Terrorism 03

Terrorism:What Should We Do Now?

Results from Citizen Forums

Doble Research Associates


www.nifi.org

National Issues Forums (NIF)NIF is a nonpartisan nationwide network of educational and community organiza-tions that deliberate about nationwide issues. NIF forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view. Rather, deliberative forums provide a way for citizens to exchange ideas and experiences with one another and make morethoughtful and informed decisions. For more information about NIF, contactNational Issues Forums Information, 100 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2777. Phone: (800) 433-7834. www.nifi.org

Doble Research Associates, Inc.Doble Research Associates specializes in exploring public opinion about complexpublic issues. For more information, contact Doble Research at 375 Sylvan Avenue,Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. (201) 568-7200. www.dobleresearch.com

Copyright © 2003 by National Issues Forums Institutes

About This Report 1

The Framework for Deliberation 3

Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberated 4

The Impact of Deliberation 15

Questions and Answers about the Forums 16

AppendixesA. The Role of the News Media 21

B. Forums with International Participants 22

C. An Example of Deliberation 24

D. Questionnaire Results: Show the Results of the Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaires 25

E. NIF Terrorism Forums: Where Participants Are From 28

F. Methodology: Explains the Research Conducted for This Report 29

G. About Doble Research: Provides information about the firm that prepared this report 30

Contents


Doble Research Associates 1

The Value of a Public Voice In the weeks that immediately

followed September 11, the words andstories that best captured our thoughtsand feelings were those of everydaypeople. In ways both large and small,the strength and courage shown by citizens from all walks of life — fire-fighters and office workers; policemenand airline passengers; victims andtheir families — brought us togetherand helped us cope. Their words gavepublic expression to private grief, andgave us a common sense of direction.That kind of collective voice, however,has been noticeably absent in policydebate over how to best respond to thisnew threat to our national security.

This report is an attempt to makethose kinds of public voices heardagain. Prepared by Doble ResearchAssociates, it is a unique attempt tobring a different perspective to theongoing policy debate over terrorismbeing carried on today in both politicalcircles and the press. As we as a nationdecide how to best respond to thethreat of terrorism, the thoughts, views,and beliefs of everyday citizens are all-important.

What follows is not a product of traditional opinion polls or a collectionof expert theories. It is the result ofsomething far more profound: publicdeliberation — the collective judgmentof citizens from all across the countryas expressed in literally hundreds oflocally organized, nonpartisan NationalIssues Forums.

Finding Common GroundInvolving nearly 2,000 people in 40

different states, forum participants covered a wide range. They lived inlarge cities and rural areas. Their viewson politics and society ranged acrossthe political spectrum. They came fromall walks of life. Among them were professionals and factory workers;housewives and students; college grad-

uates and those whose formal educa-tion ended with grade school. Workingwithin their communities to addressthe issue of terrorism, they werecharged with finding a common groundfor action — developing an approachthat would help both citizens and theirpolitical leaders address the threat ofterrorism.

Modeled after traditional NewEngland town meetings, forum participants typically engaged in conversations and discussions thatlasted for several hours. Some evendeliberated for days — exploringoptions and possibilities before finallydeveloping an approach all their own.Their views, not surprisingly, sharplycontradict what passes today for anaccurate picture of public opinion onterrorism. When it comes to definingneeded U.S. action on both the interna-tional and national stage, they turnconventional wisdom almost completelyon its head.

Building AlliancesIn spite of the alleged widespread

public support for military action sooften cited by journalists and policymakers, forum participants declaredthat the war on terrorism shouldinclude military action only as a lastresort, and even then only in conjunc-tion with a broad coalition of allies.Few saw any clear link between Iraqand global terrorism. Instead, mostsuggested that our political and mili-tary leaders need to rethink our current relationship with other countries — particularly in the MiddleEast where our support of unpopularand undemocratic regimes fuels a deep, and pervasive hatred of theUnited States.

Security and Civil LibertiesWhile debate in Washington has

centered largely on the newly createdDepartment of Homeland Security and

About This ReportKenneth A. Brown

2 Doble Research Associates

the perceived need for greater policeand surveillance powers, forum partici-pants saw the issue far differently.Although they believed that delays anddifficulties at airports and other publicplaces were perhaps both needed andinevitable, they saw racial and ethnicprofiling as unacceptable. When itcomes to fighting the war on terrorismat home, they declared, we must striveto protect the nation without compro-mising our most basic democratic values, rights, and principles.

The Need to Know MoreMost importantly of all perhaps,

forum groups felt that both policymak-ers and the public needed to learnmore about the underlying causes ofterrorism — the social, political, andeconomic problems that drive violencearound the world, particularly in theMiddle East. Our policies, theydeclared, should not be determined byrhetoric or simplistic political theories,but an informed and pragmatic assess-ment of what is most likely to be effec-tive in combating terrorism.

Putting the Public into Public Policy

These deeply felt public judgmentsneed to be part of our current debateon terrorism. Most important publicpolicy decisions are really questions ofvalue — what we as citizens hold mostdear. And revealing common values arewhat forums are all about.

The findings detailed in the pagesthat follow are important because theyrepresent far more than just a collec-tion of competing views and opinions.

Forums are not popularity contests.Participants do not merely argue orvote. Instead, they work together, care-fully weighing the costs and benefits ofdifferent approaches, struggling todefine a collective course for action.

For both the press and politicalleaders alike, these conversations offera glimpse into our nation’s most deeplyheld public beliefs and desires —

invaluable information whetherone’s goal is covering the news or developing policy.

Bringing People TogetherIn an era of rising civic detachment

and declining voter participation, delib-eration helps bring citizens together tosearch for solutions to common prob-lems. National Issues Forums havehelped isolated rural communities come together to build health clinicsand troubled inner-city neighborhoodsto address the problem of crime in their schools and streets. For many,however, a forum’s most importantproduct is simply the sense of commu-nity it engenders — the way it bringspeople together.

Making Democracy Work as it Should

A healthy democracy depends onpublic participation, not just in regular-ly scheduled elections, but in the ongoing and much harder business offinding solutions to persistent publicproblems. Nowhere is that fact morecritical today than in the task of devel-oping a national response to the threatof terrorism. For far too long that jobhas been defined as one solely for pro-fessionals and political leaders. Thepublic need not apply.

By offering a framework for publicdeliberation, the NIF network helps citizens find solutions to the problemsthat concern them, a way of connectingboth with others in their communityand their elected officials.

People cannot act together until theydecide together. Deliberation is not justabout talking over issues, but abouttalking through them — bringing divided interests together to find a common ground for action.

Kenneth A. Brown is a Program Officer withthe Kettering Foundation. He works regularlywith the NIF Network on Outreach andResearch.

The Framework for Deliberations

The participants in this year’sforums deliberated using the NIFissue book, “Terrorism: What ShouldWe Do Now?” written by KeithMelville in collaboration with theKettering Foundation.

The issue book provides NIF par-ticipants with a framework for deal-ing with the issue of terrorism. Theissue book outlines the issue in anonpartisan way and then presentsfor public deliberation three alterna-tive approaches for addressing it.Rather than conforming to the ideasof any single advocate, each of thesethree approaches represents a dis-tinct set of American priorities andviews that informs and structuresthe deliberation without persuadingor biasing people. The approachesare not necessarily exclusionary.Instead, each presents an array ofideas and options, along with thecosts and consequences of each, forparticipants to consider and deliber-ate about so that they may, and oftendo, construct their own approach tothe issue.

