In a recent Zogby Interactive survey of adults nationwide, respondents were asked to choose a statement that came closest to their view on the War on Terror. About 45% of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on addressing anti-American sentiment in the world, compared to 37% of the respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on using military force. About 18% of the respondents chose “none of the above” or “not sure.”

Significant differences were found between ideological groups. Seventy-seven percent of liberals are in favor of focusing on anti-American sentiment, compared to 18% of conservatives who think so. Moderates are leaning towards liberals on this issue; sixty-one percent of them believe that dealing with anti-American sentiment should be the priority. Around two-thirds (67%) of conservatives believe that the focus should be on using military force, compared to 22% of moderates and 4% of liberals who believe so.

Where do you stand on this issue? If you believe that anti-American sentiment in the world is the primary issue here, what do you think should be done to address it? If you think that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on using military force, what do you think would be the best course of action for the government?

Grace military, peace, politics, war military, war, zogby

We’re very excited to welcome back Maya Dukmasova as a guest blogger this weekend. Maya is an intern with Zogby International and a junior at the University of Rochester, working on a dual B.A. in Philosophy and Religion. Originally from Saint Petersburg, Russia, she currently lives in Syracuse, NY and will be spending the coming semester studying philosophy in Paris, France. She also writes an intependent blog with interviews and impressions of ‘Life in a New Russia’ www.newspblife.com . Thanks Maya!

As the global economy develops (barring the events of the past year), U.S. entrepreneurs are facing serious competition from ambitious, creative individuals in other countries. And the competition is not just coming from the well-off European states and Japan, but also from the developing nations. In a June 3, 2009 interactive survey, we asked 3,030 adults where they thought the next Bill Gates would come from. Almost an equal number of people (right around 28%) picked India as the U.S. , from a list that also included China, Russia, Brazil, Japan, and Other/Not Sure.

However, when we take a look at the age groups separately, more of those aged 18-29 or 30-49 years old think that the next Bill Gates will come from this country than older age groups. Conversely, those over 50 years old were more likely to pick India. Perhaps the general perception of the U.S. as a place of opportunity, wealth, and security, which allows entrepreneurs to take chances, is coming up against a new worldview. Places like India and China are seen to be full of intelligent, business-minded people who are hungry for a chance to advance their ideas. Some people, especially older generations, could be reflecting on the decline of U.S. economic hegemony as well as the increasing leadership of other nations. Perhaps these countries win out among certain demographics on account of the perceived ambition of their populations rather than the perceived strength of the support fabric of these countries’ governments and cultures?

More behind the cut.. Read more…

Katy Uncategorized culture, economy, education, future, Generations, international, military, religion, war, work, zogby

To conclude the holiday weekend, here’s a follow-up to our last post examining the results of some of our survey questions on patriotism and America’s role in the world.

Another question on this same interactive survey from one year ago asked about America’s image in overseas. When asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “America’s image overseas is damaged”, 70% agreed and 25% disagreed. Young people between 18 and 29 were the most likely to agree, with 84% of them agreeing that America’s image is damaged overseas, while those over 65 were the least likely to agree, with 58% agreeing.

And finally, we also asked about the relationship between U.S military engagements overseas and American security. When asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “U.S. military involvement in the world threatens U.S. security”, 43% of those surveyed agreed while 48% disagreed. Differences by age group were present again, with 60% of those between 18 and 29 agreeing compared to only 30% of those over 65.

How do your views on America’s image overseas and the relationship between military conflict and security compare to our survey takers? Do you believe the election of Barack Obama, or other events of the last year, would change the results if we asked the same questions today?

Katy politics first globals, military, Obama, politics

We’re very excited to see that a record number of you voted in last week’s Top Question Tuesday poll! The winning question asked about the effectiveness of tea parties. We’ll put that question on an upcoming interactive survey and blog about the results soon.

