Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

A Year After Sept. 11, Public Reflects on How America Has Changed

Updated Sept. 10, 2002

A year after the worst terrorist attack in modern history, Americans are reflecting on what the Sept. 11 attacks meant for themselves and for their country. Nearly all the major survey organizations have released studies on how people feel about the meaning of Sept. 11 and the "war on terrorism."

Americans are frankly surprised there haven't been any more terrorist attacks since last fall, according to the Gallup survey. While Americans report that at least some progress has been made in improving security at home, there's a tinge of fatalism in public attitudes, with majorities reporting it's impossible for the government to head off every attack.

While most people say the country as a whole has changed, fewer say their own lives have changed — and most of those who do say it's a change in how they feel, rather than how they live their day-to-day lives.

A year ago, many people felt compelled to take personal action after the attacks, even if simply to hang out a flag. Some of that feeling still remains, with nearly 37 percent saying they plan to attend a memorial ceremony in person.

Most people still feel the country has far to go, both in fighting terrorism and in their own emotional healing. Nearly six in 10 say the government has to do more to prevent future terrorist attacks. And seven in 10 say time has yet to heal the nation's wounds.

Public Opinion: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
As soon as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network was identified as the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terrorism gained a personal element, both in pop culture and U.S. policy. Even President Bush pronounced that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." Although his fate is uncertain, most Americans say they believe bin Laden is alive and fewer Americans than ever tell survey researchers that they're confident the U.S. will be able to catch him.

The U.S. government isn't sure whether bin Laden is in hiding or whether he was killed during the U.S. attacks in Afghanistan. Most Americans think bin Laden is alive (77 percent in the most recent Newsweek and CBS/New York Times polls, down from 88 percent in a January CBS/Times poll). About six in 10 Americans (61 percent) say in the CBS/Times poll that the U.S. will not have won the war on terrorism until it eliminates bin Laden.

But the focus on getting bin Laden has gone up and down since last fall, going as low as 50 percent in an April ABC News/Washington Post survey. A late-August Newsweek survey found that most people don't believe eliminating bin Laden and other leaders will also eliminate the threat from al Qaeda. Some 54 percent said removing al Qaeda's top leaders would not eliminate the threat of terrorism "because too many cells and potential leaders would remain."

In any case, only about half (49 percent) of Americans say they're very or somewhat confident the U.S. will get bin Laden, the lowest figure in the CBS/Times poll since last fall.

The question of what to do with those captured by U.S. authorities has been one of the thorniest problems in the war on terrorism. More than 450 accused al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are being held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay and face either military tribunals or indefinite detention by the U.S. The ABC News/Washington Post poll on Jan. 27 found 60 percent in favor of military tribunals. While so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty in a civilian court, two other U.S. citizens accused of working with al Qaeda are being held in military prisons without formal charges.

At least initially, a slim majority seems willing to accept holding U.S. citizens as war prisoners. An ABC News survey on June 12-16 asked what should be done with an American citizen accused of planning an al Qaeda attack: should he be "held by the U.S. military as a wartime prisoner without being put on trial, or should he be given access to a lawyer and put on trial in the U.S. criminal court system?" More than half (54 percent) endorsed military detention, while 42 percent said he should get a civil trial.

When the 42 percent who supported civilian trials were asked how they would feel if an open trial would "jeopardize sensitive intelligence," 29 percent opted for military detention while 67 percent said the suspect should still be put on trial.

In general, surveys have shown Americans express at least an initial willingness to trade some civil liberties for security, although it's important to note that few have faced the practical implications of that tradeoff. (More detail on this is available in the section on Civil Liberties).

The conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp drew criticism earlier in the year from human rights groups and European allies. The Bush administration has decided to apply Geneva Convention protections to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan but not members of al Qaeda. Most Americans (72 percent in the Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-27) say the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is "acceptable." Gallup also asked questions describing the treatment of a detainee who was held "outdoors in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell, and when traveling … was blindfolded and his hands bound." Three-quarters told Gallup that it would be acceptable to hold a Taliban soldier under those conditions. Half of those surveyed (49 percent) said that would also be acceptable treatment for an American soldier captured in war; 46 percent said it would be unacceptable.