Approach One: The Sword of All-Out War

This approach holds that global terrorism is a serious threat todaybecause the United States was slow to recognize its danger and disinclined to take decisive action. We must use every means at our disposal — including the use of our formidable intelligence and militarycapabilities — to root out and destroyterrorist organizations and enforcesevere sanctions for the nations thatsponsor them. It will be important torecruit as many allies in the war onterrorism as possible, but if neces-sary, the U.S. must be prepared to actunilaterally.

Approach Two: The Shield ofHomeland Security

This approach says that America’sfailure to take its own security seriously goes a long way towardexplaining why the terrorists were so successful in carrying out theirattack. We will never be safe until we make security our overridingobjective. This means making far-reaching changes in our day-to-daylives, from ceding more power to law-enforcement agencies to giving up some of the civil rights we havebecome accustomed to claiming.

Approach Three: The Battle forHearts and Minds

This approach says that we willnever be secure unless we acknowl-edge and understand the resentmentand rage that much of the Muslimworld feels toward the United States.We will have to reassess and revisethe way U.S. power and influence arewielded in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.


Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberated

The Public’s Starting Point

Terrorism was, for many, aspainful and difficult a NationalIssues Forums issue as any theyever deliberated about. Feelings randeep; resolution was manifest; themood was sober, and the delibera-tions were serious and thoughtful.There was a good deal of pessimismabout whether the world has per-manently changed, with many questioning whether life in the U.S. will ever be as it was.

As the forums began and forumparticipants approached the issue,many shared their experiences:where they had been on September11, how they heard the news, andwhether they, their family members,or friends had been near one of the sites. A man at a forum inHempstead, New York, said: “Mydaughter was in Tower One and stillhasn’t fully recovered.” Otherstalked about their visits to theWorld Trade Center, the Pentagon,or to Israel during one of the suicidebombings. Implying that it couldhave happened to her, a SouthDakotan said she had flown to NewYork City two days before 9/11. Afair number of people who camewere Muslims and MiddleEasterners, and they described theattack’s impact in terms of profilingand prejudice. Some talked aboutthe impact in terms of missedflights, airport delays, and civil lib-erties, while others said they hadfriends or family members in mili-tary service. Indeed, virtually noneof the citizens who participated inany of the forums was totallyuntouched by the issue.

The Nation’s Mood

Some citizens worried about themood of the country and what theysaw as a national climate of suspi-cion. “People are self-deputizingthemselves, which is very scary,”said a Los Angeles man. “As a pub-lic, we don’t want Big Brother look-ing down our throat,” said a manfrom Missoula, Montana. “The politi-cal atmosphere has shifted, debatehas been closed off, the nationalfocus is on fear,” said a Philadelphiaman. A moderator from GrandRapids talked about the experienceof a Sikh cardiologist. After 9/11, helost patients and could not leave hishome because of verbal abusecaused by his turban. “At our forum,he was upset to the point of crying,”the moderator said, adding thatwhile things are better for the doctornow, the incident “illustrates people’signorance and the dangers of racialprofiling.”

Others had a different view, sayingthat, Iraq notwithstanding, the issueof terrorism has receded in nationalimportance and the American peopleare “so back to normal that they areasleep” at a time when they shouldremain vigilant. “The public is nap-ping again [and will continue to nap]until something else happens,” saida high school student at a forum inHempstead, New York. A Los Angelesman said the many terror warningshad led to what he called “threatfatigue” in the sense that people nolonger take them seriously.



Safety

For the most part, forum partici-pants’ concern about the safety oftheir family and friends was limitedto being near what they saw as ahigh-risk target. A Philadelphiawoman said that her city could betargeted because of its historic sig-nificance, adding that she feltuneasy in center city. At a forumthere in late June 2002, the womansaid she would avoid going into cen-ter city Philadelphia on that July 4.A moderator from Rockville,Maryland, said: “Our participantswere only worried about their per-sonal safety while traveling in theD.C. metropolitan area.”

A Missed Opportunity

Forum participants said theAmerican people had been ready tomake sacrifices in the national inter-est after 9/11. Americans were, theysaid, more than ready to do theirpart but were never called on. Amoderator from Austin, Texasadded, “People here said, we’re notbeing asked to do anything.” A mod-erator from Hempstead, New York,said: “In our forum, people said theyhad been willing to make sacrificesafter September 11 but did not knowwhat to do.”



The first approach holds that the U.S.must do all it can — including use itsformidable military capabilities — toroot out and destroy terrorist organi-zations around the world and enforcesevere sanctions for the nations thatsponsor them.

1. A Willingness to Use Force, Especially in Afghanistan

The NIF participants said thatafter the attack on 9/11, theU.S. had no choice but torespond as it did in Afghanistan,with overwhelming militaryforce.

w “It was totally appropriate togo in [Afghanistan] militarilyand destroy those trainingcamps and hideouts in differ-ent caves. And if similarevents happen down theroad, it would be appropriateto take military action again.”Woman, El Paso, Texas

w “While participants wereskeptical of what the govern-ment was telling them, theyfelt that the U.S. was right togo into Afghanistan becausewe had to do something.”Moderator, Lake George, New York

w Pointing to the nation’sresponse to the attack onPearl Harbor, a Dayton par-ticipant said that though“slow to anger,” the Americanpeople are, once stirred,unshakable in their determi-nation to defend the country.

w After the forums, forum participants, by a margin ofabout two to one, said that inorder “to stop terrorism, wemust be as aggressive withother countries as we have

been in Afghanistan with theTaliban.” (See Table 3.)

2. Questions about War against Iraq

At the same time, many partici-pants raised questions aboutU.S. policy toward Iraq, withsome saying that instead ofsolving the problem of terror-ism, war with Iraq would exac-erbate it.

w “People worried that militaryaction [against Iraq] wouldencourage even more terror-ism.” Moderator, Grinnell,Iowa

w “I worry about retaliation.How is it going to be unavoidable?” Woman, San Francisco, California

3. The Economic Impact

A number of participants raisedquestions about the economiccosts of war with Iraq.

w “It will cost billions, and topthat off with a strugglingeconomy, low consumer confidence, and the [declinein the] stock market.” Man, Athens, Georgia

w “This forum said that warwould divert resources fromdomestic programs and intothe military.” Moderator,Grinnell, Iowa

4. An Opposing View

Others said war was necessary,reasoning that Iraq, if not disarmed, would pose a clearthreat in terms of future terrorism.

Approach One: The Sword of All-Out War


w “Some will say our interest in Iraq is oil. [But] we sawwhat happened when terror-ism hit the United States. If it happened once, it’ll happenagain.” Man, Athens, Georgia

w “Countries that support terrorism need to be heldaccountable.” Man, SanFrancisco, California

w “Our high school studentssaid we might have to dealwith other threats later if the Iraqi regime is permittedto violate U.N. resolutions.”Moderator, Cedar Rapids,Iowa

5. A Strong Preference that theU.S. Not Act Alone

While people did not alwaysagree about what to do in spe-cific cases, they nearly all feltthat the U.S. should not be theworld’s policeman, and that as arule, the U.S. should enlistbroad-based support from itsallies and the internationalcommunity before taking mili-tary action against terrorism.

w “The more international sup-port we have, the more ithelps us in the long term.”Man, Hempstead, New York

w “My group said acting aloneis why people hate us.”Moderator, Austin, Texas

w “Our group said it would bearrogant for the U.S. to go atit alone and that we shouldalways look to [help from our]allies.” Moderator, Warrenton,Illinois

At the same time, many saidthat if it were necessary, theywould support military action

without international approval.After the forums, 59 percent said the U.S. should “punish any government that harbors or supports terrorism, with orwithout international support.”[See Table 4.]

