Transcripts For CSPAN3 Foreign Policy Survey Discussion 20240714

Good morning and welcome to the wilson center. I hope you liked our movie and i think you will really like this event. Chicago council engage or retreat. Im jane harmon, the president and ceo of the wilson center. Im a rm toer nineterm member of congress. And happy to be here, a place where we engage in bipartisan, civil conversation. Deep research and active thinking about the future of our world. In that spirit, let me introduce the fifth time that evo dalder and the Chicago Council is here. Its a Great Partnership that we have with the Chicago Council and in this report and prior reports its an enduring alliance. Its also reassuring to me to learn the good news in this report. That by huge bipartisan margins continue to support an active u. S. Role in Foreign Policy and world affairs. Much of the vision for that role, a little brag here started with Woodrow Wilson. Who served as president a century ago. Wilsons words are on the wall. Part of the quotes say this. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war. But the right is more precious than peace. And we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts. For democracy, for the right of those who submit to short in their own government. For a universal dminian of right. But a concert of such at least free. That was wilsons vision a century ago. He tried hard. He died trying, literally. But a hundred years later, were still struggling with the challenges that he raised. And at times like this, as the audience in this auditorium and online knows, this center and the chicago counsel had are needed more than ever to connect deep leadership. Welcome to our panel today. Especially to our dear friend and repeat presenter ambassador evoda dalder. I stayed with our former twoterm member from texas and on the wall was evo dalder. And we have had a succession of great ambassadors to nato including her. She has the tougher brief, id say. But shes there and no one should forget, no one, two days before 9 11 that on 9 11 without being asked nato invoked article five and was ready to come to our defense. Richard fontaine is executive director for north america of the Trilateral Commission. Which is a group many of you have heard of. Im on the executive committee but its back and trying to play a more active role in international affairs. And finally we have the woman who knows everything. Chicago Council Senior fellow who will amplify parts of the report. So the program is that i sit down, which im going to do right now, and ask them questions to illicit some of their views. Then guess what. We want the smartest audience in the world, that would be you, to ask some questions. Not make speeches. But identify yourselves and ask questions. And i see in the audience a Wilson Council member Michael Waller who is a great consumer of our stuff as i hope all of you are. So welcome to this panel. And lets get going. Es vo, as this is our fifth rodeo, i think. Theres some dispute about the fourth or fifth. But weve decided its the fifth rodeo. I am recalling that all your reports, all your good reports, all said basically the same thing. Not identity things, but the same thing. That americans by overwhelming majoriti majorities in the five years or four years since we started doing this, weve had a change in government and a change in many of our government policies. Yet by and large Public Opinion has stayed pretty constant. Why do you think this is . Well, i think the public has a basic view about how the United States needs to engage. And it hasnt really changed even from the cold war period into the postcold war period to whatever period were living in now. I dont want to characterize it in any way except to say its different. And that is fundamentally has bought into what we now call the sort of what we now call the postwar rules based International Order and an american role within it as the leader of that order. Not only as a country that has created but continues to maintain and shape International Order based on three fundamental principles. This poll once again reaffirms americas commitment to those principles. Number one, that we engage the world in Security Affairs through allies and alliances and we have u. S. Public opinion supporting alliances now at greater levels than at any time in the 45 years we have been polling, including that organization we just talked about, nato. U. S. Support, public support for nato in order to maintain or increase the u. S. Commitment to nato is now at its highest level in 45 years. U. S. Support for nato as an essential to American Security is the highest since we first asked the question in 2002. U. S. Support for alliances in asia and in the middle east remains extremely high, as does the question of whether the u. S. Should use its troops to defend its allies. So in all of those ways, Public Opinion remains robustly supportive of alliances. The second way in which we have tried to maintain this order is through an open economic system, based on the concept of trade. And, again, the u. S. Public is more supportive of trade now than it has been at any time weve asked questions about trade. Including belief that trade is good for the American Economy. 