Public Opinion: The Home Front:
While the fear of terrorism has ebbed since last fall, so has the public's confidence in the government's ability to prevent more attacks. The public says the government needs to do more, and yet surveys show their views are tinged with fatalism and a belief that some terrorist, sometime, will be able to strike the U.S. again.

Half of Americans (48 percent) say it's "somewhat likely" that there will be a new terrorist attack over the next several weeks, according to the Gallup poll conducted a week before the Sept. 11 anniversary. Only 12 percent said it's "very likely" an attack will occur. That's down substantially from the 40 percent who considered an attack very likely in October 2001.

Yet only 41 percent of the public told the ABC News/Washington Post survey in early September that they were confident the government could prevent further attacks, a steady decline in confidence since November (63 percent).

In fact, the public is somewhat surprised there haven't been more terrorist attacks already. Seventy percent in the most recent Gallup poll admitted they were expecting more attacks to occur over the past year and 88 percent said they believe there are terrorists currently in the U.S. capable of launching an attack. Six in 10 say terrorists will always find a way to launch attacks.

Yet at the same time, 71 percent told Gallup the reason there haven't been more attacks in the past year is because the U.S. prevented them. Only 24 percent say it's because the terrorists didn't have any attacks planned.

Half of Americans surveyed by the CBS/New York Times poll on Sept. 2-5 say the government hasn't done enough to make the country secure; 41 percent say it has. When surveys ask about specific types of security, however, the results are mixed.

A late-August 2002 poll by Newsweek, for example, found 52 percent of the public said "a lot" had been done to improve airport security since Sept. 11. No other security effort ranked nearly as high, but majorities said at least "some" steps had been taken to improve security at major government buildings (76 percent), national landmarks (69 percent), nuclear power plants (63 percent). The CBS/Times survey reported that 58 percent believe the FBI and CIA have significantly improved their ability to prevent another attack.

But 70 percent told the CBS/Times poll that the country is not prepared for a biological or chemical attack. Far fewer people told Newsweek that a lot had been done to protect reservoirs, theme parks or tunnels.

If there is a new attack, only 3 percent said it would involve another skyjacking, according to Newsweek. The public said an attack with chemical or biological weapons (34 percent) or a conventional bomb (26 percent) is more likely.

Public Opinion: Remembrance and Healing:
There are few comparisons for the national outpouring of grief and anger seen last fall. Since then, most Americans say their pain has faded, but they're not so sure about the nation as a whole. Seven in 10 told Gallup before the anniversary that time had yet to heal the nation's wounds. Surveys show a widespread belief that the nation was changed by the Sept. 11 attacks, but also show widespread doubt that the changes will last - except, perhaps, for one.

The emotional impact of Sept. 11 on Americans was huge, by any measure. All anyone needed to do was to look around at the flags that seemed to be on every car to see that. (To look back at last fall's reaction in detail, see our public opinion analysis for Sept. 13 and Sept. 19. Much was written at the time about how life would never be the same.

A week before the anniversary, the CBS/New York Times survey found 84 percent said the country had changed, yet only 42 percent said their own lives had changed. For the country as a whole, the largest number (26 percent) said the nation was more fearful than it was before -- but 17 percent also said the U.S. had stronger communities.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll found 59 percent who said the terrorist attacks had changed their personal life. Of those people, only 18 percent said it had changed the way they lived their day-to-day lives, while 40 percent said it changed the way they felt about things. And they were evenly split on whether their lives had changed for better or worse (29 percent better, 27 percent worse). Few people report still feeling nervous or having trouble sleeping because of the attacks (16 percent and 5 percent respectively in the latest CBS/New York Times poll).