6. The Loss of Life

As they deliberated about usingforce, participants’ top concernswere American and civilian casualties.

w “There was great concernabout American lives andabout innocent people. People[in our forum] said we shouldconcentrate on the terroriststhemselves rather thanendangering civilians, andthey worried that women andchildren would be at risk.”Moderator, Carbondale,Illinois

w “There was a lot of supporthere for the military personnelinvolved in the war againstIraq. There was more supportfor the military than of theactual presidential decision togo to war.” Moderator, CedarRapids, Iowa

7. Effectiveness Is Key

The more they deliberated, themore participants said the mostimportant criterion for usingforce against terrorism, includingin Iraq, is effectiveness.

w “Instead of having us take onthe world, our group wanted astrategic military response.”Moderator, Rockville,Maryland



w “People here said we must actwith a cool head, not act outof a sense of revenge.”Moderator, Athens, Georgia

8. Support for Covert Operations

Several said that beyond directmilitary force, the best way tocombat terrorism is throughcovert operations.

w “Our group wanted moreemphasis on covert actionand less all-out action.”Moderator, Carbondale,Illinois

w “People said our most suc-cessful security forces areinvisible but effective, like thesecret service and profession-al security companies thattake care of issues quietlyand efficiently.” Moderator,Rapid City, South Dakota

9. Terrorism May Be Impossibleto Eradicate

Many said the war against ter-rorism will go on for years.

w “Terrorism is like poverty —we’ll never wipe it out.” Man, Panama City, Florida

w “People here compared it tothe war on drugs — a warwe’ll never win.” Moderator,Custer, South Dakota andNew Castle, Wyoming

w “Killing won’t end it becausethere are too many support-ers with the same politicalagenda.” Woman, Hempstead,New York

10. Force Alone Is Not the Answer

While they favored militaryaction after September 11, peo-ple also said that force, by itself,is not the answer and that thewar against terrorism requires a multifaceted solution.

w “People said that historyproves a military response toaggression works, but thatforce by itself is not theanswer.” Moderator, Austin,Texas

w “A limited use of force is auseful way to deal with thisproblem. But I don’t under-stand the long-term goals of a military campaign and so I see it as a frighteninglong-term strategy.” Man,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

w “We can’t expect everything tobe solved by dropping bombsand declaring war.” Man, El Paso, Texas

In Sum

Participants had a sober view aboutusing force, and acknowledged realrisks. “If you take a baseball bat andhit a beehive, you’re going to kill afew bees, but you’re going to anger alot of others,” said an El Paso man.The consensus was that the use offorce should be measured, wellthought through, and the option oflast resort. “Do it in ways that don’tadd fuel to the fire,” a Philadelphiawoman said. In general, people didnot want the U.S. to be the world’spoliceman and strongly favored usingmilitary power only with broadlybased international support.



This approach holds that the countrywill never be safe until homelandsecurity becomes our overridingobjective.

1. The Importance of HomelandSecurity

Participants saw homeland security as a top priority.

w “Prevention is better than acure. I’d rather prevent acrime than have to clean upthe aftermath.” Police officer,Missoula, Montana

2. People Localized the Issue

While people talked about theTrade Towers and the Pentagon,a great many, when thinkingabout homeland security, local-ized the issue and talked aboutthe threat where they lived.

w “People here said a smalltown can be a potential target of terrorism as well asa big city, saying we’re not farfrom a nuclear power plant.Participants felt that if something happened inWarrenton, it would send amessage that no one is safe.”Moderator, Warrenton, Illinois

w “People talked about this areabeing a target because of ournearby dam.” Moderator,Norman, Oklahoma

w “Our group seemed mostafraid of bioterrorism thanother forms of terrorism.”Moderator, Grinnell, Iowa

3. Compromising Civil LibertiesWas Generally Unacceptable

For the most part, participantsinsisted that civil liberties not

become casualties in any “waragainst terrorism.” Indeed, the more they deliberated, the morethey voiced this view.

w “The protection of our constitutional rights and liberties should be foremost,and we should not be threat-ened into compromising themunder the guise of combating terrorism.” Man, Missoula,Montana

w “People here said the terror-ists would win if we give upwhat we’ve been willing to diefor.” Moderator, Rapid City,South Dakota

w “It’s very important that wenot take our lives and thevalues we’ve cherished sincethe beginning of the countryand just hand them over andsay, okay, this isn’t importantanymore.” Woman, El Paso,Texas

Some worried that an effort to combat terrorism, no matterhow earnest, might lead to a cli-mate of fear and suspicion inwhich neighbors spy on eachother.

w “People here said we must bemindful of the costs of fight-ing terrorism on our personalliberty. We have to be carefulwe don’t go down a slipperyslope to fascism.” Moderator,Rockville, Maryland

4. Confusion about ParticularLiberties

But while many opposed com-promising civil liberties in ageneral sense, they did notidentify exactly which libertiesmight be at risk.

Approach Two: The Shield of Homeland Security



w “There was no mention of anyone being held withoutbeing charged or of militarytribunals.” Moderator, forumsin Lock Haven, Pennsylvaniaand Lake George, New York

w “There was no real sense ofthe kind of particular freedomspeople would have to give up,no sense of what the exacttradeoffs would involve.”Moderator, Carbondale, Illinois

w “Some were concerned thatrestrictive policies like those inthe Patriot Act are too vague,but most were unaware of thatlaw, let alone its specifics.”Moderator, Hempstead, NewYork

5. A Narrow Majority OpposedMore Surveillance

Participants opposed giving thegovernment additional powers toconduct wiretaps.

w “My friend’s afraid her phonehas been tapped.” Woman,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

w After the forums, participantsopposed broadening the government’s authority to conduct wiretaps by a marginof 53 percent to 39 percent. (See Table 4.)

6. Broad Opposition to Profiling

There was broad concern aboutsingling out or profiling Muslims,Arab Americans, or others whomight be seen as potential terrorists.

w “Our group had a real problemwith profiling.” Moderator,Rockville, Maryland

w “Don’t single out Arabs orMuslims or discriminateagainst them — that’s what mygroups said.” Moderator,forums in Lock Haven,Pennsylvania and Lake George,New York

w “We had a lot of concern aboutthe civil rights of Muslims andother minorities.” Moderator,Grand Rapids, Michigan

w “I’m Hispanic and I’m fre-quently mistaken for an Arab.They ask me for identification,and when they see a Spanishlast name, I can see the reliefin their faces. Believe me,there is a lot of anti-Arab sentiment right now.” Man,Los Angeles, California

A few pointed out that terrorismwould not end, no matter howmuch profiling there is, becausewe do not know who to target.

w “In 1995, [terrorism wascaused by] Timothy McVeigh.At Columbine, it was Anglokids. Racial profiling goesagainst the Constitution andthe values of why everyone ishere.” Man, El Paso, Texas

7. Disagreements about Privacy

While many were concernedabout privacy, a fair numberwere not.

w “My group was not concernedabout privacy because theyreasoned that if you’re notdoing anything wrong, youhave nothing to hide.”Moderator, Rockville, Maryland

w “People here said we’ve alreadygiven up our privacy, so whatdifference does it make?”Moderator, Austin, Texas