87 of americans, thats a large number, 87 of americans think trade is good for the u. S. Economy and good for american companies. Finally, one of the we did in this report, weve been asking the question, which comes from gallup so it goes back to 1946, which u. S. Play an active role in Foreign Affairs or stay away . This year as last year, we have reached near record high. 69 of americans think we should play an active role. Then were asked, what do you mean by an active role . When you say an active role does it include or exclude the following . It means alliances, International Trade agreements. The third most important most support is promoting democracy and human rights. Still the fundamental belief that the United States has to be a beacon for freedom and beacon for democracy and human rights. Not necessarily to do so through the uses of military force, but as an idea that is central to americas role in the world, democracy and human rights along with trade and alliances, the three sort of fundamental pillars in Foreign Policy are now as supported as they have ever been in the time ive been asking these questions. So, am i watching a different movie . In the last several years ive seen statements from senior government officials, whoever they may be, that cast some doubt on whether were truly committed to nato and if they dont pay their full share, maybe were not and if were now moving money away from military construction to pay for a wall, we expect nato allies to make up the difference to the extent that some of the projects were in there, in their countries. In spite of all that, the American Public stays constant. And they are not are they not buying into that or theyre just tuning that out or why is this happening . Theyre not only tuning it out but theyre rejecting it. Two very important findings. When you ask, as we have, do you think alliances in europe or in asia or the middle east benefit mostly the allies, mostly ourselves or are mutually beneficial, a large majority says they either are mutually beneficial or benefit the United States. So european alliances get supported. 60. Are either mutually beneficial or 65 . Or benefit the United States. Only 20 of americans think what the president thinks, which is that theyre beneficial only for the allies. The same is true on trade. When we ask the question, do you think trade is useful for those we are trading with, us or for both . Overwhelmingly the answer is both. So this idea of a transactional alliance, the transactional relationship where we do stuff in return for payment, whether it is nato payment or something else, as opposed to we do stuff because its of the mutual interest of both of us, winwin rather than winlose is fundamental to the american conception of our role. By the way, it has been for 75 years. The president is trying to move away from that. And as far as we can tell, hes not succeeding with the American Public when it comes to Foreign Policy. Dina, did you want to add something to that . Exactly what he said but also weve been tracking it over the past three years since trumps been in office. In fact, you might expect some of the America First type of policies to get more traction, but instead weve seen the opposite. We have even higher numbers of american now saying alliances are mutually beneficial. We have super majorities that say trade benefits u. S. Companies, the u. S. Economy and relations with the United States and other countries. So, its even underscoring what theyve always said over the last 45 years. Let me probe that more with you after turning to richard. I want to ask you one thing. The trump base is more or less constant at about 39 ish. If you do the math with the support that some of these policies have, they have more support if the trump base supports trump and trumps policies, and thats 39 , how do 82 support some of the other stuff you were just talking about . Well, the loudest part of the elites on the trump side and the activists that believe the same thing, theyre louder and they take up more space in the media and in the public discourse. So but so they still capture that portion of the trump vote. And they care more, perhaps, about some of these issues than the average american who doesnt always have the time and attention to pay to things about alliances, but thats where issues like immigration and Climate Change were going to get to those because im interested there are some issues that are divisive that are single issues which might attract some voters or that might be what they are most engaged about. Right. But as we head to 9 11, the 18th anniversary, an issue like nato is on my mind because of what nato was prepared to do. And its the only time nato involved article 5. And nick burns, who was then our ambassador to nato, weve had a slew of excellent ambassadors, nick burns, who is a professor at harvard and runs the Foreign Policy group for aspen newt, nick burns said he didnt ask, he was just told were invoking article 5. Thats pretty darn amazing. Richard, we havent talked about congress. You did work there in one lifetime for a hero of mine named john mccain two lifetimes. Two lifetimes. Whose voice is sorely missed right now. I would like you to think about john mccain and what john mccain taught so many of us about Foreign Policy. For anyone who missed this movie, another movie, john mccain was the leader of many congressional delegations on international trips. I went on at least ten of his codels to the Munich Security Conference in munich, germany, in february. And then ive attended it another decade since. But john mccain, among other things, was the pid piper of Foreign Policy for congress. And he taught all of us how to think about a world and its challenges. So, richard, it would be helpful just because i think it fills out some of what were learning here to tell us about and also tell us about what youre doing at cnsas and the Trilateral Commission and how a how a person outside this report thinks about what theyve just achieved . Sure. Well, i think some of the findings in this particular report would coincide where with where senator mccain came down with americas role in the world. Ivo touched on this but since the end of world war ii, there have been three animating principles of u. S. Foreign policy. To keep the peace we would have strong alliances underwritten by the forward deployment of american troops to increase prosperity wed had an economic undergirded by free trade, and support the freedom we would have bias in favor of democratic systems as opposed to autocrats. And the debate between republicans and democrats and