Last fall, many Americans felt the need to take personal action in some way, by hanging a flag, attending a memorial or giving blood. For the anniversary, Gallup found 78 percent who said they intend to watch a memorial ceremony on television and 37 percent who said they intend to go to a ceremony in person.

Public Agenda, in our recent study on civility, found 74 percent who said in January 2002 that people became "more caring and thoughtful toward each other" after the attacks. But nearly half (46 percent) said that thoughtfulness would only last a few months. Only a third (34 percent) said it would last a long while, and 18 percent said it was already over.

The change that may linger, according to Public Agenda's survey, is a greater appreciation for America. Some 87 percent said Americans came to appreciate their country more after the attacks and more than half (54 percent) said the feeling would last a long time. Only 6 percent thought it was already over.

Public Opinion: Civil Liberties:
From the very first surveys after Sept. 11, most Americans told pollsters that the country would have to give up some rights to fight terrorism. While solid majorities believe the Bush administration has struck the right balance on civil liberties, the public has begun to express more doubts in surveys. Two factors might be at work on this issue: time to think and an absence of new terror attacks.

For example, in September 2001, Newsweek found 63 percent of the public said the "average person" would have to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism (other surveys came in with even higher support). By late August 2002, Newsweek found the public evenly divided: 47 percent said yes, 47 percent said no. In January, Gallup found 47 percent who said the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent terrorism, even if civil liberties were violated. By September, that was down to 33 percent.

Even so, only small numbers of Americans say the Bush administration has gone "too far" in restricting civil liberties (16 percent in the Newsweek poll). Nearly six in 10 (58 percent) say the administration's approach is "about right" and another 20 percent say the government hasn't gone far enough. Gallup found similar figures: 55 percent considered the government's approach about right, 15 percent said it went too far, and 26 percent said it didn't go far enough.

Several factors influence public thinking on this issue. On nearly every complex problem, Public Agenda has found the public needs time to think; time to weigh alternatives and consider choices. In addition, the sense of fear, rage and crisis in the fall of 2001 deeply affected the public's response. Finally, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians. [For more on how public attitudes develop in a crisis, read the Seven Stages of Public Opinion and our interview with Public Agenda co-founder Daniel Yankelovich].

Last fall, surveys found the public supporting a broad range of actions, including use of profiling, indefinite detention of suspects and military tribunals. The public's attitudes on profiling have become more complex; for additional details see our section on Racial Profiling and Islam at Home.

More recently, surveys by the ABC News/Washington Post poll and Fox News in June show about two-thirds of the public support expanded FBI powers to monitor events in public places, like rallies, libraries and mosques. In the ABC/Post poll, 64 percent supported the change even though 62 percent said such monitoring intrudes on privacy rights. Fox News also found that, given the choice, 71 percent of Americans said they were more worried about the FBI "not doing enough to spy on potential terrorists" than about the bureau spying on them.

But surveys also find that when asked what should be done to prevent terrorism, the public's strongest instincts are for measures such as metal detectors in public buildings and tighter airport security. Even immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found only a third wanted increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer supported random searches by police.

The latest Newsweek survey found similar results: 60 percent "strongly favor" additional restrictions on air travel, and another 31 percent are "willing to accept" them. Nearly as many favor or will accept ID checks at public buildings. But majorities say it goes "too far" to give authorities expanded powers to monitor phone and e-mail communication (62 percent), detain American citizens indefinitely (63 percent) or detain people at airports solely based on religion (80 percent).

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response -- usually a warning sign that public attitudes can change depending on events or as people learn more about an issue. When CBS/New York Times researchers simply asked whether it's a good or bad idea to allow the government to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers, 72 percent thought it was a good idea. But when researchers rephrased the question to add that attorney-client conversations have always been private, only 30 percent said it was a good idea.

