By John Doble and Carol Selton

In Coming to Public Judgment, Daniel Yankelovich draws a distinction between people’s top-of-the-head opinions and their considered, worked-through judgments. Poll results, Yankelovich writes, are often mistakenly thought to be people’s final judgments, as opposed to their initial opinions.

Evidence of Yankelovich’s distinction can be seen in comparing poll and forum results on the promotion of democracy, the subject of the “Americans’ Role in the World” forums held in 2003 and 2004. In post-forum questionnaires, participants strongly endorsed the promotion of democracy—for example, a resounding 83 percent agreed that American “support of emerging democracies will, in the long run, enhance our own national security.” Furthermore, majorities of 60 percent or higher believed that “working to spread and maintain democracy in other countries will increase stability in the world” and that Americans “should help citizens of other countries develop stable democracies.” National surveys have echoed these findings. Taken in isolation, these findings appear to demonstrate that Americans endorse this country’s vigorous promotion of democracy across the globe.

But a different impression emerges when one listens to participants in the “Americans’ Role” forums. Most participants focused on one aspect: Should the United States “impose” democracy on other countries through the use of force? This question was answered with a resounding “no.” An Air Force serviceman in Panama City, Florida, said, “We can’t force our values on other people.” Participants in Carroll County, Maryland, said the idea amounted to “cultural imperialism.” A man in Austin, Texas, said, “I’m comfortable with promoting the spread of democracy as long as it doesn’t mean foist.”

Participants gave varying reasons for their views. Many worried about the costs of military intervention, in particular, the loss of life among service personnel and foreign civilians. Others expressed concern about offending foreigners’ cultural sensitivities. Some talked about the need for international approval; others said that, since the United States is far from perfect, it would be hypocritical for it to impose its system elsewhere.

The discussion was dominated by the current U.S. military action in Iraq. Although participants reached common ground on many aspects, Iraq proved divisive and, at times, polarizing. Some saw the war as necessary, saying that democratizing Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism, that the war was an ethical response to a tyrant who had massacred countless innocents. Others disagreed, saying that democratizing Iraq was unrealistic, that it was being waged without international sanction, and that it was diverting resources from combating the real threat, Al Qaeda.

When discussions went further—that is, beyond the question of imposing democracy by force—most participants favored the United States taking pro-democracy steps. One view was that U.S. leaders should speak out in support of democratic values. In a forum in New Orleans, Louisiana, people supported former Secretary of State Powell’s criticism of Russia for closing down newspapers critical of the government. One man commented, “I do think we have a right to say, ‘you’re doing it wrong and we don’t like it, Mr. Putin.’” Many believed that democracy could be promoted through an exchange of ideas. One New Jersey man stated, “If we know about other countries and they know about us, they’ll know we’re not out to hurt them.” A woman from New Orleans noted the long-term benefits of “the many people from other countries who come here and get educated. . . . They take it back to their countries and start programs there.”

Travel and educational exchanges also drew strong support at the 2003 National Issues Convention in Philadelphia. Several participants commented that Americans are too isolated and know little about other peoples and cultures. Some favored working directly with citizens and citizen groups, saying “we’ve got to start with the grassroots and work up, [because] we’re not going to succeed by [military] might.” In forums on terrorism in 2002–2003, people expressed the desire for increased understanding of other nations, especially in the Middle East.

As a rule, however, when people talked about democracy, they thought only in terms of an American style of democracy, with similar procedures and institutions. People’s conception of democracy was mostly mechanical, including a constitution and bill of rights, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. Few people thought about democracy in terms of public deliberation in which citizens of other nations, as forum participants were doing, attend public forums to consider issues affecting their lives, community, and country.

Many participants expressed misgiv¬ings about the long-term consequences of U.S. ties to non-democratic countries. One man in a Memphis, Tennessee, forum said, “It’s like Iran—we propped up the Shah of Iran for a long time. . . . And [when] the [Ayatollah] took over, we were on the outs.” Participants were divided on this point: in questionnaires completed after the “Americans’ Role” forums, 42 percent favored and 48 percent opposed the United States cutting ties with foreign dictators.

In the forums on terrorism, people discussed the reasons for Arab and Muslim enmity toward the United States. Many said Middle-Eastern rage stems from U.S. support for unpopular governments that act contrary to the interests of their people. A man in a Missoula, Montana, forum said anti-American feelings are a result of the United States being “so closely aligned with dictatorial governments who could care less about religious freedoms, women’s rights, and other things the American people strongly believe in.”

Despite concerns about imposing democracy, broad agreement existed that the United States should promote human rights around the globe. In Lafayette, Indiana, people were concerned about the rights of Afghani women; students at Hofstra University and Virginia Tech discussed civil liberties and the rights of women and children; and in Overland Park, Kansas, people focused on genocide. An Englewood, New Jersey, woman said, “We need to support [people] when [their] human rights are being violated.”

People at an “Americans’ Role” forum in Philadelphia favored using force to prevent genocide or in humanitarian emergencies. Some argued that the United States should draw a line; a New Jersey woman said, “As long as they’re not killing their people, dismembering their people . . . [we should] let them run their own country.”

Overall, these findings suggest that participants are of mixed opinions and have not completed the working through necessary to a considered judgment. Although they favor promoting democracy and believe this could promote stability throughout the world, most were opposed to using force to accomplish that end. At the same time, participants assigned a high priority to safeguarding human rights; many were willing, especially with international support, to intervene militarily to prevent genocide.