8. Immigration

A number of participants wereconcerned about the number ofimmigrants entering the UnitedStates.

w “The terrorists walked right in the front door.” Man,Hempstead, New York

w “Our group favored morestringent guidelines for immi-grants, especially those com-ing from the Middle East.”Moderator, Germantown,Maryland

9. Willingness to Be Inconvenienced

Participants saw waiting at air-ports and similar inconveniencesas a small price to pay to combat terrorism.

w “Most people are going to theairport and taking extra timeand saying, ‘I’d rather besafe.’” Woman, Denver,Colorado

w “They checked my bag atDisney World. So what!”Woman, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania

w “Airport security in othercountries is better than in theU.S. We need to learn fromthem.” Man, Dayton, Ohio

But others voiced displeasureabout the national alert system.

w “People here said the publicseemed bored with [theheightened alert] after awhile.” Moderator, Conway,South Carolina

w “Participants here said thatthere has been a tendencytoward overkill [with home-land security.] It gives the

appearance of doing some-thing, but we won’t be saferwith it.” Moderator, OakArbor, Washington

10. Two Conspicuous Omissions

Two issues were scarcely men-tioned in the forums, eventhough they were heavily covered in the national media.

First, there was virtually nomention of the anthrax scare,which dominated national attention in the fall and earlywinter of 2001.

Second, there was almost notalk of the controversy sur-rounding the creation of aDepartment of HomelandSecurity, a result suggestingthat this was an “expert” or“technical” issue, not a “public issue.” Though of greatconcern to leadership, narrowissues involving the creation ofthe Department of HomelandSecurity did not directly affectpeople in the forums and, implicitly, most Americans.

In Sum

The great majority of forum partici-pants said the U.S. must take stepsto safeguard domestic security andthat they are willing to be inconve-nienced at airports and other publicplaces. While there was confusionabout what exact infringements on“civil liberties” may involve, partici-pants generally opposed profiling,saying we must protect the nationwithout compromising our rights,values, and principles.



This approach holds that we will neverbe secure unless we get at the roots of the problem by acknowledging andunderstanding the resentment and rage that much of the Muslim worldfeels toward the United States.

1. Concern about Perceptions of the United States

Participants were concerned aboutwhat they saw as foreigners’ lowregard for, or even hatred of theU.S., especially in the Middle East and Arab world. After theforums, an overwhelming majoritysaid that “a root cause of theSeptember 11 attack is the hatredthat many Arabs feel toward theU.S.” (See Table 3.)

2. We Don’t Understand Them

Participants broadly agreed thatboth Americans, including bothpolicymakers and citizens, needincreased understanding of Islamand Arab countries. Education,people said, is essential to addressthis global problem.

w “Participants wanted to exam-ine why would people want todo this to us.” Moderator,Rockville, Maryland

w “We need to understand wherethey’re coming from.” Woman,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

w “The problem is how we see the world. We need to educateourselves, understand how littlewe know, and understand theworld we live in.” Moderator,Lake George, New York andLock Haven, Pennsylvania

w “Participants admitted to knowing very little aboutAfghanistan and Muslim reli-gion and peoples.” Moderator,Rapid City, South Dakota

3. And They Don’t Understand Us

Participants said this country has done a poor job of telling itsstory, of presenting itself and itsintentions. While foreigners knowa great deal about our moviesand music, they do not, peoplesaid, understand how averageAmericans live, or what we valueand believe. As a result, partici-pants said, there is a great dealof unwarranted hatred ofAmericans around the world,especially among Arabs andMuslims.

w “People said the population asa whole does not hate the U.S.but that their perceptions aretwisted by religious leaders.”Moderator, Austin, Texas

w “People here said hatred stemsfrom the fact that the populousin Arab countries is not welleducated.” Moderator, RapidCity, South Dakota

4. The Causes of Anti-AmericanSentiments

As participants deliberated, they named a number of factorsunderlying what they saw ashatred of the U.S. in the Arabworld:

a. U.S. Support for UnpopularRegimes: A large number saidthat a good deal of the Araband Muslim rage stems fromU.S. support for unpopulargovernments, which act con-trary to our own beliefs andideals.

w “We seem to be closelyaligned with dictatorial governments that could care less about religiousfreedoms, women’s rights,and other things that the

Approach Three: The Battle for Hearts and Minds



American people stronglybelieve in.” Man, Missoula,Montana

w An overwhelming numberagreed that “Arabs havesome legitimate grievancesabout the U.S., includingour support for governmentsthat have long neglectedtheir people’s welfare.” (SeeTable 3.)

b. The Need for Oil: Many saidArab and Muslim feelings stemfrom the U.S. presence inSaudi Arabia, and that the wayto lower this country’s profile isto reduce U.S. dependence onMiddle Eastern oil.

w “People said we must reduceour addiction to oil anddevelop energy alternatives.”Moderator, Carbondale,Illinois

w “The trade off of higher oilprices would be a smallprice to pay to end terror-ism.” Man, Missoula,Montana

w After the forums, partici-pants said they would favorreducing our dependence onPersian Gulf oil, EVEN IFthat meant higher gasolineand home heating oil prices.(See Table 5.)

c. Corporate Interests: Somesaw the root of the problem asfundamentally economic andcorporate.

w “We need to take a closelook at our corporations and how they do business,like building Hardees in the Middle East.” Man,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

w “All the problems in the world can be traced back to

economics.” High school stu-dent, Hempstead, New York

d. A Clash of Cultures: Otherssaid terrorism is rooted in a conflict between cultures.

w “[People said] a clash of civilizations is inevitablebecause of the conflicting val-ues of Muslims and the U.S.”Moderator, Austin, Texas

w “We attach strings [to our aid]and insult their culture. It’snot fair to expect them to belike us.” Woman, OklahomaCity, Oklahoma

But others felt that cultural differences do not pose insur-mountable problems.

w “A ‘clash of cultures’ is notthe root cause because justlook at the ‘clash’ behind theculture in the U.S. and inJapan.” Man, Los Angeles,California

w “People here said Americansare not purposely offendingpeople but that we are offensive because of ourarrogance and because we’re not paying attention to the needs of people inother countries.” Moderator,Rockville, Maryland

e. Poverty: Some said a primaryunderlying cause of terrorism iswidespread Arab and Muslimpoverty.

w “Poverty and depravation arethe underlying cause of thehatred toward the U.S. [Wemust] increase the standardof living and help people stoplistening to Middle East radi-cals.” Moderator, Austin,Texas

But not everyone shared thatview.



w “Poverty is not an excuse.Suicide bombers aren’t allpoor.” Man, Los Angeles,California

f. Israel: Quite a number of participants questioned U.S.support for Israel in light ofthat nation’s policies towardthe Palestinians and its disre-gard of U.N. resolutions.

w “One source of rage has todo with U.S. support forIsrael.” Man, Austin, Texas

w “You won’t see a singleMiddle Eastern countrysupport the U.S. againstIraq because of the doublestandard policies in theMiddle East. [The U.S.]supports Israel, yet Israeloccupied Palestinian landand does not abide by U.N.resolutions to end theoccupation. Yet it asks Iraqto abide by U.N. resolu-tions, otherwise they’regoing to bomb people. Thatis a double standard.”Middle Eastern man, ElPaso, Texas

w By a post-forum margin of 54 to 25 percent, forumparticipants favored chang-ing “U.S. policy towardIsrael so that our supportdepends on their beingrestrained toward thePalestinians.” One in fivewere not sure. (See Table 4.)

