Public Would Rather Have Vague Terror Warnings Than None at All
Updated Nov. 7, 2001
Nearly two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, public opinion has been remarkably steady on most key questions. Americans have shown consistently high support for the military campaign, humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan and for President Bush. They're worried about more terrorist attacks, including anthrax attacks, but far from panicked.
Critics have said the government's warnings of potential attacks, such as the threats to the Golden Gate Bridge and other California landmarks, are too vague to do anything but frighten people. Yet surveys show that the public would rather have vague warnings than none at all. In the latest Gallup poll, 70 percent said it's better for the government to issue warnings without details than to keep quiet.
While support for the "war on terrorism" is strong, it's far from unquestioning. The public is sending mixed signals on some aspects of the anthrax outbreak, with roughly half saying they aren't getting the information they need about the bioterror attacks. Newsweek found last month that while three-quarters of the public believes the Bush administration has "a well-thought-out plan" to use military force overseas, only 48 percent said the same thing about plans to fight bioterrorism at home.
When looking at any surveys, it's important to bear in mind that public is still wrestling with new complications of the war on terrorism almost daily. The air of uncertainty surrounding the anthrax attacks and the government's warnings of possible attacks is also a factor in the public mood. Fox News found that the number of people saying "things are getting back to normal" actually fell over the past month. In an Oct. 3-4 survey, on the eve of the anthrax outbreak, 75 percent said the country was at least somewhat back to normal. By Nov. 1, that had fallen to 64 percent.
Anthrax and Warnings: While surveys show the American people are worried about biological warfare, and many don't feel the government has done enough or taken the right steps, strong majorities express some confidence that the government can handle the threat. Nearly half (47 percent) rated the Bush administration's response as "good" in the CBS/New York Times poll, compared with 14 percent who said "excellent," 31 percent who said "fair" and only 6 percent who rated it "poor." Nearly three-quarters say they're at least "somewhat confident" that the government will catch those responsible.
Numerous surveys over the last several weeks have found only very small numbers of Americans seeking out antibiotics in fear of bioterrorism. Shortly after the first anthrax cases were reported, the ABC News/Washington Post poll found 5 percent had spoken to a doctor about anthrax and 2 percent said they had actually bought antibiotics. Gallup found only 3 percent who had tried to get a prescription. Eight percent told the most recent CBS/New York Times survey that they would get tested for anthrax if they could, but 91 percent thought it was unnecessary. Of course, if even 2 percent of the public simultaneously decided to seek prescriptions for any specific drug, it would cause a strain on pharmacies and provide the anecdotal evidence seen in news reports.
Still, 28 percent told CBS/New York Times researchers that they were "very concerned" about a biological or chemical attack where they lived, and 27 percent said public health officials were wrong to discourage people from getting Cipro unless they've been exposed. With the postal service advising caution in opening mail, 31 percent told Newsweek on Oct. 25-26 that they'd actually thrown out mail they didn't recognize.
Despite the intensive media coverage, surveys are contradictory on whether the public is getting the information it needs. Fifty percent told the CBS/New York Times survey that the government isn't telling people "everything they need to know," yet in the same survey, 56 percent also said they were getting the "right amount" of specific information on bioterrorism.
Newsweek found only 43 percent saying the government was giving people reliable information they need, compared with 71 percent a week earlier. But of the remainder in last week's survey, 30 percent thought government information was lacking "because they don't really know themselves" while 23 percent thought the government was trying to avoid "overreaction and panic."
People are certainly afraid of terrorism in general - in fact, a Gallup survey found for the first time that more people say they worry "frequently" about terrorism (47 percent) than about street crime. As Gallup points out, the odds of actually falling victim to street crime are still much greater. In the latest Gallup survey, the number of people expecting further attacks in the next few weeks has dropped, however, from 85 percent on Oct. 19-21 to 74 percent on Nov. 2-4.
Given a week of intense news coverage on a new and unknown hazard, public opinion should be considered in flux. Shifts in attitudes on bioterrorism are entirely possible, depending on events.