conservatives and liberals is more about how you do those things, how you make the tradeoffs, when do you embrace friendly, how big a military do you need . Not whether we do those things. I think weve gotten to a time when theres a lot of questions at the most senior levels about whether those are the right principles. Its good to have alliances. Is it good to have free trade or should we be tariff people . Is it really good to promote democracy or poke our noses in places where its not welcome . And the findings of this seem to support the traditional view. Of course, then you get into the arguments about how to do it all and Everything Else but its not a reputation. Its not the fundamental questions of those principles you might guess from our policies and our political discourse right now. The fact there does seem to be, though, the public feeling one way and our policy makers not just the president but a lot of Democratic Candidates and others who seem to be in a different place suggest, to me, that its not just the sheer numbers but also the intensity of the feeling among minorities. Which is what dina said, on both ends of the spectrum. Trade is a perfect example of this. Its diffuse consequences and costs. Raise your hand if you feel the costs associated with the aluminum tariffs. Probably nobody can feel that, although theres a cost. Lets try that. Does anyone feel those costs . For those watching online, i think there was one hand. If you work in the aluminum industry and you were going to lose your job, even though the cost to the American Economy of keeping that job was 700,000 and its certainly not your salary, then you feel it a lot more strongly. Youre more likely to vote on that issue. Youre more likely to lobby your government on this issue, more likely to mobilize on this issue other than those that feel it. That is a relevant factor as we think through all of this. If john mccain were still in the senate, i wish he were, what would he be saying right now . Hed probably be on a plane to afghanistan right now. And i think hed be wondering a couple of things. One, as he did, frankly, until his passing a year ago, one is, if we adopt a policy of retrenchment, retreat, disengagement, whatever you want to call it, what comes next . Is it true if the United States steps back, whether militarily, diplomatic, economically, then they step up and fill the gap in do things in our interest, i think the answer would be no. I think his answer would be no. Is it the case that we can sort of get out of afghanistan, for example, and ask the taliban for assurances theyll behave and theyll treat women and girls appropriately, that they wont overthrow the government, they wont form a sanctuary for isis and al qaeda and that we can we can have it all. We dont have to be there. And we can have what we want out of that. Again, the answer is no. That puts a set of requirements on the United States for engagement. That then gets back to the more Traditional International Foreign Policy that so many of our political leaders say they dont see support for. Let me just stay on that for one minute because no one has missed the news in the last 24 hours about the cancelled talks with the taliban at camp david. I want everyone in congress except for one person voted to authorize the use of military force against those who attacked us based in afgt. I voted for it. Barbara lee was the only no vote of 535 votes. And she did that as a matter of principle and i respect her courage in doing that. At any rate, we prosecuted our case. I would say looking back, especially when you add in iraq, that we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for either of the wars. And were still in them, especially the one in afghanistan. But my question is, if we didnt have an adequate day after strategy for the wars, do we have any day after strategy for getting out of the wars . Well the answer is no. It looks like, i suppose, the United States would be staying in some capacity in syria, essentially pursuant to a deal that senator Lindsey Graham brokered at the Munich Security Council but the dayafter strategy seemed to be turn it over to the locals and hope things go well after we leave. In afghanistan it appears to be, lets get the best deal we can get making perfectly clear that were getting out irrespective of what preet sisly that deal looks like. But anybody whos done any of these things knows that if you want to see certain conditions after you withdrawal from a place, you have to be willing to go back in. There has to be reversibility. Does it feel like theres any reversibility to an american withdrawal from afghanistan . I dont think so. The dayafter plan is get these assurances from the taliban and kind of hope for the best. Yeah, i want to ask you, too, ivo. Its harder to go back in once youre out. What would you say about that . So, i think two things. One, in terms of Public Opinion, theres no doubt that the public has completely soured on both of these wars. Right. Afghanistan and iraq as failures of american Foreign Policy. And i think genuinely speaking, thats probably not a bad analytical judgment on their part. And i do think there are lessons to be learned. We are now in the Third Administration when it comes to afghanistan. 