5. Interest in a Long-TermSolution

Participants wanted to talkabout the roots of the problemand a long-term solution to theissue of terrorism.

w “People in our group saidthat getting to the root caus-es of terrorism leads to long-lasting success, but they alsosaid that this is somethingthat will take a long time.Doing this well would be diffi-cult.” Moderator, Grinnell,Illinois

In Sum

Although focused on both a strongmilitary response and on domesticsecurity, participants said the U.S.must develop a thoughtful, informed,long-term strategy in the war on terrorism.

They said:

First, Americans must becomebetter informed about the Arabworld and Islam.

Second, the U.S. must do a bet-ter job of telling its story, ofhelping foreigners understandwho we are, what we value andbelieve, and what we strugglewith on a day-to-day basis.

Third, this country must under-stand and combat the wide-spread hatred so many Arabsand Muslims feel toward theU.S.

Fourth, the U.S. must take a hard look at current policy andpractices, including support forunpopular, undemocratic gov-ernments and practices, andpolicy driven by our dependenceon Middle Eastern oil.

Finally, we must think in terms of the long run, with a clear-eyed realization that the waragainst terrorism will not bewon quickly or easily, or per-haps even in our lifetime.



While there is no single, uniformeffect of participating in a NationalIssues Forum, deliberating with othercitizens about a public issue oftenhas an impact, sometimes a dramaticimpact, on people’s thinking. After aforum in Wayne, Nebraska, a highschool teacher said, “I’m going tochange how I am approaching teach-ing my civics class.” But the nature ofthat impact is sometimes similar andsometimes highly variable.

Young people in particular respond-ed with interest and enthusiasm tothe forum process. A moderator fromRapid City, South Dakota, said thatafter a forum among teenagers in thatpart of the county, one commented,“This is just what we do over the dinner table — except we don’t have a moderator.” Other young peoplethere, the moderator said, liked the process, with one at a YouthCorrectional Center in Custer saying,“We’re not arguing, and we’re notbeing judged.”

Participants appreciated the factthat it was a civil conversation andthe fact that while they deliberatedabout three different options, they didnot have to choose any one of them.They had the opportunity to considerother ideas and to pick and choosethose they thought made the mostsense. Several moderators said thatas participants deliberated andlearned more about the issue of terrorism, they began to develop adeeper, clearer, more certain

judgment about what to do. Otherssimply appreciated a chance to learn.A woman from Bloomington, Illinois,said, “While I still haven’t chosen ordesigned an answer to the problem, Ijust feel more well educated and openabout this subject.”

Some participants left the forumswanting to focus on other issuesrelated to terrorism. In Athens,Georgia, for example, participantssaid that after deliberating, they feltmore threatened by nuclear prolifera-tion and environmental issues thanby another terrorist attack like theone on 9/11. Others walked awayfrom forums mulling over or stewingabout the issue. “I understand nowthat this is all very complicated andthat finding one true answer is nextto impossible,” said a woman fromRapid City, South Dakota. “While I’mmore confused about the issue [than Iwas before the forum], it’s a thought-ful kind of confusion,” said anotherwoman from Denver, Colorado.

National Issues Forums are moder-ated so that all points of view areaired and people have a chance toexpress their views, no matter whatthey may be. Suggesting that theywere impressed by both the integrityof the NIF process and the fact thatall points of view were respected, amoderator from Grand Rapids,Michigan, said that several Muslimswho had participated in forums therehad joined that community’s NIFsteering committee.


The Impact of Deliberation


No, with regard to at least three aspects of the issues.

First, there was almost no mention of the controversy surroundingthe creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a result sug-gesting that this was an expert issue, which is of great concern toleadership, but not a public issue that most people feel directlyaffects them. (People see expert issues as “over their head” or “out of their hands” and thus something they cannot influence, evenif they want to. Public issues, by contrast, are issues that people care about and directly connect to.) And so, despite its prominence in the 2002 election, the results suggest that while important tosome swing voters in certain states, this was not a key concern ofthe general public.

Second, participants’ thinking also did not align with another aspectof conventional wisdom — that the public wanted to lash out afterthe attack on September 11. In these forums, the citizen participantsstrongly favored using military force only after the most careful con-sideration. “If we’re a ‘road-raged’ nation, we’ll be trigger-happy internationally,” said a woman from Philadelphia.

Third, the dramatic extent to which participants were willing to sacrifice in the war against terrorism was evidenced by two results:

w Forum participants said they would pay higher gasoline andheating oil prices to reduce dependence on Persian Gulf oil. (See Table 5.)

w While minimizing casualties was a key concern, forum partici-pants also said they would accept a loss of lives among U.S.troops and civilians in other countries if required by an effectivemilitary campaign. (See Table 5.)

1. Does the public connect tothis issue as the con-ventional wisdom suggests?

The Public Approach

Questions and Answers about the Forums


2. How doesthe publicapproach the issue?

With resolution. But also with some confusion, and a fair degree of pessimism that the issue will be resolved in their lifetimes.

Forum participants said the U.S. had no choice but to use militaryforce against Afghanistan, saying the country had been attackedand must defend itself. Participants were resolute in their sensethat the U.S. has the right to defend itself against aggression. Butmany also expressed hesitation about war with Iraq, saying theydid not see an imminent, terrorism-related threat to the U.S.

Many did not understand the reasons for what they saw as thehatred so many Muslims and Arabs feel toward the U.S., addingthat the American people are poorly informed about Afghanistan,the Middle East, Arab countries, and Islam. Moreover, and especial-ly in forums with participants from other countries, people raisedquestions about the exact definition of what “terrorism” is, as wellas about a strategy to fight it.

Finally, given the depth and breadth of the hatred the terrorists felttoward the U.S. and their utter ruthlessness, participants doubtedwhether terrorism is a problem that will be fully resolved any timesoon.

3. Are thereother dimen-sions to theissue thatpeople in theforums see?

Forum participants were deeply concerned about what they saw tobe a fundamental lack of understanding, saying:

w People in the Middle East, and Muslims throughout the world,are poorly informed about the U.S. Instead of understandingwho Americans are, what we value, and what we believe andstand for, Muslims’ views, participants said, stem from ourmovies and popular culture.

w The American people, including policymakers, are poorlyinformed about Afghanistan, Arab countries, the Middle East,and Islam. Moreover, instead of informing us, the news media,they said, exacerbate the problem.

Such misunderstanding makes it not only easy to misread inten-tions and actions but also to stereotype other people and countries.




Courage: The citizen participants said the U.S. must defend itselfand do whatever is necessary to fight terrorism, even if that involvesreal sacrifice on the part of ordinary citizens.

Determination: Saying the war on terrorism is likely to go on andon, forum participants said they were prepared for the long haul.

Effectiveness: Participants said U.S. policy in the war against terrorism should be driven by questions about what will be mosteffective, not about what is justified in the abstract.

Education: Forum participants said Americans must become bettereducated about the Middle East and Islam, particularly about thecause of so much Arab and Muslim hatred toward this country.Many also felt that policymakers are poorly informed, making what aMontana man called “naive and ill-advised foreign policy decisions.”

Restraint: The citizens who participated in these forums called for acarefully calibrated military response that minimizes civilian casual-ties. In short, the use of force should never, as one man put it,“make the problem worse.”

Prudence: Participants said the U.S. must be far-sighted and devel-op a strategy to combat terrorism in both the long and short term.

