My first priority [is that] this nation should maintain a strong armed forces and for our own protection. I do think we have to be preemptive from time to time.

Third woman: I never understood about the bombing of the towers.By the time they did the background checks on those people, theywere mostly Saudi Arabian. But if you listen to the news, they’realways blaming it on the Iraqis.… If you look at the media and theway it’s presented to the people, it’s like [Iraq] did it and nobodyeven mentioned Saudi Arabia. But all of them were from Saudi Arabia.

First man: I know there are times when we have to have a preemp-tive strike on certain things.… The hard part about policing theseother places is that once you get in there—I mean, it kills me everynight I watch TV and see two or three soldiers dead.… The hardpart is that once you start, the United States can’t back out of there now. I mean, now we’re going to police that place until hellfreezes over.



An Example of Deliberation about Human Rights and DemocracyEnglewood, New Jersey, January 8, 2004

First woman: South Africa existed under the apartheid regime formany, many years. And it’s because of public opinion and the publicoutside of South Africa supporting the students and the children thata revolution started to overthrow the existing regime.We need toeducate the people and show them the support from the outside andhelp them with their fight for freedom. So that’s what we need to do,is to support when people’s human rights are being violated.

First man: And that’s a hard thing to do, to support the people tooverthrow their government. I mean, how do you get the supportinto those people to say, you’ve got to change your government,you’ve got to step up and say, ‘no more of this.’ I think it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort.

First woman: But it’s easier than going in and just bombing everybody.

First man: It’s still going to take violence to do it.

First woman: Oh, absolutely. And now that there’s a democratic government there, that’s where we should be focusing our energies,to help them develop, mold it, and get it going.

Approach 2

35October 2004


Approach 3

An Example of Deliberation about Free and Fair Trade New Orleans, Louisiana, January 28, 2004

Moderator: How is Louisiana affected by free trade?

First Man: The seafood industry is hurting here because of it.

Second Man: I think the biggest downside to it is, fair is fair and most countries don’t play fair. In order to have free trade it has to be fair.

First Woman: It’ll never be fair. I don’t think that’s something you canever regulate.

Second Man: I don’t think we can regulate that between the parishesof Louisiana much less the rest of the world.

First Woman: It’s even harder to regulate countries that don’t think in a democratic way. That’s going to be hard.

An Example of Deliberation about Free TradeNew Orleans, Louisiana, January 28, 2004

First Man: I think an open market is a good thing. If you choose to be in the sugar business and someone does it cheaper and better,you suffer the economic consequences of it.… And in a free tradesituation or in a global economy you have more choices.

First Woman: I can make a choice. I can stay in Louisiana or I canmove to Arkansas.

First Man: But I don’t think our government should be making choices about protecting our industries.… If it’s done someplace elsecheaper and better, we shouldn’t be interfering with the choice.

First Woman: But a lot of stuff that they import isn’t always better.

First Man: You have a choice. You don’t have to buy the bad car if you don’t want to. You don’t have to buy the shrimp from China.



Approach 4

An Example of Deliberation about the EnvironmentKilleen, Texas, Spring, 2003

First woman: I think a good example of our responsibility on theseglobal issues is SARS. We’ve taken the lead in trying to figure it out.And it’s not really affecting us that much. I think it’s a good model for other global problems.

Second woman: I think the gist of this approach is to drop our borders and I get a little concerned about that. I think a sharing ofideas on how to improve the environment, which we have done inthis country, is good. We recognize problems. For example, we havecorrected what the air was like in our refineries. And we cleaned thatup. But if we start to put ourselves in a position where a committeeof other countries might be dictating how we use our property or what access we have to our water, I start to get very concerned.I still think we still have some property rights we have to protect andwe can’t allow a world global view or policy dictate how we run thiscountry. But I think we really have taken the lead on a lot of theseglobal issues.

First man: I think that hits it on the head. We’re concerned about aglobal view dictated by somebody else. We’re fine with the globalview as long as we’re the ones dictating the direction.The planetdoesn’t belong to us. It belongs to all of us. It belongs to future gener-ations. It’s an incredible responsibility we have to not only our chil-dren but our great-grandchildren down the road. We have done a lotin this country to protect the environment, but we don’t really haveregard for our industries polluting and spoiling the land in othercountries. We don’t take a global view of some of the things we holddear. What I find disturbing is the Kyoto treaty that we turned down.