18 years in, almost, in this war. And not one of those administrations has ever had a serious strategy for any for afghanistan in particular. Let me just focus on afghanistan. We forgot about afghanistan within a few months of getting into it after 9 11 and focused on iraq and really didnt resource our strategy as well as we should. Ive just completed reading jim mattis book where secretary mattis, general mattis talks about the failure of getting Osama Bin Laden in tora bora and the decisions not to put the greens, which he was leading in kandahar, into the mountains to deal with that issue and everything that has come before after. I served in the obama administration. Spent four years trying to get our allies to do more in afgt. By the way, they did. One of the things we shouldnt forget is that this is a war that even today, even today, twothirds of onethird of all the forces that are in afghanistan are nonamerican. Theyre allied forces. Both nato and nonhyphenate toe allies who continue to fight along aside us. It wasnt just an american soldier who was killed on thursday. It was a romanian soldier who was killed on thursday alongside the american. But we didnt have a real strategy. Thats my point. For solving the issue. Frankly, the strategy we now have is not different from the strategy weve had in the previous administrations, which is how do we get out without anyone noticing . The problem is the other guy notices when we leave and as a result will take actions likely to be contrary not only to our interests but clearly to the interests of the afghan people. I would just add to that that strategy may be the wrong word. Were in a transaction to try to achieve a result. You said that yourself. This stuff shouldnt be win lose. It should be win win. I just want to quote something from Woodrow Wilson, because i looked at it again. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, but the right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments. And i think if john mccain were here, hed sign up for this. Just absolutely sign up for this. So, nina, lets go back to the report and, obviously, your questions can be on the report and on attitudes of the American People. You mentioned that there are two places i think its two. You mentioned it again or three, where instead of the americans pulling together with more robust support, they are pulling apart. And one of them is immigration where you say, republican fears about immigration are growing. 78 see it as a critical threat while concern among democrats is at an alltime low, 18 . Immigration, 78 to 19. Second one is Climate Change. Which is at the top of the democrats aga democrats agenda. 78 of democrats see it as critical. The third is the development of china as a world power. And the majority of republicans are concerned for the First Time Since 2002, i guess, since you started doing this. So, explain to us why consensus is growing in other areas and diminishing in these three. Yes, Climate Change and immigration have long been issues that are dividing the American People. If you look on page if you want to follow along, page 25 shows immigration as a threat. You can see that early on democrats and republicans werent really that different. Now in the trump era, republicans are actually even more fearful of immigration and democrats have been steadily declining, thinking its not a big threat. Part of that has to do with the composition of the democratic party. Its younger, more diverse than the Republican Party, which has pretty much stayed the same. Before we leave that, tell us about your polling sample because sure. It reminds me, because lets be sure that you did this perfectly. Sure. I can assure you we did. It was a sample of about 2,000 people. We use an online polling Organization Called ipsos that draws their samples from actual addresses. Its not optin polls that you see from newspapers not necessarily newspapers but online where a lot of people selfselect and answer. These people are actually chosen from a sample in a statistical way so that its nationwide representative. And on page 39 it shows you kind of how it breaks out according to different demographics. If you have questions, we can so theres a divide on immigration having to do with composition of the democratic party. Right. And its growing. Of course, in our data and others, immigration was a key factor in support for donald trump. Antiimmigration. He has amplified it in a way that other president s and l political leaders have not done. You can also see on page 26 that there is actually, despite that huge yawning gap, there is a bit of overlap. And its funny because in the past, when comprehensive Immigration Reform seemed like a possibility under the george bush administration, well point out, we asked about that. Large majorities of democrats and republicans support it. You can get a hint of that on page 26. You see that majorities of democrats, republicans and independent all support a pathconvey to citizenship for Illegal Immigrants who failed to pay taxes, have a criminal record, steady employment and a majority also, more of republicans, but still majorities also support increasing border security. Thats also bipartisan. So, that is the basis of coming to some kind of agreement. But we know that that hasnt been able to occur. Then the rest of the items on that list show that republicans are more supportive of punitive actions, imposing new fines on businesses, carrying out arrests and deportations and immigrant children. This is an area i said earlier, which richard said the intensity of the antiimmigration minority among the public has really captured so much attention and legislative what about Climate Change where you have the flip of that, where theres huge intensity for aggressive steps to combat Climate Change on the democratic side . So, we have a brief thats coming out soon and its on page 28. There is some democrats have consistently been more concerned about Climate Change. Now its one of their top threats and several polls have shown this, not just ours. Including questions about what democrats want their political the primary candidates to talk about right before the election. So, Climate Change has been growing. You know that all of the Green New Deal and a lot of the primary kaentcandidates are tal about Climate Change a lot. It could be the public has pushed the elites or the elites have pushed the public. Theyre on the same page before you read that. On the republican side, are people still denying the fact of Climate Change . Im sure theres dispute about the cause, but is anybody missing what