4. What values were at play in thediscussions?

The two-to-three hour forum deliberation helped people see the com-plex, interconnected nature of this issue, which led them to favor,instead of any single approach to terrorism, a multifaceted strategy,drawing on many ideas. While people may not have reached a defi-nite conclusion, nearly half said that as a result of the forum, theysaw new ways to work on the issue, while more than 80 percent saidthey now have a definite idea or general sense about what should bedone. (See Table 1.)

5. What effectdid delibera-tion have?

The Deliberation

Three things: first, saving the lives of U.S. troops and minimizingcivilian casualties; second, protecting the country domestically without compromising civil liberties; third, developing a strategy toaddress the problem in both the short and long term.

6. What mattered to people as they de-liberated?


Participants felt that the use of force in the war on terrorism shouldbe measured, focused, direct, and carefully thought-out. Forceshould be used with two overriding imperatives: attacking terroristseffectively, while minimizing casualties among both U.S. troops andcivilians.

The citizens who participated in the forums were willing to be incon-venienced to enhance domestic security. Participants also generallydid not want to trade off civil liberties for increased security, andthey opposed profiling Arab-Americans and Muslims, saying we mustenhance domestic security without compromising the rights, values,and principles we fight to defend. At the same time, this sentimentseemed a bit less pronounced in forums held in the winter of 2002-2003 and the spring of 2003 than in those held in 2001 and early2002.

People in the forums said we must get at the problem behind theproblem — the deep hatred of the U.S. in the Arab world and theMiddle East. The threat of terrorism will remain until we understandand address the problem’s roots.

7. Is a “publicvoice” rec-ognizable?

Participants wanted to become more active in the fight against terror-ism. Many said they had been willing to sacrifice after 9/11 and wereready to take action in their community now but did not know whatto do.

But some forum sponsors were taking action. The ChiesmanFoundation for Democracy in South Dakota is working with organi-zations like Participate America, to honor the courageous spirit of the American people, including those lost on September 11, by educating citizens about American democracy and promoting volun-teerism, voting, and an active civic life. In Oklahoma, NIF groups areworking with the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism(MIPT), founded after the terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. MurrahBuilding in Oklahoma City. But in many cases, participants wantedto know what they could do.

8. Was anyfirm com-mon groundfor actionrevealed?

The Outcomes




Seeing this threat as serious and direct, participants’ deliberationswere sober and serious; they demonstrated what one moderatorcalled “sophisticated skepticism” about each approach. Instead ofseizing on any one answer, participants said this is a complex issueand something about which Americans must do a great deal ofthoughtful deliberation.

A comparison between participants’ views this year and last yearshows how different their thinking was. In 2002, after deliberatingabout “Money and Politics,” participants felt cynical, resigned, andpowerless. Money, they said, hopelessly corrupts our political system,and nothing will ever be done about it. The system, they said, isimpervious to being fixed.

But participants said terrorism is so threatening that it must be dealtwith because American lives are at risk. Participants’ thinking wascharacterized by a sense of purpose, determination, and courage.

9. At whatstage is thepublic onthis issue?Has the public’sthinkingevolved?

If we imagine the public not as just many individuals but as citizensand civic actors who are a source of potential energy and if we imag-ine the public’s political will as a latent resource, a vast reserve thathas yet to be tapped, we can reconceptualize what happened in theseforums. While many do not know how to become involved, they des-perately want to be, they want to become kinetic energy and havetheir energy tapped and converted so that they can be active contributors in the war against terrorism.

Participants want to connect to this issue, to find ways to take anactive part. One illustration of this is their willingness to accept higher gasoline and heating oil prices to reduce our dependence onPersian Gulf oil. While this result should not, of course, be taken atface value, it is noteworthy because the public, historically, will payhigher taxes or prices only for something that it deeply cares about.

If leadership frames this issue in public terms, and taps into andconverts this resource, the public’s potential energy will be trans-formed into kinetic energy, thereby creating political will to enablethe country to mobilize with new possibilities for public action.

10. What needsto happennext in thenational dialogue?

Although none of the threeapproaches to the issue mentionedthe news media directly, the topiccame up spontaneously in a numberof forums, with many participantsexpressing negative views.

One frequent complaint involvedwhat some participants felt was themedia’s overly narrow focus.

w Implying that media coverageof the war on terrorism isinfluenced by special interests,a Hempstead, New York, highschool student said, “Lobbyistsand people with agendas havetoo much power to influencethe media because cash ruleseverything.”

w Participants in Athens,Georgia, said that instead ofpresenting an unbiased orcomprehensive view of the sit-uation, the media are focusedon [things like] access to oil.

Others talked about what they saw as discrepancies between what thepublic is told and what is actuallyoccurring.

w A moderator in Hempstead,New York, said that people inforums there felt that unlikeEuropeans, who enjoy a farmore diversified media thatprint and air a variety of view-points, Americans get a ratherhomogenized presentation ofthe news with the result that“Americans are not getting thefull story.”

Participants did not differentiatebetween television and newspapersand seemed to criticize both equally.Some said the news media recklesslyendangered American lives and compromised national security byprinting information about U.S. troop movements and other militaryoperations in Afghanistan. Otherscomplained that the media do nothelp the public understand the “rootsof rage,” the reasons why this country is the object of hatred in the Arabworld and the Middle East. Still others complained that the mediahave not examined or brought to lightwhat, to general agreement, one par-ticipant called, “the hidden economicmotives behind this war [againstIraq].” A man from Mount Vernon,Iowa said, “I believe we have to affectthe media portrayal of Americatoward more balance and inclusion.”

Although some did complain thatthe media are too liberal or conserva-tive, most of the criticisms were notideological. Criticism also did notseem to be limited to any particularregion, age group, gender, or racialand ethnic group. Rather, it seemedto reflect a broader public mind-set,almost a widespread, free-floating,negative predisposition with thepotential to attach itself to a widevariety of issues beyond terrorism atany time. In a democratic society,which requires a public that appreci-ates, values, and relies on a freepress, such a state of mind wouldseem to be an unhealthy symptom or a troubling indicator.

Appendix — A

The Role of the News Media



In National Issues Forums with participants from other countries,the conversations tended to be qualitatively different, with interna-tionals bringing a more diverseperspective to the issue.

1. Terrorism Is a GlobalProblem

Especially in forums with international participants,questions were raised about anational versus an internation-al perspective.

w “International participantssaid Americans are isolatedfrom the rest of the worldand that terrorism’s beengoing on elsewhere fordecades.” Moderator,Panama City, Florida

w “In my country, terrorism’sbeen a fact of life for a longtime. But only now, after ithappened to the U.S., are people here paying attentionto it. And even still, thefocus is ethnocentric, not onwhat’s happening in othercountries.” Colombian man,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

w A man from Kenya said that especially after the terrorist bombing at the U.S. embassy in whichAmericans and Kenyanswere killed, people in hiscountry felt great sympathyfor the U.S. after 9/11.

2. The Definition of Terrorism

As they began to deliberate, international participants raisedquestions about just what “terrorism” is.

w An international participantin Philadelphia said that thedefinition of terrorism deter-mines the war. “Is this a waragainst individuals or againstother counties? If it’s a waragainst individuals, thatmeans that the U.S. shouldn’tattack or invade other coun-tries, right?”

w In some forums, participantsraised the question of a definition of terrorism, evenwithout it’s being raised by an international participant.For example, a moderatorfrom Grand Rapids, Michigan,said: “People here felt that‘terrorism’ already exists intheir neighborhoods, that it’scaused by drugs, criminals,and even by many in thepolice.”