Second man: Who signed the Kyoto treaty? Romania was the onecountry in the world that signed the Kyoto treaty. They followed ourlead. Maybe they know leadership when they see it. Countries have torepresent themselves and have to negotiate in good faith with others.But you can’t give up your sovereignty and let other people run yourgovernment.

Third woman: If I were to go down to the Mexican border and tellthem to keep their air over there, that we don’t want it, it just wouldn’t work. We share this planet. This has to be an internationalproblem.

37October 2004


An Example of Deliberation about Helping Other Countries Fight DiseasesAustin, Texas, May 15, 2003

First woman: I’m all for the approach. We need to be a global worldand be involved in globalization. But we need to share research onmedicines, research on cures for AIDS and cancer. Do we also sharetechnologies? And where do the intellectual property rights come in? Many countries cannot afford to do the research on all of theseillnesses, but do we have the right to hold the intellectual propertyrights on this technology?

Second woman: I definitely agree that we have intelligence in the medical area that other countries can’t afford to have or they don’thave yet, such as with the AIDS crisis in Africa. I definitely agree withthe fact that we should share what we know and we should shareour supplies. While it does seem far away, it’s only a matter of timebefore it comes to us.

First man: The one question I would ask is who is the ‘we’ we aretalking about? There’s the ‘we’ as in the government that representsus and there’s the ‘we’ of all of society including all of the corpora-tions and various private actors. I wouldn’t want the government ofthe United States to have to give, give, give to all the countries of theworld. That might set a really bad precedent for the future. Maybethe government could subsidize certain businesses that contribute toforeign economies and that contribute to the kind of technology thatwe have in the United States, especially medical technology. By doingthat, it would improve the rest of the world. The more we give toindividual actors in improving other parts of the world, the more wewould be setting a better precedent.

Second man: I think ‘we’ is simply we human beings. It’s one worldand we are sitting in it. You don’t choose to live on Mars. We’re allhere and we’re here to stay, hopefully for many more generations.

Second woman: I think a lot of the times, we have to look at it as,what if this were happening to us? What would we want the rest ofthe world community to do? A lot of times we don’t look at it likethat. What if it were the United States that was going through a crisis? Would we want so much hesitation? I really do think it’s time for us to consider the other side.



Appendix D:

Methodology

In preparing this analysis of people’sthinking about “Americans’ Role in theWorld,” Doble Research drew on a sampleof forums in 37 states from the hundredsof forums that took place across the country. Six research methods were used:

Moderator Interviews We conducted telephone interviews

with moderators who led forums in 22locations. We asked them to describe people’s main concerns, their startingpoints on the issue, the costs and conse-quences they took into consideration, andthe shared understanding or commonground for action that emerged. The forums were held at:

1. Coachwhip Hollow, Austin, TX

2. Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC

3. Columbus & Worthington Library, NW, Columbus, OH

4. Daniel Boone Regional Library, Columbia, MO

5. Duncan Hall, West Lafayette, IN

6. Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie, NY

7. Erskine College, Due West, SC

8. Franklin Pierce College, Rindge, NH

9. Gateway Community College, Phoenix, AZ

10. Johnson County Library, Overland Park, KS

11. LBJ Presidential Library, Austin, TX (two)

12. McDaniel College, Westminster, MD

13. Metro High School, Cedar Rapids, IA

37 States

Shaded States = Forums

39October 2004


14. Modesto Junior College, Modesto, CA

15. Pennsylvania Governors’ School, Pittsburgh, PA

16. Ponca City Library, Ponca City, OK

17. Southern Connecticut State Univ., New Haven, CT

18. Temple Tiffereth Israel, Bexley, OH

19. University of Delaware Paradee Center, Dover, DE

20. University Center at Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT

21. University of Georgia, Athens, GA

22. Whitney Senior Center, St. Cloud, MN

Forum Observations We observed six National Issues

Forums, listening to initial concerns andlearning how deliberation influenced people’s thinking. In addition, we interviewed two participants and themoderator after each forum. These forums were held at:

1. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

2. Lovett Memorial Library, Philadelphia, PA

Special thanks to the convenors and moderators who shared their forumreflections with us:

Sonja Ahuja, Martha Bergin, BarbaraBrown, Michelle Charles, Brad Colton,Mona Connolly, Mike D’Innocenzo, Renee Daugherty, Joel Diemond, MikeDineen, Joni Doherty, Larkin Dudley,Jeffrey Greene, Lynn Hanson, LeonHellerman, Sandra Hodge, Annette Hunt, Chris Kloth, Donna Lauffer,Melinda Ludwiczak, Bill McGowan, Mike Menefee, Michelle Reid, SarahSattelmeyer, Reena Shetty, JenniferShinaberger, Sue Darst Tate, TaylorWillingham, Sue Williams, Anne Wolford, Martin Zonligt

3. Minneapolis Skyway Senior Center, Minneapolis, MN

4. Redlands Community College, El Reno, OK

5. Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, FL

6. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

We analyzed four videotaped forums.