Immigration:
There is evidence of a spike in opposition to immigration since Sept. 11, with 59 percent of the public telling Gallup researchers in December 2001 that immigration should be decreased - a 20-point change from a year before. Many of the hundreds of people detained during the government's investigation of the terror attacks are being held on immigration charges and much of the debate over security issues has focused on gaining better control of the nation's borders.

The alleged immigration violations by the detainees may provide important context to public attitudes on this issue. Historically, the public has mixed views on immigration, but usually makes a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants -- with a far tougher stance on illegal immigrants. (See our Red Flags on Immigration). Surveys also find that a majority of Americans incorrectly believe that most immigrants are here illegally. (Statistics are available in our Fact File on Immigration).

Still, the public has taken a harder line on immigration overall since Sept. 11. A May 14-15 Fox News poll found 61 percent who want to make it more difficult for all foreigners to enter the country. Nearly half (48 percent) told Fox they would support stopping all immigration for two years or blocking all immigration of young Arab men (53 percent).

A year after the terror attacks, the Gallup survey on Sept. 2-4 found 54 percent calling for immigration to be decreased. This could be a transitory reaction. Support for immigration had generally been increasing since 1995 and the Census Bureau reports one in 10 Americans was born elsewhere, the highest share of the population since the 1930s. Or this could signal the beginning of a long-term reconsideration. But there's no question that this sentiment has yet to fade.

Public Opinion: Iraq: The Next Step?
President Bush has now promised to seek congressional approval before acting against Iraq, and surveys show Americans overwhelmingly support that. Eighty percent of those surveyed by ABC News on Aug. 29 said President Bush should seek authorization from Congress, and 61 percent say if Bush and Congress disagree, Congress should have the final say.

With the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan, debate has focused on the question of whether an attack on Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein should be "phase two" of the war on terrorism. The latest surveys show substantial majorities of the American public agree that Iraq is a threat and initially support military action. Support for an attack falls when questions are raised about casualties and the reluctance of U.S. allies to join in. At least one survey in June found that more people said a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be a higher priority than Iraq (see our section on Israel and the Palestinians).

Nearly eight in 10 Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll on Aug. 11 that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S. and nearly seven in 10 supported "military action to force Saddam Hussein from power." The public has repeatedly told researchers that the U.S. should return to the Persian Gulf and remove Hussein by force, ranging from 70 percent in 1993 to 52 percent in February 2001.

Yet the ABC/Post survey also found support for an attack fell to 54 percent if U.S. allies opposed military action. In the same survey, some 57 percent supported "a U.S. invasion of Iraq with ground troops" -- but support fell to 40 percent if that invasion led to "significant" U.S. casualties.

This is consistent with poll results in other situations, where surveys have shown that the public doesn't automatically expect the U.S. to take a leading role in world affairs, and should at least consider the views of allies before using force.

In previous foreign crises, the prospect of U.S. casualties can drive down support for military action -- but not always. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, surveys found the higher the number of potential casualties cited in the question, the lower the support for war. By contrast, the prospect of higher casualties did not deter the public in surveys on Afghanistan last fall. In October 2001, Gallup found three-quarters of the public said they supported military action in Afghanistan even if it resulted in 5,000 U.S. casualties.

Some survey questions suggest that the public is more uncertain about the reasons for taking Iraq on at this point. A Gallup survey in early August found 56 percent said they had a clear idea of why the U.S. was considering an attack, while 39 percent did not. Of those who said they understood the reasons, 30 percent said it was because of Iraq's potential for chemical and biological weapons and another 30 percent said it was fear of terrorism.

One issue in the debate has been whether it is right for the U.S. to "shoot first" rather than wait for a provocation by Iraq. When a CBS News/New York Times survey on Sept. 2-5 asked whether the U.S. should attack an unnamed country "it thinks might attack the U.S.", 47 percent said no and 41 percent said yes.

But those results change when either Iraq or nuclear weapons are mentioned specifically. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) told the CBS/Times poll that the U.S. should be able to attack another country it believed was about to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. Some 61 percent said the U.S. should be able to launch an attack if Iraq was about to strike the U.S. And if Iraq was about to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons, support for a first strike reaches 75 percent.