just happened in the bahamas and what happened a couple of years ago in puerto rico and all of the hurricane damage and tornado damage in the u. S. . Yes. And the rise of heat in the summer here . We have hints polls show americans right after any of these hurricanes or major environmental disasters say, oh, yeah, were really concerned about Climate Change and it might be manmade or both manmade and cyclical. As a threat republicans have only moved a little bit, from 16 to 23 . But they have moved if you look on page 28. They are more likely now to say that theyre less likely to deny it and say, oh, were questioning whether its really a problem and more likely to say it needs to be addressed. Right now a plurality say its more likely we need to address it but gradually because these changes are happening slowly, but thats still, in my view, an improvement from questioning whether it needs to be addressed at all. And part of the political sfwlags around Climate Change actually happened probably in the 80s when the reagan era policies were concerned about regulations on businesses and wanted to do undo some of that. In the 90s, global warming, Climate Change got attached to al gore, which created politicized view like trump and russia are today. A lot of that has carried over. There are some Republican Leaders, like stalwarts like George Schultz, baker, hank paulson also has a carbon tax initiative. So, maybe as more republican elites discuss how to fix it. I would just comment. This is not specific to the current administration. I mean, i actually this will really date me, the dinosaur that i am. I worked in the carter white house. If anyone remembers jimmy carter wore sweaters to his conversations with the American People. And in the senate at the time, every other light bulb was funny we should talk about light bulbs these days was turned off on the ceiling of the Russell Office building. So, this concern started a long time ago. Its gotten uneven attention over many years. But i think at this point many more people see it as a crisis than used to. Im sure thats fair. Richard, you want to come in and we still need to talk about china. Yes. The interesting thing on the republican side on the Climate Change issue is the generational split. I love james baker and i love George Schultz but i dont think theres going to be the vanguard of changing republican views on Climate Change, but millenials might because if you look at polling not in this particular survey, but other polling including some of the republican polls they have done, millenials in general will put Climate Change as their Number One National security threat. And republican millenials will sometimes put it number one as well or number one or two. And, you know, as as has been the case, if you dont like the solution, its easier to dismiss Climate Change as the product of natural variations and things. If the solution is government regulation and Big Government and taxes and all these things as a conservative, small government conservative, but now with millenials coming in, they tend to put about twice as much as the oldest cohort on the republican side. These are selfidentified republicans to say Climate Change is real. We have to do something about it. That group is also becoming a bigger share of voters as the oldest group sort of ages out and they enter the voting base and vote more often. So, what this all nets out to is a number of Republican Leaders kind of saying internally, weve got to have a Climate Change policy or were going to start losing millenials and we may lose them forever if they no longer vote republican. And this is their number one issue. And they are already tilted im not trying to handicap which party wins. Last on china, let me just make one comment there. I was electriciti elected to c 1992. I remember china as a bipartisan punching bag in the 90s. I remember being called an agent of communist china, here i am, by one of my primary opponents, a democrat in one of my races, for back in my law practice days, lobbying for the beijing, china. That made me an agent of communist china. Some of you may agree with that. At any rate, my view is that china has consistently been on a bipartisan basis viewed as a critical threat. Frankly, just speaking as a democrat, i give President Trump credit for confronting china with some of the practices that have con founded us for a decade or more. Explain why you see china growing, the bipartisan divide growing on china and china being viewed as more of a critical threat by republicans . Yes. When we all got together at the Chicago Council and looked at the numbers on china for several years in a row, we were surprised, confounded, be wow, in washington its seen as such a big problem, an issue and threat. And the American Public doesnt seem to register that. This past year, yes, on page 2950, 4 of see china as a threat, 36 . Not a super high threat but on shift on an issue we dont usually see a shift. That has a lot to do in part with elite cues from administration. Its definitely catching on. On page 30, you can see that republicans in particular are more supportive of restricting exchange of Scientific Research between the u. S. And china, which isnt great. They are the only well, republicans, 74 support placing tariffs. 