3. Far More Support for the U.N.

While many participants wantedthe U.S. to proceed in the waragainst terrorism only withinternational support, interna-tional participants were evenmore inclined to talk about theimportance of multilateral sup-port, especially from the UnitedNations.

Forums with International Participants

Appendix — B


w “I would like the UnitedNations to call for an inter-national conference todefine terrorism becausethere seems to be disagree-ment among many nationsabout what terrorism is.”International participant, El Paso, Texas

4. Combating Terrorism

International participants said that the situation in other countries is complex,filled with people holding different points of view, andthat sometimes Americanstend to oversimplify. Inresponse to a suggestion that the U.S. try harder toopen a dialogue with thosewho feel hatred toward it, aNigerian woman said:

You cannot talk to extrem-ists. This is a naïve view.Only the moderates will talkto you. The fanatics will nottalk to you. The situation isso much more complex thanwe realize.

5. Broader Perspectives

International participantstended to raise questions that others did not, therebyencouraging more of an in-depth deliberation due to additional perspectives. Forexample, in a forum inPhiladelphia, a man from

Colombia questioned whether amilitary response to terrorism,even after Afghanistan, was wiseand warranted, thereby causingpeople there to approach theissue from a perspective theymay never have considered.

In Sum

International participants tended tobring greater diversity of opinion anda broader, more global perspective tothe forums. The deliberations wereoften richer and more informed, withAmericans happy to hear from, andvaluing comments made by, thosewith quite different experiences.

Forums with International Participants

Appendix — B

Appendix — C


First Woman:

They should increase wiretapping …I’m not really worried about someonelistening to me talk about what I didon my dates [or] my girlfriends any-way, so I don’t have anything to hide.[Laughter]

Second Woman:

Suppose they misinterpreted whatyou said? What if [they hear you] saying that her dates are strange,and they start looking at you.… Andsuppose they’re listening and you’retaken to trial and suddenly you haveto get a lawyer and you’re on trial forsomething that was completely misin-terpreted. So, I think you have to beextremely careful with wiretapping.Extremely.

First Man:

I would never agree to wiretapping.

Third Woman:

[You] have to understand that thetimes are different. It’s not like itused to be before, when we were veryopen and civil liberties were moreimportant.

Fourth Woman:

We have to try to keep our countryopen.… We don’t want terrible thingsto happen to our individual rights.That’s not what this country is about.That’s not what people died for....

Second Man:

Amen.

Fourth Woman:

It’s not what the Founding Fathershad in mind. I mean, yes, timeschange but you have to temper[change] with a lot of thought behindit. There has to be thought before youchange anything. You can’t just goand change something. It affects toomany people.

Third Man:

Somebody was asking a question —when are things going to return tonormal? Someone else said, this isnormal.

Fourth Woman:

[Things will] probably never [return towhat they were].

First Man:

I agree with you, people should nothave a knee-jerk reaction to certainthings. There has to be a lot of debateand a lot of thought [behind] funda-mental changes that are going tochange our lives. When you gothrough an airport, everybody is self-deputizing themselves. You look atthe person the wrong way, you’regoing to be pulled aside. You mightmiss your flight. You don’t dare sayboo anymore.

Fourth Woman:

People don’t trust each other anymore like they used to.

Second Man:

But I’m concerned about people get-ting paranoid about this. I mean you[can] go too far.

(From a forum in Los Angeles on July 12, 2002)An Example of Deliberation about Wiretapping

Appendix — D

Pre-Forum Post-Forum Difference% % %

58 61 +3

19 24 +5

20 11 -9

Participants’ Pre-Forum and Post-Forum Views

Which statement best describes what you think should be done about responding to terrorism?

I have a general sense about what should be done.

I have a definite opinion about what should be done.

I am not at all sure what should be done.

Agree with StatementTable 1

Yes No% %

47 40

Do you see ways to work on this issue that you didn’t see before?

Post-ForumTable 2

Agree Disagree Not Sure% % %

85 9 6

71 17 12

59 30 11

53 38 8

51 41 8

43 44 13

Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?

A root cause of the September 11 attack is the hatred that many Arabs feel toward the U.S.

Arabs have some legitimate grievances about the U.S., including our support for governmentsthat have long neglected their people’s welfare.

To stop terrorism, we must be as aggressive withother countries as we have been in Afghanistan withthe Taliban.

The September 11 attack stems from the UnitedStates’ failure to employ the same security precautions that other nations use.

Terrorism is a threat today because we did not takedecisive action against it in the past.

In the past, the U.S. has placed too much emphasison individual rights at the expense of national security.

Table 3

Questionnaire Results

NIF issue books include a Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaire that partici-pants may fill out at the forum. In the tables on the following pages, we reportthe questionnaire results from 1,923 participants who sent in questionnairesby March 4, 2003.

Those who fill out a questionnaire are a self-selected group and thus theoutcomes should not be construed as polling data using a probability sample yielding results within a statistically precise margin of sampling error.Rather, the results should be considered in conjunction with the rest of thisanalysis as indicative of how a diverse group of Americans think about terror-ism after deliberating together, considering other points of view, and weighingthe costs and consequences of different approaches to the issue.

Post-Forum Agree/Disagree with Statement


Appendix — D


Favor Oppose Not Sure/NA% % %

59 31 10

58 32 10

54 25 21

50 33 16

46 41 14

39 53 8

Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?

Punish any government that harbors or supports terrorism, with or without international support.

Root out and destroy all the terrorists responsible forthe September 11 attack, no matter where in theworld they may be.

Change U.S. policy toward Israel so that our supportdepends on their being restrained toward thePalestinians.

Offer Marshall-Plan type economic aid to countries inthe Middle East to help end the economic hardshipthat has fueled Arab rage.

Institute the use of a national ID card.

Broaden the authority of the federal government toconduct wiretaps and other forms of surveillance.

Table 4

Favor Oppose Not Sure/NA% % %

70 20 9

50 41 10

39 46 15

Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?

Reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, EVEN IFthat means higher gasoline and heating oil prices.

Take strong military action to combat terrorism,EVEN IF that means a loss of lives among U.S. troopsand civilian casualties in other countries.

Use military tribunals to conduct the trials of non-U.S. citizens accused of terrorism, EVEN IF these tribunals may be held in secret and military judges,not juries, will decide the cases.

Table 5

Post-Forum Favor/Oppose Statement

Post-Forum Favor/Oppose


Appendix — D

Participants’ Demographics

Are you male or female? %

Female 52

Male 44

No Answer 3

Table 6

How much schooling have you completed? %

Some high school or less 23

High school graduate 7

Some college 23

College grad or more 21

Master’s degree or Ph.D. 24

No Answer 3

Table 7

Are you? %

African American 4

Asian American 3

Hispanic/Latino 6

Native American 2

White/Caucasian 74

Other 6

No Answer 4

Table 9

How old are you? %

17 or younger 21

18-29 27

30-49 17

50-64 20

65 or older 14

No Answer 3

Table 8

Have you attended an NIF forum before? %

Yes 24

No 72

No Answer 4

Table 10

If you have previously attended an NIF forum, how may forums have you attended? (asked of the 13 percent answering yes in Table 10) %

1-3 59

4-6 12

7 or more 22

Not Sure/No Answer 7

Table 11


Tables may not equal 100, due to rounding.