The U.S. public continues to strongly support the military campaign in Afghanistan, as it has since the beginning. The very first surveys in September 2001 found nine in 10 Americans supported a military response. The latest Gallup survey (Sept. 2-4) found 83 percent in support of the military action in Afghanistan. A majority told the CBS/Times survey that the Afghan war was going at least "somewhat well" (58 percent) or "very well" (14 percent).

Public Opinion: Israel and the Palestinians:
A complicating factor in the war on terrorism has been the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has proved violent and intractable. U.S. efforts to broker a settlement have proved fruitless so far, while Middle Eastern governments insist a settlement must precede any expansion of the war on terror.

Historically, surveys show the public sympathizes more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, but would rather not take a side. Most Americans say the U.S. vital interests are at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (61 percent in the April 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll). When asked to choose, half of the public (52 percent) told the Gallup poll in June that peace between Palestinians and Israelis should be a higher priority than overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (42 percent). However, a CBS News poll in July found the public evenly split: 46 percent said the U.S. has a responsibility to broker a settlement, and 46 percent said it's none of our business.

In a Harris Poll conducted July 18-22, 9 percent blame the Israelis for the West Bank violence, 42 percent blame the Palestinians and 30 percent blame both. But 19 percent said they didn't know, and such a high level of undecided responses can mean public opinion is volatile on this topic.

Two-thirds (66 percent) told the ABC/Post poll that Israel's military action in response to a series of suicide bombings is justified, and three-quarters believe Yasser Arafat is responsible for the terrorist attacks. Nine in 10 say Arafat can do more to end those attacks. But there is some public unease with Israel's actions, with 61 percent who say Israel "should have done more" to avoid civilian casualties in its offensive. Four in 10 (43 percent) say the U.S. should apply more pressure on Israel to negotiate.

The public is divided on what more the U.S. can do. The ABC/Washington Post survey in April found the public split on whether to cut military aid to Israel if it fails to withdraw from Palestinian areas (47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed). The public is just as split on whether to provide the Palestinians with economic aid in exchange for a peace deal (47 percent both for and against). Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) told Fox News they would oppose sending U.S. troops to bring about a ceasefire, but 48 percent would support sending U.S. peacekeepers after a treaty has been signed. [Additional detail is available in the section on "The View of Islam Abroad."]

Public Opinion: The View of Islam Abroad:
One issue that does concern Americans is the possibility that the "war on terrorism" will become what Osama bin Laden claimed it was: a war pitting Islamic and Arab nations against the U.S. and its allies. And a majority of Americans say the U.S. is not getting very far in improving its image.

Just a week before the Sept. 11 anniversary, six in 10 Americans told Gallup that they think the Muslim world considers itself "at war" with the U.S. The same week, a slim majority told the CBS/New York Times survey that the Bush administration has made either "no progress" (21 percent) or "not much" (34 percent) in improving the U.S. image in the Arab world. Last fall, the public was more optimistic. In October 2001, 69 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll that the U.S. was doing enough to win the support of Muslims, and only 18 percent disagreed.

Both domestic and international critics argue that U.S. policies, such as support for Israel and a possible conflict with Iraq, helped spur extremism in the Middle East. Substantial numbers of Americans are at least considering those arguments. On April 2-3, Fox News found more than half of Americans (54 percent) say "the U.S. needs to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of winning the war on terrorism." Some 54 percent also told the ABC/Washington Post poll on April 18-21 that U.S. support for Israel is hurting the war on terrorism. More Americans continue to sympathize with the Israelis than the Palestinians, however. [Survey data on the West Bank situation is also available in the section on Israel and the Palestinians.]