1. Station KLRU, Austin, TX 2. Station KNCT, Killeen, TX 3. West Virginia (two)

We analyzed the results of two online forums.

1. By the People—forums in six locations—Spring 2003

2. SeniorNet online forums—September 2003

Questionnaire Results After a forum, participants were asked

to fill out a questionnaire that frames the issue and identifies key tradeoffs fordifferent choices. We analyzed a total of1,486 post-forum questionnaires, receivedbetween April 2003 and April 2004.

Research Forums We conducted four research forums or

focus groups, each with a demographicallyrepresentative cross-section of up to adozen people. The sessions paralleled NIFforums in that participants viewed thestarter video, deliberated together aboutthe four choices for about three- and one-half hours and filled out the post-forumquestionnaires. The research forums wereheld in:

1. Memphis, TN 10/01/03 2. Englewood, NJ 01/08/04 3. New Orleans, LA 01/28/04 4. Denver, CO 02/20/04



Appendix E:

Demographics

Percent of Total

Suburban 37%

Small town 27%

Large city 22%

Rural 8%

No answer 6%

Percent of Total

17 or younger 14%

18-29 52%

30-49 9%

50-64 14%

65 or older 8%

No answer 4%

Age

Location

Percent of Total

African American 5%

Asian American 6%

Hispanic/Latino 4%

Native American 1%

White/Caucasian 77%

Other 4%

No answer 5%

Percent of Total

Male 47%

Female 42%

No answer 11%

Gender

Ethnicity

NIF Forum Participants N = 1,486

41October 2004


Percent of Total

High school or less 35%

Some college 31%

College graduate or more 35%

Percent of Total

18-35 29%

36-54 39%

55+ 33%

Age

Education

Percent of Total

Suburban 24%

Small town 0%

Large city 76%

Rural 0%

Location

Percent of Total

African American 27%

Asian American 2%

Hispanic/Latino 4%

White/Caucasian 67%

Percent of Total

Male 49%

Female 51%

Gender

Ethnicity

Focus Group Participants N = 49



Democracy and human rightsare the core values for whichthis nation stands. We mustdo all we can to promoteworldwide expansion ofdemocracy as the most practi-cal and promising way tosecure peace and stability. Inthe long run, it is our besthope for keeping America safe. We must supportactions that reward democratic nations whilerefusing to deal with those that will not movetoward democracy.

What Should Be Done?n Increase foreign economic assistance.

n Cut ties to foreign dictators who refuse to honor human rights or democratic values.

n Use American military force to intervene when democraticregimes anywhere in the world are threatened.

n Push for, and take part in, greatly expanded programs ofeducational and foreign exchanges.

Tradeoffsn Helping people establish a democratic way of life, especial-

ly those in developing countries, will be very costly. Theeffort may well curtail military or domestic programs.

n In many cases, as in Granada and Panama, the U.S. mayhave to use force to restore or install democratic regimes.

What Critics Sayn We need to understand what democracy can realistically

achieve. In many countries, it has delivered considerablyless than the people expected.

n Pushing our values and political system amounts to cultural imperialism.

n This approach, which would involve us in every region ofthe world, is unrealistic and overly ambitious.

Approach TwoThe Democratic Project: Ensuring People’s Rights

America is the only nation in the world with sufficient military power to keepdestructive forces in check,and thus maintain stabilityaround the world. Becausehostile forces may presentthreats against the U.S., wemust be prepared to act preemptively—and unilaterally when necessary—to maintain our ownsecurity and world order. We must be willing tocut domestic programs and even institute a draft to keep our military position strong.

What Should Be Done?n Be prepared to act preemptively and unilaterally if

necessary.

n Press our allies to join us in coordinated international efforts to fight terrorism and the threat of weapons of massdestruction.

n Reinstate the draft to ensure that there will be enoughtrained personnel to carry out multifaceted operations.

n Accept higher taxes and reduce domestic spending to pay for building up the defense budget.