Appendix — E


Alabama Florida Kentucky Nebraska Oklahoma Texas Arizona Georgia Maine New Hampshire Oregon VirginiaArkansas Hawaii Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania WashingtonCalifornia Illinois Michigan New Mexico South Carolina West VirginiaColorado Indiana Minnesota New York South Dakota WisconsinConnecticut Iowa Missouri North Carolina Tennessee Wyoming Delaware Kansas Montana Ohio

NIF Terrorism Forums:Where Participants Are From

Shaded States = No Forums

People who participated in the NIF forums analyzed for this report are a sample of thousands of people who continue to deliberate about this issue incommunities across the country. Forum participants represented in this reportcome from the following states and communities:

40 States

Appendix — F


Forum Observations

Doble Research observed seven National IssuesForums, listening to people’s initial concernsand learning how deliberation influenced theirthinking. In addition, we interviewed two partici-pants and the moderator after each forum.These forums were held at:

1. Gulf Coast Community College, Panama City, FL

2. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

3. KCOS (Channel 13) live broadcast, El Paso, TX (video tape)

4. Liberty Museum, Philadelphia, PA

5. Norman Public Library, Norman, OK

6. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

7. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT(video tape)


Before and after a forum, participants wereasked to fill out a questionnaire that frames the issue and identifies key tradeoffs for differ-ent choices. In preparing this report, DobleResearch analyzed 1,923 Pre- and Post-ForumQuestionnaires, received by March 4, 2003.

Research Forums/Focus Groups

Doble Research conducted six research forumsor focus groups, each with a demographicallyrepresentative cross section of up to a dozenpeople. The sessions paralleled NIF forums inthat participants viewed the starter video, filledout the Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaires,and deliberated together about the four choicesfor three hours. The research forums/focusgroups were held in:

1. Charlotte, NC 10/25/01

2. Cleveland, OH 10/24/01

3. Denver, CO 07/11/02

4. Los Angeles, CA 07/12/02

5. New York, NY 10/18/01

6. San Francisco, CA 02/05/03

This analysis of people’s thinking about“Terrorism: What Should We Do Now?” draws ona sample of forums from 40 states from the hun-dreds that took place across the country. Fourresearch methods were used:

Moderator and Convenor Interviews

In 28 telephone interviews, forum moderatorsand convenors were asked to describe people’sconcerns, their starting points on the issue, thecosts and consequences they took into consider-ation, and the shared understanding or commonground for action that emerged. The forums wereheld at:

1. Custer Youth Correction Center, Custer, SD

2. Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC

3. Deliberative Democracy Workshop, MarriottHotel, Dayton, OH

4. Democracy Center at The ChiesmanFoundation, Rapid City, SD

5. Edison Community College, Piqua, OH

6. George Bush Library, College Station, TX

7. Gerald R. Ford Museum, Grand Rapids, MI

8. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

9. Honor Conservation Camp, New Castle, WY

10 Kennedy High School, Cedar Rapids, IA

11. Livonia Central Schools, Livonia, NY

12. Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA

13. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD

14. The Newman Center, Carbondale, IL

15. NE Regional Honors Council, Lake George, NY

16. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

17. The Old Glove Factory, Grinnell, IA

18. Portland Community College, Portland, OR

19. Roberto Clemente Middle School,Germantown, MD

20. Rose State College, Midwest City, OK

21. Skagit College, Oak Harbor, WA

22. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA

23. University of Missouri Outreach andExtension Center, Warrenton, MO

Methodology

Special thanks to the convenors and moderators who shared their forum reflections with us: DavidBobell, Matthew Cole, Brenda Crimmins, Jim Davis, Michael D’Innocenzo, Miranda Duncan, TinaFrank, Sheldon Goodridge, Kay Haaland, Jeanmarie Heriba, James Knauer, Elaine Manglitz, NealNaigus, Dave Patton, Michael Ridgeway, Frank Sehnert, Conor Seyle, Jennifer Shinaberger, YvonneSims, Nathan Starr, Sue Tate, Bonnie Vaughn, Val Vetter, Bob Walker, Dana Warner, TaylorWillingham, Roger Wolff, Virginia York

Doble Research Associates is a public interest consulting firm that specializesin exploring people’s thinking about complex public issues.

Especially when it comes to complex issues or policy initiatives, the formationof public opinion is usually dynamic and evolutionary, a work in progress asopposed to a still life or a finished product. At Doble Research, we map people’sthinking by identifying the public’s “starting point” — what people think aboutan issue now, before learning more about it. Then we lay out how people’s think-ing evolves as they consider other points of view and have time to deliberateabout an issue. We give clients and partners a blueprint of how and why peoplefeel as they do — A Map, Not a Snapshot.

FoundationsThe Center for Crime, Communities and Culture(Open Society Institute/The Soros Foundation)The Chiesman FoundationThe Community Life Foundation of OwensboroThe Public Life Foundation of Owensboro (PLFO)The Englewood Community FoundationThe Fetzer InstituteThe Walter and Elise Haas FundThe Hager Educational FoundationThe William and Flora Hewlett FoundationThe Kellogg FoundationThe Kettering FoundationThe Charles Stewart Mott FoundationThe Peninsula Community FoundationThe Pew Charitable TrustThe Seva Foundation

Government AgenciesThe Board of Pardons and Parole, State of

GeorgiaThe Department of Corrections,

Cedar Rapids, IowaThe Department of Corrections, State of IndianaThe Department of Corrections, State of VermontThe Environmental Protection AgencyThe Governor’s Family Council, State of DelawareThe National Institute of Corrections (NIC)The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)The National Parks Service, NebraskaVermont Commission on Public HealthcareValues and Priorities

Public Service OrganizationsThe American Judicature SocietyAudubon Area Community Services,

Owensboro, KentuckyThe Buckeye Association for School

AdministratorsThe Center for Community CorrectionsThe Center for Effective Public PolicyThe Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)The Cleveland Summit on Education

The Council of Governors’ Policy AdvisorsThe Council of State Governments, Eastern

Regional OfficeThe Educational and Social Science Consortium The General Federation of Women’s Clubs (GFWC)The Harwood InstituteThe National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC)The National Conference of State LegislaturesThe National Academy of Social InsuranceThe National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI)The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI)The Oklahoma State-Centered ProjectThe Pennsylvania Prison SocietyThe Points of Light FoundationPublic AgendaThe South Carolina State-Centered ProjectThe Southern Growth Policies BoardThe Southern Regional CouncilThe Study Circle Resources Center (SCRC)The Upper RoomWeavings, A Journal of the Christian Spiritual LifeThe West Virginia Center for Civic LifeThe Western Governors’ Association

StatesThe State of IndianaThe State of New HampshireThe State of North CarolinaThe State of OregonThe State of South CarolinaThe State of VermontColleges and UniversitiesThe College of DuPageThe Institute on Criminal Justice, University

of Minnesota The Mershon Center at The Ohio State UniversityThe University of California at DavisThe University of Delaware

CorporationsClark, Martire & Bartolomeo, Inc.Simon and Schuster, Prentice Hall DivisionWeiner’s Stores, Inc.

About Doble Research AssociatesPublic Opinion: A Map, Not a Snapshot…™

™


Appendix — G

For information, contact:National Issues Forums Information100 Commons Road Dayton, Ohio 45459-2777

1-800-433-7834

LGD-0655-DR-2000-TG-8-03

www.nifi.org

Government & Nonprofit

Terrorism 03