This week’s user-submitted survey questions are below. The questions are shortened to save space on our blog post, but these are the basic ideas. Take a look though and then vote for which question you’d most like to see on the next Zogby Interactive survey. As a reminder, if you’d like to submit a question to be considered for a  Zogby survey, use the “contact us” box on the right of the page. And if you’d like to join Zogby’s interactive panel to answer questions similar to these, click here.

1.    Regardless of your political affiliation, would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, a little concerned or not at all concerned about having one political party in charge of  the House, Senate, and Executive branch of government?

2.    Should the United States send a military presence to the coast of Somalia to prevent pirates from hijacking ships?

3.    Do you agree or disagree that any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic?

 Loading ...

Katy Uncategorized military, peace, Top Question Tuesday, zogby

John Zogby, in his book The Way We’ll Be , divides up Americans into four distinct generations. We refer to these generations frequently when discussing data on this blog, so here is a brief primer for those of you unfamiliar with these names.

The Private Generation is composed of those born between 1926 and 1945. Writes John Zogby, “The Private Generation grew to adulthood mostly without questioning received American values.” They came of age during WWII and the early years of the Cold War and statistically are most likely to oppose equal rights for gays and women, to favor closed borders and a unilateral foreign policy.

The Woodstock Generation is composed of those born between 1946 and 1964. Woodstockers’ coming of age was marked by – among other things – fights over civil rights and racial equality, the war in Vietnam, feminism, premarital sex, and the environment. Yet “Woodstockers have mellowed with time and drifted to the right politically. By their thirties, Woodstockers were solidly in the Reagan camp; in their fourties, they barely gave Bill Clinton the nod.”

The Nike Generation is composed of those born between 1965 and 1978. With their early years marked by political assassinations, presidential scandals, oil embargoes, military losses, high divorce rates, and the beginnings of the AIDS crisis, this generation learned that “no institution is permanent, that all relationships are fleeting, and that some are very dangerous”. Statistically, this is the most libertarian generation in America, the least likely to believe in government as a problem solver, and the least loyal overall to most religious, civil, and political institutions.

The First Global Generation is composed of those born between 1979 and 1990. First Globals “have two distinct souls – one highly materialistic and self absorbed, and the other caring, tolerant, and possessed of a wisdom well beyond its years.” Statistically, First Globals are the most cosmopolitan age group in America, the most international, and the one most concerned about the environment and human rights.

How well do you fit your generation? What additional differences do you see in your own experience between the generations above?

Katy John Zogby, culture, first globals, lifestyles environment, first globals, Generations, international, John Zogby, military, war, zogby

Why do wars happen?  Power, land, money, oil, the girl, or is it simply that bad guys attack the good guys?  Those over 65 are particularly likely to agree with the latter. According to Zogby data, 31% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree with the statement “more often than not, wars are a conflict between good and evil” compared to 51% of people 65 years or older.  The other age groups fall somewhere in between.

This suggests that First Globals™ might be less likely to perceive international conflicts in black and white.  Interestingly, Zogby data on humanitarian interventions suggest that when First Globals™ do perceive a conflict as a conflict between good and evil, they are more likely to demand military action to rectify it.

Does this propensity of First Globals™ to act for humanitarian reasons make them easier to be manipulated to serve causes they don’t fully understand? Or are they protected from it by their tendency to see the world in shades of gray? What is your view?

Zeljka first globals, future, global issues, international, military, peace, war first globals, international, military, war, zogby

Is the USA supposed to seek other countries’ approval before it engages itself militarily in international affairs? If you ask a 100 Americans say you can expect about 58 to answer negatively.  Those disagreeing with them might find comforting thoughts in the fact that youngest Americans are most likely to say yes.

Thus, our data show that First Globals are the age group least likely to approve of the U.S. taking action on its own. For example, they are more likely to believe that UN Security Council approval is needed to wage war against another country. More than a third (38%) of First Globals would seek UN approval, compared to about a quarter of all other age groups. In roughly the same numbers, First Globals would seek the approval of NATO countries before taking military action against another country.