Last fall, 55 percent of Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll they believed most Arabs and Muslims had a negative view of the U.S., and cited support for Israel (68 percent), the spread of Western culture (64 percent), and the presence of U.S. forces in the Mideast (63 percent) as the reasons. Nearly half (48 percent) told Newsweek in early December that U.S. support for "friendly but dictatorial" regimes played a role in increasing support for Islamic militants. But more than one-fifth (22 percent) said they didn't know.

Yet Americans don't necessarily want to change those policies: six in 10 told ABC/Washington Post researchers the U.S. should keep its current level of support for Israel, and they're divided on whether the U.S. should apply more pressure on the Israelis for a peace settlement (46 percent say the U.S. has applied enough pressure; 43 percent say the U.S. should apply more).

Public Agenda's focus is on public opinion in the United States, but Gallup's survey of opinion in nine Islamic countries earlier this year is noteworthy. Majorities in eight of nine countries surveyed condemned the Sept. 11 attacks. But most also considered the U.S. military response "morally unjustifiable," including 80 percent of Pakistanis, 89 percent of Indonesians and 69 percent of Kuwaitis, according to Gallup. Majorities in five nations told Gallup researchers they don't believe Arab groups were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The full report is available through Gallup.

Public Opinion: Racial Profiling and Islam at Home:
Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, there have been concerns among civil rights and civil liberties groups that Arab- and Muslim-Americans would be targeted for "racial profiling" by federal agents hunting suspected terrorists. When presented with stark examples, polls show the public disapproves of targeting anyone solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity. But surveys also show that the public does not reject the profiling of Arab-Americans as strongly as they would for African Americans.

Polls over many years indicate that most Americans believe in religious tolerance. But just as clearly, Americans are still wrestling with fears surrounding a religion most admit they don't understand. The impression of an "Arab street" overseas hostile to the U.S. may also play a role in public attitudes (see our section on The View of Islam Abroad.)

Surveys conducted in September 2001 found tolerance bending under the emotional strain of the attacks. Several questions show the public's fear and frustration right after the trade center attack, with 58 percent saying Arabs should undergo special security checks before boarding planes and 49 percent saying they should carry special identification. In a Zogby International poll of Arab-Americans in early October, 20 percent said they personally had experienced discrimination since Sept. 11, and 45 percent said they knew someone else who had faced discrimination.

A year later, a Sept. 2-5 survey by the CBS/New York Times poll found a third of those surveyed believed Arab Americans were more sympathetic to terrorists, but 57 percent disagreed. That is consistent with other surveys, which have found somewhere between a quarter and a third of the public expressing skepticism about Arab-Americans since the week of Sept. 11. In the same CBS/Times survey, however, nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) say it's at least somewhat likely that Arabs and Muslims will be "singled out unfairly." Eighty percent of those surveyed by Newsweek in August say detaining people at airports solely because of their religion "goes too far" and 59 percent say using race, religion or ethnicity to identify suspected terrorists also goes too far.

Yet there's also evidence that most Americans view some degree of racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims as regrettable but not intolerable. In January, Public Agenda researchers found two-thirds of Americans agreed that racial profiling of Middle Easterners by law enforcement is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen." Only 11 percent found "nothing particularly wrong" with profiling, but also only 21 percent said "there's no excuse for this."

By contrast, Public Agenda found half of Americans (52 percent) say there's no excuse for racial profiling of African-Americans. Black Americans are twice as likely to say there's no excuse for racial profiling of Middle Easterners (35 percent among blacks, compared to 18 percent among whites). Yet a solid majority (59 percent) of African-Americans also say that profiling of Middle Easterners is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen."

A somewhat larger number of Americans reject "jokes or negative remarks about Arabs and Muslims" in Public Agenda's survey. Half say there's no excuse for it, but 44 percent consider it understandable.

