Change, Trust and Foreign Policy

The announcement of the new Obama foreign policy team has been greeted with much talk of a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, a "rebalancing" to emphasize traditional diplomacy over the military in world affairs. There's no question that the public is ready for a change in direction, according to Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. But public often defines the problem in ways that are very different from the foreign policy establishment – and the public's support should not be taken for granted.

Ever since we started the Foreign Policy Index in 2005, we've consistently found the public thinks the U.S. should put a greater emphasis on diplomacy over military force in dealing with terrorism. Most think there’s at least some justification for the criticism that the U.S. has been too quick to resort to force. That also applies in specific situations. Very few Americans support the use of force against Iran, for example.

And the public would also make humanitarian aid a much higher priority. In fact, disaster relief is at the top of the public’s list of priorities for U.S. foreign policy, on a par with traditional goals like nuclear nonproliferation. It’s rare, however, to see disaster relief get that kind of priority from the foreign policy establishment.

The public also has its own sense of the best strategies to follow. When it comes to making the U.S. more secure, the public regularly goes back to three key strategies: energy independence, better intelligence gathering and controlling illegal immigration. Those options have regularly been at the top of the public’s list in the Foreign Policy Index. Sometimes the relative position among them shifts, but it’s always the same top three by a clear margin.

There are two other key points to remember regarding public attitudes about foreign policy. Firstly, and contrary to what many commentators think, the public does see foreign policy as linked to economics. Even before the global financial crisis struck this fall, Public Agenda’s research showed concern about the economy spilling over into foreign policy, driving up concerns about energy independence and trade.

Secondly, public trust in foreign policy has been at a low ebb in the past few years. This is a change from the normal state of affairs. In general, the public still prefers to leave international relations to the professionals. Their default setting is to trust that the president and his advisers know what they’re doing – unless they see policy as seriously off track. In the last few years, that’s exactly what’s happened. About two-thirds of the public say foreign policy is on the wrong track, and half don’t trust the government to tell them the truth about foreign affairs.

The Obama administration may get the benefit of the doubt from the public, simply by virtue of being new. But trust in U.S. policy has seriously eroded, and the new administration shouldn’t assume that a change at the top is all that’s needed. Rebuilding public trust should be a foreign policy priority, too, because no policy, domestic or international, can survive for long unless it’s rooted in the public’s values and support.