50 of independents. And so on that but a majority of republicans support limiting the number of Chinese Students studying in the United States. Its even hitting into the diplomatic realm. So, yes, the message from the white house is catching on within that constituency. We. Have 15 minutes for odd yebs questions. Raise your hand. A microphone must come to you before you speak. Identify yourself and ask a question. Do not make a speech, please. Lets do i see somebody in the very back row . No, i dont. Yes, i do. No. On the left on my left about three rows in. Yes. Hi. Im matt gessler, university of maryland. One quick point and one quick question. Quick point. We did a poll particularly on u. S. Trade in june, and found strikingly similar results. Im not going to recite them because were not supposed to be reporting, were supposed to be asking questions. One thing that has been apparently true in Public Opinion or a long period of time is a reversal of the partisan divide on trade. In the 80s and 90s democrats were more skeptical. Beginning in 2000, 2005, republicans became more trade whats your question . It seems to predate trump. Im wondering if this survey can shed any particular light on that. I know trade was just one of several issues you looked at. I think part of it has to do with the change in composition of the Republican Party. A lot of the better educated whites in particular used to be part of the Republican Party and theyve now shifted allegiance. I think thats part of the response. And part of it is because now that well, the shift upward among republicans today is partly because, i think, a lot of republicans think that President Trump can improve trade agreements. So, theyre banking on his being able to create economic positives. I would just observe that each party has a strong anti and protrade wing. I think thats been true for a long time. The protrade crowd put together is not a majority, i would say, anymore. Maybe in personal terms it is, but i think the usmca agreement, the new nafta, is going to have some tough sailing. It may get through but as part of a more comprehensive deal. I dont know if anyone else wants to comment. Ivo . Whats remarkable about the trade numbers is not the partisan differences its the part of a partisan difference. So, the difference between republicans and democrats on whether International Trade is good for the u. S. Economy is 2 percentage points. Between whether its good for american companies,ist five percentage points. And whether trade is beneficial for u. S. Relations to other countries is zero. 90 of both republicans and democrats think trade is beneficial for relations of the United States with other countries. So, we have a very strange phenomenon that, in fact, both democrats and republicans are becoming more and more protrade. I think dina is right that one of the reasons republicans are becoming more trade is because they think the president has an effective policy for promoting trade. And so when you start digging deeper, what is it we should be doing, youre going to have a much greater partisan difference. Overall, you now have a basis for thinking that trade is less of a political football than it used to be. Were going to keep questions shorter and answers shorter so we get to more of you. Right here in the third row, in the blue shirt. Then well go to you in the front row. Youre next. You dont have a mike . Put it right next to your mouth. Hello. Its my bad. I have a question about military alliances with other countries and trade. On page 16, selling weapons to other countries makes us less safer but its by 70 of americans think that. And 84 74 of the americans think that military alliances makes us safer. And 87 says International Trade is better for the u. S. And the u. S. Companies. So, what do you think of this . Good question. So, just take a fair stab at that. Americans dont like selling weapons to other countries. But whether allies we dont ask a question of allies but one exception. We ask about taiwan, whether selling weapons to taiwan is a good thing or bad thing, that was whatever page we had on the china pieces. There, too, bipartisan majorities 30. On page 30. Bipartisan majorities think selling arms to taiwan is a bad idea. So, there is just a very Strong Negative bipartisan view that selling weapons is a doesnt make americans safer. Im sure if we change the way the question gets phrased, do you think u. S. Should provide military equipment to our allies so we can fight together, im sure well get very high numbers that say, it makes sense for our allies to fly f18s when were flying f18s. As an issue, the president in particular has raised weapon sales, the be all and end all including our relationship with saudi arabia, the American People arent buying that one. Kevin barron from defense one. I wonder if you could talk deeper on u. S. Military engagement and public support for them. I heard two things. I heard, richard, you say americans support the traditional view of being robust, international, Global Engagement but at the same time ivo said its clear americans are tired of these wars. Since were talking afghanistan this week and were at that point, which one is it . Do they support afghanistan or not . I know its not that simple. So tell me what you know, why that is. Yeah, military intervention in these polls polling numbers and in others are is distinctly unpopular. And i would put in a different category from the other forms of american engagement in the world. You can see this if you define engagement as trading relations and diplomatic relations and alliances and all the other kind of things they ask about, those numbers are high. So, thats american engagement. Milita military intervention, with the perceived lack of results over the past two decades has made this a distinctly unpopular activity. That said, again, it gets to what is the intensity of the opposition. Does that automatically translate, for example, to a president say, well, the American People dont want to be in afghanistan anymore. I have to sort of pull out completely . No, i dont think so. If you look in popular opinion traditionally, support or lack of support for a war has been related to what are the costs, financially and in terms of casualties, and what are the perceived progress or lack thereof of a particular objective stated. People may not actually like it but they would acquiesce to policy makers thinking its in the interest of the United States to continue doing it. Its when they see high costs and no progress, thats when a war becomes very unpopular. Thats what