Tradeoffsn The human costs of fighting a war are likely to result in

substantial casualties to both U.S. troops and civilians in the combat zone.

n In wartime, U.S. interests will require maintaining close,friendly relationships with undemocratic regimes such asthose in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

What Critics Sayn Pursuing this course may well lead us into an endless spiral

of violent reprisals.

n The U.S. is not invulnerable. In the long run we would be better off building alliances, rather than going it alone.

n Preemptive strikes set a dangerous precedent for other nations.

Approach OneInternational Order:Using Our Power to Secure the Peace

Appendix F:

Issue Map

43October 2004


The most pressing problemsfacing us today are long-termthreats that acknowledge noborders. Problems such asdwindling water supplies,AIDS, and environmental pollution are serious world-wide threats that affect, orwill soon affect, all of us. Wecannot deal with these problems alone. We mustcommit ourselves to working cooperativelythrough international organizations and withother nations to ensure a safe and rewardingfuture for all of us.

What Should Be Done?n Take the lead in cooperative multinational efforts

to deal with global problems such as AIDS and environmental pollution.

n Accept and support the goals of international agreements,even if they are less than wholly satisfying.

n Share medical knowledge and medicines with other countries to help fight AIDS.

n Set an example for preserving the world’s environmentalresources—such as by cutting domestic energy use.

Tradeoffsn Americans may have to make sacrifices (such as not

driving gas-guzzling SUVs) if we commit ourselves tointernational coalitions dedicated to solving worldwideproblems.

n This approach means that we will need to reconsider the refusal of our government to abide by internationalagreements, such as the Kyoto accords or the elimination of land mines.

What Critics Sayn Spending billions of dollars trying to solve the world’s ills

will deprive us of funds needed for domestic needs.

n We don’t need international agreements to get results. Forexample, Americans are already working in various waysto improve the environment.

n Many of the alarming forecasts about impending globalcatastrophes are contested opinions. No one can knowwhat the future holds.

Our economic strength is the underlying reason forAmerica’s prosperity and itspreeminent position in theworld. Global stabilitydepends on raising the stan-dard of living in the rest ofthe world. To help achievethat we must rigorously pro-mote the principles of free trade. Chiefly, thismeans knocking down the barriers that haveheretofore protected businesses—American busi-nesses included—from global competition.

What Should Be Done?n Make free trade the guiding principle in public policies

and international agreements.

n Resist pressure to provide protection from global competition for specific industries.

n Provide more resources to retrain and relocate workers displaced by foreign competition.

n Support citizen actions aimed at ensuring human rights forworkers in foreign companies that sell products in the U.S.

Tradeoffsn In the short term, free trade can cause wrenching

dislocations for American workers and encourage sweatshops or child labor in some other nations.

n Globalization may lead to a certain standardization of products that wipes away longtime cultural distinctions.

What Critics Sayn A world dominated by global corporations focused on

maximizing profit is hostile to the interests of most people.

n Companies in other countries from whom we buy cheaper products may allow human rights abuses.

n We have learned from the past that globalization has steadily increased the gap between the rich and the poor.

Approach ThreeThe Global Market Prescription:Lifting All Boats

Approach FourPreserving Our Global Future:Facing the Hard Tasks

The formation of public opinionabout complex issues is a dynamicprocess, a work in progress, not a fin-ished product. Doble Research is a non-partisan, public interest consulting firmthat maps out people’s thinking by iden-tifying what they think before learningmore about an issue, then laying outhow their thinking evolves as they con-

sider other points of view and have time to deliberate. We give clients a blueprintof how and why people feel as they do—A Map, Not a Snapshot.™



About Doble Research Associates

Clients and Partner Organizations:

Foundations The Center for Crime, Communities, and

Culture (Open Society Institute) The Chiesman Foundation The Community Life Foundation of

Owensboro, KYThe Public Life Foundation of Owensboro (PLFO) The Englewood Community Foundation The Fetzer Institute The Walter and Elise Haas Fund The Hager Educational Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The Kellogg Foundation The Kettering Foundation The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation The Peninsula Community Foundation The Pew Charitable Trust The Seva Foundation

Government Agencies The Board of Pardons and Parole, State of Georgia The Department of Corrections,

Cedar Rapids, Iowa The Department of Corrections, State of Indiana The Department of Corrections, State of Vermont The Environmental Protection Agency The Governor’s Family Council, State of Delaware The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) The National Parks Service, Nebraska Vermont Commission on Public Healthcare