In two Public Agenda surveys conducted prior to Sept. 11, one on religion and public life and another on the values parents want to teach their children, we found Americans voiced a firm belief in religious and social tolerance. Most parents, for example, consider intolerance the mark of a bad citizen. Yet we also found in January 2001 that only 7 percent of Americans said they understand Islam well -- perhaps not surprising since Muslims only make up 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Many Americans don't know what to make of Islam. In an ABC News/Beliefnet survey on Jan. 6, more than one-third (35 percent) chose "no opinion" when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Islam. Only 14 percent said they believed "mainstream Islam" encourages violence, and 57 percent said they considered it a "peaceful religion," but 29 percent were undecided. And when ABC News asked about violent extremists, 38 percent said Islam had more extremists than other religions, while 41 percent said Islam had no more than other religions. All these questions found an extremely high level of undecideds -- usually anything over 10 percent is considered a sign of public volatility.

Public Opinion: Trust in Government:
One of the most intriguing public opinion trends after Sept. 11 was the surge in people reporting they trusted the government to do the right thing (as distinct from trusting President Bush personally). But the surge seems to have been short-lived and at least one survey organization has concluded trust levels have receded back to normal levels.

Americans consistently join ranks behind their leaders in the initial stages of a crisis, and approval ratings for President Bush have been remarkably high since the fall. But approval ratings for a particular president are different from the public's overall trust in the government, which fell during the years of Vietnam and Watergate and never recovered, regardless of how popular the president happened to be. In late September 2001, the ABC News/Washington Post survey found 64 percent said they trust the government to do the right thing "most of the time" or "just about always," the highest rating since the 1960s. The Jan. 21-24 CBS/New York Times poll found 46 percent who said the government did the right thing "just about always" or "most of the time" (compared with 26 percent in 1998). Even during the Gulf War, when approval ratings for both the war and for President Bush's father were at high levels, the trust in government rating never exceeded 45 percent.

A May survey commissioned by the Brookings Institution, however, contends the air of trust quickly faded. The survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that the number saying they trusted the government to do what is right at least most of the time rose from 29 percent in July 2001 to 57 percent in October, but dropped down to 40 percent in May. The number who said the government could be trusted only "some of the time" rose from 39 percent in October to 53 percent in May. By Sept. 2-5, the CBS/New York Times survey found that only 37 percent said they trusted the government to do the right thing "always" or "most of the time."

Even before the Brookings survey, there were signs the public was skeptical about long-term change in Washington's political climate. More than half (55 percent) of those surveyed in Public Agenda's study on civility during January said elected officials had "put politics aside and [paid] more attention to what was good for the country" after the attacks. When asked how long politicians would keep that new attitude, however, the public showed more doubt. Only 30 percent said elected officials would keep that attitude for a long time, while 45 percent said it would last a few months and 23 percent said it was already over.

Two-thirds of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job, according to Gallup polling conducted Sept. 2-4. That's a decline from President Bush's record-setting approval ratings of last year (an unheard-of 90 percent in late September 2001) but two-thirds approval is still extremely high.

When asked about specific issues such as the economy, however, President Bush's approval ratings have always been weaker. In the Newsweek poll conducted Aug. 28-29, 68 percent said they approve of President Bush's handling of terrorism overseas and 72 percent approved of his efforts to prevent terrorism at home, but 48 percent said he is doing a good job on the economy. Back in January, Newsweek found 54 percent said President Bush's opponents should "go along" with his policies on terrorism, compared to 38 percent who said opponents should "push for a full debate." But on the economy and other domestic issues, the percentages were almost exactly reversed: 54 percent wanted a full debate, compared to 39 percent who wanted the opposition to go along on domestic policy.

There is also a divide between ratings for President Bush personally and others in the government. Nearly half the public (48 percent) told Newsweek in May that Bush did everything he should have with the warnings received before Sept. 11, while 39 percent said he didn't do enough. But the public is much more critical of "top FBI and CIA officials" (53 percent say they didn't do enough) and "the President's national security advisers" (46 percent). The Newsweek survey also found that 59 percent say the Clinton administration didn't do everything it could have to prepare for a terrorist attack, either.

Read previous editions of our running analysis of public reaction to the attacks to see how public opinion has changed since the September 11 attacks.