Attacks in Afghanistan: Public support for military action has been high and unwavering in polling since the Sept. 11 attacks, when the first surveys found that nine in 10 Americans backed military action against those responsible. This has been consistent in all surveys, with the most recent data (from the CBS/New York Times poll and Newsweek) both still showing 88 percent approval. Only 14 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll on Oct. 7 that the U.S. should have done more to find a diplomatic solution.
The public believes the military campaign will succeed (79 percent told Newsweek it's "very" or "somewhat" likely the campaign will remove the Taliban regime and 62 percent say the same about capturing or killing Osama bin Laden). But they also believe it will take a while: Surveys consistently show that the public says the campaign will take at least a year (80 percent said "a year or more" in the latest Fox News survey).
For most Americans, the primary virtue of a military response is deterrence. Before the air campaign, the Pew Research Center found 88 percent believed military action would both deter future attacks and punish those responsible. When those people were asked to choose which goal is more important, 57 percent said deterring future attacks, vs. 22 percent for punishing the terrorists. Some 65 percent told the ABC/Washington Post survey that not taking military action would increase the risk of more terror attacks.
Surveys both before and after the air strikes began have shown that none of the potential drawbacks deters the public, with two-thirds or more of people in favor of military action even in the event of a lengthy conflict, a recession, or further terror attacks. But surveys have also suggested some nuance in public attitudes on a military response. When Newsweek researchers asked in September what would be "most effective" in preventing further attacks in the U.S., most people opted to play defense: three-quarters said tighter airport security and air marshals would be the most effective strategies, compared with 49 percent for military strikes and 44 percent for assassinating terrorist leaders. Seventy-five percent said cutting off terrorists' funding would be the most effective strategy. Some 83 percent told initially told Newsweek that capturing or killing Osama bin Laden would also be effective in preventing terrorism, yet 48 percent also say seizing him risks turning bin Laden into a martyr who would inspire more terrorism.
Immigration and Civil Liberties: Federal officials say more than a thousand people have been detained as part of the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Most have been released, but many have been held on immigration charges or as material witnesses. Civil liberties groups have been sharply critical of the detentions, as well as the new law giving federal agents increased power to conduct electronic surveillance. Critics say there aren't enough safeguards in the law, which they fear could be used in routine criminal cases or against political opponents.
Public Agenda has found in the past that the public supports civil liberties in the abstract, but often hasn't spent much time thinking about the tradeoffs and precedents that might be set. Surveys over the past two months have picked up the expected mixed signals as the public tries to balance personal safety and civil rights in an uncertain atmosphere. (See our Red Flags section on Internet Free Speech and Privacy).
For example, before the new surveillance law was passed, about 79 percent of Americans told the CBS/New York Times poll that people will have to give up some personal freedoms to make the country safe from terrorist attacks. In the most recent Fox survey, 83 percent said the government should be allowed to hold suspected terrorists for "possibly a year or more," and 71 percent who said the CIA should be allowed to use "any means necessary, including physical force" when trying to get information to prevent future attacks.
But surveys also find the public's strongest instincts are for measures such as metal detectors in public buildings and tighter airport security. Only a third want increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer support random searches by police. The Harris Poll found more than seven in 10 Americans who had "high" or "moderate concern" that judges would authorize surveillance too easily (79 percent); there would be broad use of racial profiling (77 percent); or that non-violent government critics would be put under surveillance (71 percent).
There is evidence of a spike in opposition to immigration since Sept. 11, with 58 percent of the public telling Gallup researchers last week that immigration should be decreased - a 20 point change since a year ago. Fox found 65 percent willing to temporarily stop all immigration as an anti-terrorist measure. This could be a short-term reaction, since support for immigration had generally been increasing since 1995. 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).
The View of Islam Abroad. . . One issue that does concern Americans is the possibility that the "war on terrorism" will broaden, pitting Islamic and Arab nations against the U.S. and its allies. Sixty-six percent of Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll that they're worried "somewhat" or "a great deal" that will happen. Both domestic and international critics argue that U.S. policies, such as support for Israel and sanctions against Iraq, helped spur extremism in the Middle East, and there have been protests in many Islamic nations against the air campaign.