Values and Priorities The State of Vermont Department of Corrections

Public Service Organizations The American Judicature Society Audubon Area Community Services,

Owensboro, Kentucky The Buckeye Association for School

Administrators The Center for Community Corrections The Center for Effective Public Policy The Center for Sex Offender Management

(CSOM) The Cleveland Summit on Education The Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors The Council of State Governments,

Eastern Regional Office

The Crime & Justice Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

The Educational and Social Science Consortium The General Federation of Women’s Clubs

(GFWC) The Harwood Institute International Research & Exchanges, Ukraine The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) The National Conference of State Legislatures The National Academy of Social Insurance National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) The Oklahoma State-Centered Project The Pennsylvania Prison Society The Points of Light Foundation Public Agenda The South Carolina State-Centered Project The Southern Growth Policies Board The Southern Regional Council The Study Circle Resources Center (SCRC) The Upper Room Weavings, A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life The West Virginia Center for Civic Life The Western Governors’ Association

States The State of Indiana The State of New Hampshire The State of North Carolina (Sentencing

Commission) The State of Oregon The State of South Carolina

Colleges and Universities The College of DuPage The Institute on Criminal Justice, University

of Minnesota The Mershon Center at The Ohio State University The University of California at Davis The University of Delaware

Corporations Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo, Inc.Simon and Schuster, Prentice Hall DivisionWeiner’s Stores, Inc.

45October 2004


National Issues Forums (NIF) is anonpartisan, nationwide network of locally sponsored public forums forthe consideration of public policyissues. It is rooted in the simple notionthat people need to come together to reason and talk—to deliberate aboutcommon problems. Indeed, democ-racy requires an ongoing deliberativepublic dialogue.

These forums, organized by a variety of organizations, groups, andindividuals, bring people together totalk about public issues. They rangefrom small or large group gatheringssimilar to town hall meetings, tostudy circles held in public places or in people’s homes on an ongoingbasis.

Forums focus on an issue such as health care, immigration, SocialSecurity, or ethnic and racial tensions.The forums provide a way for peopleof diverse views and experiences toseek a shared understanding of theproblem and to search for commonground for action. Forums are led by trained, neutral moderators, and use an issue discussion guide that frames the issue by presentingthe overall problem and then three or four broad approaches to the problem. Forum participants work through the issue by considering each approach; examining whatappeals to them or concerns them,and also what the costs, consequences,and tradeoffs may be that would beincurred in following that approach.

About National Issues Forums



The Charles F. KetteringFoundation was founded in 1927 “to sponsor and carry out scientificresearch for the benefit of humanity.”Inspired by the open-mindedness andcreative philosophy of its founder, the American inventor Charles F.Kettering, the foundation’s work hasexpanded to include research on education, international affairs, anddemocracy.

Kettering believed in sticking withbig problems and taking them on inall their complexity, not breakingthem into pieces. One needed, he wasfond of saying, to “learn how to fail intelligently”—to develop and test new ideas and then to learn fromwhat happened. Few important questions, he believed, were simple.One had to get at “the problembehind the problem.” DuringKettering’s lifetime, the foundation’swork focused on projects he foundinteresting: basic scientific research on photosynthesis and cancer, as well as grants to promote scientificeducation and work-study programsat colleges and universities.

Building on these varied interests in the 1960s, the trusteesbegan to explore new areas like civic education and governmentalaffairs. Major projects included

About the Kettering Foundation

I/D/E/A/ (Institute for Develop-ment of Educational Activities, Inc.),which worked to use the latest theories of primary and secondaryeducation to change the way childrenwere taught, and the DartmouthConferences, a series of high-level discussions between prominent citizens of the United States and the Soviet Union. (The foundationbegan to cosponsor the conferences in 1969.)

In the 1970s, Kettering reorganized itself as a private operating foundation. Instead of making grants, the foundation began conducting its own research.Working with outside collaborators,Kettering staff began exploring fields such as education, urban affairs, science and technology, andinternational relations. As that work evolved, researchers at the foundation began to believe that lasting solutions to the world’s problems were increasingly social and political in nature rather thantechnical and scientific. Moving awayfrom its tradition of basic scientificresearch, the foundation began tofocus on basic political research—striving to understand how citizensand political systems can work together.

The primary question addressed by its research today is “What does it take to make democracy work as it should?”

200 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2799 (937) 434-7300; (800) 221-3657

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-4478

6 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 (212) 686-7016

www.ketter ing.org

public thinking about americans' role in the world pdf

News & Politics