weve had in these various wars over the years. And so as an enterprise, military intervention is the one element of sort of traditional american engagement thats gone downhill in the polls very quickly. I think this goes to the heart of what were seeing here, which is that in the normal Foreign Policy elite circles, which we all live in you mean in the swamp . The swamp. There is this assumption that if you are against if you think wars like iraq and afghanistan have been high cost and, perhaps, not immediate benefit, that if youre against that, then youre against all things military. And youre no longer willing to be tough. And the toughness is the willingness to intervene in other countries. This poll says something completely different. Is says that, in fact, the way you make america safe is the traditional way in which the United States has made america safe. Which is u. S. Military superiority, strong alliances, basing forces overseas, being able to defend your allies when theyre attacked. All of those, there are 50, 60, 70, 80 of our americans support that, including defending allies. 60 of the americans think the United States should use troops to defend south korea if north korea invades south korea. 54 think that u. S. Should use troops to defend nato allies like latvia, estonia, and lithuania in russia attacks. In forwardbasing continues to be strongly supported, particularly in asia. A little less in europe but still there is support for that. What there is no support for is military intervention to resolve conflicts, which is how we made the question. Yes, to defending allies. Yes, to being there. Yes, to being a deterrence but no to the kind of interventionism weve had in the past 20 to 25 years. Thats where the distinction lies. Doesnt mean if you think iraq and afghanistan are the wrong thing, that therefore you dont believe in using military force. No. It believes maybe in doing it in a stupid way, dumb wars, as one president ial candidate who turned out to be prepretty succ when he said it. That doesnt mean youre against alliances, doesnt mean youre against military force, it means you want a Strong Military presence in the World Without necessarily having to use it in places that have not proven effective. I would just add, ivo, i think this is true, that the use of military force is not our first option. Right. We have robust Lindsey Graham as an example would say this. If we have a robust diplomatic and other presence in the world. And then we can afford a lot of wars. I think everybody would be for that, including Woodrow Wilson. We have a question over here. Fourth row, second from my right. Yes, thank you. Im cindy with the voice of america. And you mentioned that the president has had some harsh words for traditional u. S. Allies. And the other side of that is that he has lavished praise on the north Korean Leader and the russian president and some other authoritarian leaders. Does your survey say anything about how americans view that . Do you think that will be important for them when they go to the voting booths . Thank you. We didnt really ask about that. We have asked about opinions of those leaders, which are low, of putin and kim jongun. Higher among republicans but its still just a small minority. I would say more i think that, perhaps, this president ial election round more than others, people will, i think, be judging just the character and the way the president imports himself to our allies in the world so its even more diffuse than a specific policy or a specific leader. Thats how it might come into play. Other questions . In the back, right there, and then were going to you in the center. Thank you. Erin hurley. My question, on page 16 when were looking at making the u. S. Safe, maintaining u. S. Military superiority. I wondered if the panel would just reflect on that finding in particular. And the current 2020 democratic president ial field in the fact that joe biden is the only one that seems to be standing fully in line with these findings. Anybody . Richard . I was going to say im not the right person probably to answer this but its washington, so what the hell. One, you have to attribute candidates to their own views and not just responsiveness to the voting public. So, we shouldnt imagine theyre only a mirror of what the pp public would support. Two, you have to look at where the intellectual energy is which is to move in a more progressive Foreign Policy direction, which means cutting the defense budget, for example, in order to plow those funds into domestic priorities. Again, beyond Vice President biden, that tends to be the talking point for most of the other candidates who have spoken out on that. I would suppose that if you asked a democratic candidate would you rather be militarily superior or inferior, i cant imagine anyone saying superior, but theres a cost and the pry other is moving those costs with lots and lots of superiority into, you know, domestic priorities. Whereas on the republican side, and part is specifically related to the china threat, if china is investing in all these kind of things. Yes, we would love domestic, but because of the threat we attribute to china in the future, it is worth now investing more in the military than we otherwise would. Yeah. The issue of increased defense spending is one that splits the moderates and conservatives of the democrats between moderate democrats and liberal democrats. That might be why theyre trying to, perhaps, avoid that topic or not hammer on it too hard right now. Also, i think the American Public just takes it for granted that we would maintain this because weve had it for years and theyve supported it for decades. I would also add the energy on the democratic side is around issues. I dont think this gets the attention as it should. I think now the focus is on Climate Change and some cultural issues and so forth. Thats where the candidates thats what theyre talking about. Theres