Some 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. Yet Americans don't necessarily want to change those policies: only 29 percent told Newsweek that "the U.S. should reduce its ties to Israel in order to lessen the acts of terrorism against us." In late September, 70 percent in a Pew survey rejected the idea that the Sept. 11 attacks came about because "the U.S. has been unfair in its dealings with other countries."
Even before Sept. 11, while more Americans sympathized with the Israelis than the Palestinians, three-quarters believed the U.S. should not take a side. That distinction still holds for the public: In the ABC/Washington Post poll, 68 percent said the U.S. should continue to support Israel, but 55 percent also favored recognizing the Palestinians as an independent nation.
At this point, surveys show that Americans believe the United States is doing the right things to persuade Muslims to support the anti-terrorist coalition. Six in 10 told the CBS/New York Times survey that the U.S. is "doing enough" to win the support of the Arab world, and 84 percent say they are very or somewhat confident the U.S. will maintain the international coalition against terrorism.
. . . And the View of Islam at home: There have been reports of hate crimes around the country against Arabs, Muslims and other ethnic groups who might be mistaken for them, such as Sikhs and Hindus. Survey results over many years indicate that most Americans believe in tolerance, but at the moment are still wrestling with deep fear and frustration.
In two recent Public Agenda surveys, 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 that only 7 percent of Americans say they understand Islam well - perhaps not surprising since Muslims only make up 2 percent of the U.S. population.
Surveys have shown tolerance bending under the emotional strain of the past month. About 35 percent of those surveyed the week of Sept. 11 said they had less trust in Arab-Americans since the attack. 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.
The CBS/New York Times survey found the numbers who admit to "negative feelings" about Arabs is declining, from 24 percent in a survey conducted Sept. 20-23 to 15 percent in an overnight poll conducted Oct. 8. Overnight polls are somewhat more prone to error than those conducted over several days, but ABC News also found a slight drop of those who said they were "personally suspicious" of Arabs, from 43 percent on Sept. 13 to 38 percent on Oct. 8-9. Surveys should be watched carefully to see if this develops into a trend. In another sign of public uncertainty, differently worded questions get different results. A Newsweek question that specifically mentioned the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II found 62 percent who said it would be a mistake to target any national group.
When terrifying events test deeply held values, Public Agenda has found it takes time for people to work through their views (see our essay on the Seven Stages of Public Opinion.) People's knee-jerk reactions on Arabs and Muslims may well be tempered by time, sober second thoughts and by their better selves.
Trust in Government: Not surprisingly, the approval ratings for President Bush continue to be high in all surveys. Americans consistently join ranks behind their leaders in the initial stages of a crisis. More surprising are survey results about trust in government in general, which fell during the years of Vietnam and Watergate and never recovered, regardless of how popular a particular president happened to be. In late September, 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. While this high trust level almost certainly reflects the sense of unity in the country, it would still be unique and should be watched carefully. 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.
When asked specifically about anthrax, however, the approval ratings are weaker. As mentioned above, about half say the Bush administration has done a good job handling anthrax, compared with 43 percent "good" and 35 percent "fair" for Congress. The U.S. Postal Service gets the lowest marks, with one in five Americans calling it's response "poor."
The Economy: Most Americans were at least somewhat worried the terrorist attacks will hurt the economy - and that was before unemployment figures were released that showed the largest one-month jump in joblessness for two decades. The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates by a half-point this week, the latest in a series of rate cuts designed to stave off a recession, and the White House is pushing for an economic stimulus package with additional tax cuts. Gallup found that 32 percent said the economic package should have tax cuts, but 56 percent would prefer increased government spending on unemployment benefits and construction projects.
In addition, 17 percent of those surveyed told Gallup in September their company had already been hurt financially by the attacks, and another 29 percent believed their company would be hurt in the future. Newsweek found only 26 percent who said the terror attacks would cause a long recession, but 58 percent who said it would bring about a brief one.
Public Agenda, based in New York, joins with all Americans in expressing our deepest sympathy to the victims and their families.
Read previous editions of our running analysis of public reaction to the attacks.
|