However, while multilateralism is more prevalent among First Globals than other age groups, unilateralism is still the most popular option. A plurality of First Globals would not seek UN Security Council (44%) or approval of NATO members (43%) for military action against another country.

People usually give two types of justification for unilateralism. One is the idea that U.S. can do it alone because it, like any other country, has a right to act in its own best interest. The other is the belief that the history of freedom and democracy in the U.S. makes it morally superior to other counties, and therefore gives it a moral right to do it alone – a right that other countries do not have. Do you believe in unilateralism; and if so, why?

Zeljka global issues, international, peace, politics, war first globals, history, international, military, war

Young people are sometimes thought of as pacifists – that is, people who are principally against the use of wars or violence. However, our data show that, when they find the pretext suitable, these young people, age 18-29, are more likely to advocate the use of force than are older adults.

For example, in a Zogby Interactive survey last summer, data show that,  of all age-groups, First Globals are the most likely to say that the U.S. has an obligation to intervene militarily in foreign countries to protect basic human rights, with 49% expressing this view and 31% disagreeing. For comparison, just 29% of those over 65 endorse this view and 51% disagree with it.

Defenders of this view usually argue that there are some violations of human rights that are so clear-cut and egregious that they demand that national sovereignty be violated for the greater good. Others believe that simplistic narratives of good vs. evil are likely to be manufactured by warring factions in order to have major powers intervene on their behalf. In your view, were there any justified military humanitarian interventions in the past few decades? If so, what were they?

Zeljka Uncategorized first globals, military, summer, war, zogby

Why are there wars? Do wars happen because nations are tempted to use arms that they already have, or do arms prevent nations from striking those that they otherwise would have attacked? Do armies prevent wars or do they cause wars?

Of all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to believe that “armies cause wars” (25%) as opposed to “armies prevent wars” (50%). For comparison, among those over 65, 11% believe armies cause wars and 74% believe armies prevent wars. First Globals™ are also the most undecided group, with 25% opting for a “not sure” option.

However, a plurality of people in every age group believe that armies prevent wars instead of cause wars. The argument for prevention is that armies deter other armies. But some argue that, if there were no armies, there would be less to deter from. What is your view?

Zeljka Uncategorized first globals, military, war

John McCain’s defeat in the Presidential election very likely closed out any possibility of a Vietnam veteran becoming President. He is, in fact, the third consecutive Vietnam vet to lose the Presidential election.

Al Gore served as an Army journalist in Vietnam, and John Kerry won a Purple Heart there commanding a swift boat. Both lost to George W. Bush, whose military service in the Air National Guard is perhaps best known for questions about whether his father’s influence helped him get in the Guard.

Bush and Bill Clinton are the only two members of the Baby Boom Vietnam generation to hold the White House. Clinton was assailed with charges of being a draft dodger during the 1992 campaign. Still, he defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush, who as a World War II Navy flier was shot down over the Pacific. Four years later, Clinton defeated Bob Dole, who suffered terrible wounds and life-long disabilities in World War II combat in Europe. Now comes the defeat of McCain, perhaps the politician most identified with Vietnam service due to his ordeal as a POW for five and a half years after being shot down in Vietnam.

So, in each of the past five Presidential elections, men who served in war zones of WWII or Vietnam has lost to someone who never had that experience.

In a Forbes.com column published in November 2008, John Zogby examined why Vietnam vets have been denied the White House. He cites Zogby International polling that found 53% of likely voters believed that a candidate’s military service was important in deciding their vote. However, in comparison to other wars of the past 60 years, Vietnam was held in the lowest regard as for its importance to security and success of the military.

Was Vietnam service a real factor in this election, or any of the previous four? Is it just a coincidence that no Vietnam vet will ever be commander-in-chief?

Zeljka elections elections, international, John Zogby, military, politics, war, white house, zogby