someone in there she is. Sort of in the middle. Then were going to you in front. Were running out of time. Maybe well do a lightning round and take the last three questions. Identify yourself, please, ask your question, and then well take yours. I wondered if you look underneath the third priority, which is promoting democratic and human rights around the world and how people thought we ought to do that, since thats part of aids mission. Good. Well take this one. Dont answer yes. The one in front. Then well have a wrapup by each candidate who can answer these questions and make any other comments they would like to. Richard coleman, cbp, retired. You have a question to sharpen the focus on what was called nationbuilding and how feckless it is to go to places like afghanistan and then have no democratic tradition or even capacity that we can see . Who goes first . Ivo . On the question of how to promote democracy and human rights around the world, we didnt ask the how. We ask the whether. And to see whether americans think in general, do they think promoting democracy and human rights is useful for making america safe or not. It part of how we actively engage . But the question of how to do that, we didnt go into in detail. In the past we have looked and asked questions, to use u. S. Troops for that purpose and thats when support for using force as a means to promote democracy and human rights tends to be lower than certainly this finding where twothirds about twothirds of americans 56 of americans thinks it makes us safer if we promote democracy is and human rights. I think the two are connected. And i think thats right. Promoting democracy and human rights around the world can be done in many diplomatic ways. And i think thats probably what the American Public has in mind in that particular question. On nationbuilding, the as ivo talked about earlier, the American Public is willing to use the u. S. Troops to defend the United States or its allies against direct threats but they dont support the use of u. S. Forces getting involved in conflicts overseas that are within their own internal politics. They dont want to get involved in other civil wars like syria. Theyll support sending u. S. Troops to fight isis but not to get involved in the syrian civil war. So i dont know if that completely answers my question, but theres not a lot of support for nationbuilding in a military way. Maybe youll use this opportunity to make one last point which hasnt come up far. In addition to the trade numbers being so high, the thing ip found striking in the poll was actually on page 34 when it asked americans what the threats to the United States were. Yesterday our secretary of defense, mark esper said in a speech, great power and competition is the focus of the United States. His predecessor jim mattis said great power, competition not terrorism is the top challenge to u. S. Defense policy and the National Security strategy and National Defense strategy both reflect that. If theres anything proechling a consensus in washington on these issues is Great Power Competition is the thing we have to hyperfocus on. Look at page 34 when they ask, what are the threats to the United States . Russia and china are all the way down the list . Ahead of russia and china you have cyber attacks, terrorism, north korea, iran, Climate Change, foreign interference, political polarization, arms races, immigrants, refugees. All of those things are seen as greater priorities in this poll than the military power of russia or the development of china as a world power. That shows a great power disconnect between the policymakers and the public that is going to potentially have fairly profound impacts. The numbers on china are rising but theyre still way below all these other things. And if the policymakers who talk about great power and competition are right that this is going to require sort of a whole of society effort to wage a longterm competition, particularly with china, the American People certainly do not seem to be there. And so not only does that suggest to me that theres work to do in addressing that gap but it also suggests you cant do Great Power Competition unless you also address these other issues the American People care about. Thats a good place to end. Let me just add a point which is, for 16 years or so after 9 11, all of our security doctrine focused basically exclusively on counterterrorism. We were attacked, we were shocked, we put in place a number of policies. I was involved in a lot of that. Some of which worked, some of which were overcorrections. Now we we havent abandoned the goal but were focused on something else. The American People are saying, through this very good polling, wait a minute, this is what we care about. This is what our country stands for. Its very important to step back and take a deep breath and try to make sure that whats going on in this bubble of washington is in touch with the country. And thats what the Chicago Council has done, again, and thats what it showed up to present here, again. And that is why were very happy to host these things. And the sixth rodeo starts a year from now. And well hope, at least i will hope, that Woodrow Wilson, the president and, certainly, the Woodrow Wilson center, will be very proud of the people of this country who have made their voices heard and really want a Foreign Policy that reflects their values, which i think are enduring american values. So, thank you, folks, for coming on over and sharing some really detailed and interesting findings with everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [ applause ] cspans campaign 2020 coverage continues later today. Live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern, democratic president ial candidate senator Elizabeth Warren will give a speech in new york citys Washington Square park. At 9 00 p. M. Eastern, President Trump speaks at a Campaign Rally in rio rancho, new mexico