Memo: Public Opinion and Defense Messaging During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Since March, media coverage in the United States has almost exclusively focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. From the front page to the Style and Food sections, every journalist is finding coronavirus angles on their beat. In a sense, the world has pressed the pause button to shelter in place and fight this pandemic. And yet, we are hurtling toward a presidential election and Americans are grappling with fundamental questions about our role in the world, the enormous Pentagon budget relative to other domestic priorities, and the illogic of an “America first” approach in an interconnected, globalized world.

ReThink will be launching new message-testing shortly, but in the meantime we can discern quite a lot from previous research, including some recent public polling. This memo summarizes what we know so far about American public opinion and how we should talk about the issues we work on.

All Pandemic All the Time

The polling industry and the news media work hand-in-hand most of the time: topics grabbing attention in the news are usually the same topics that pollsters are asking average people about, and those polls further drive coverage. Our current situation is no different, except that almost every poll is about the COVID-19 pandemic—or the election (and often both).

We aren’t criticizing this single-minded focus. You may have noticed that it’s hard to have a conversation with someone, especially outside of work, that isn’t about the pandemic or that somehow finds its way back there. The gravitational pull of COVID-19 right now means that the tiny portion of most people’s time that’s normally devoted to thinking about politics has shrunk even further.

Pollsters are therefore not asking about nuclear weapons, defense spending, arms control and trade, or even foreign policy outside of COVID-19. So, we don’t have information—yet—on how Americans’ views of peace and security issues may be shifting. But we know a few things about how American public opinion may respond to the global pandemic and can make some guesses about which messages might resonate with the public—particularly with our target audiences.

Are These Messages a Good Idea?

None of us has experienced a situation quite like this and everyone is trying to find the frames, metaphors, and ideas that will work best. However, some of the messages that are emerging, including some that appeal to us as advocates, could be problematic for the community in the long run.

1.         “Deploying the military to fight COVID-19 is a better use of their might than fighting losing battles against unknown enemies around the world.”

The US military is one of the few institutions in the US whose public stature has increased over the last few decades. While trust in Congress, the media, the Presidency, banks, and organized religion have all declined in the last forty years, the share of Americans saying they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the military has risen from a little over half in the late 1970s and early ‘80s to a steady three quarters for the last decade. Troops are particularly well-regarded, and the public wants to support them whenever they’re given the option.

This means that Americans are predisposed to support investing in the military and hesitant to question or criticize the military and its surrounding industrial complex. If our messages come across as critical or contradictory to military leaders’ messages, we will lose most audiences.

If our ultimate goal is to reduce the size, scope, and budget of the military, arguing that fighting pandemics is a better use of their skills and resources will probably not get us there. It simply underscores their importance and reinforces public support for the military itself.

As attention to the military’s role in this crisis continues, we recommend pivoting away from the “military makes us safer” frame, and instead focusing on human-centered security. Human rights groups, especially, should point to their work and how they will continue to help in the time of the pandemic.

2.         “We should divert funding from the military and invest it in other priorities.”

According to a March 3–29 Pew survey, while Americans continue to see many international issues—including terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons and cyberattacks—as major threats to the well-being of the nation, the new greatest threat named by Americans is the spread of infectious disease. This also tracks with a April 6–7 Ipsos/Reuters poll showing that healthcare and the economy are seen as the top issues facing the nation, while only 1% believed “war/foreign conflicts” were.

However, Americans’ priorities and concerns shift relatively frequently and responsively (within a limited top tier). For example, a plurality or large minority say “fighting terrorism” should be the top priority for the country immediately following an act of mass violence—and in ensuing periods of calm most of these same people name the economy, healthcare, and jobs as their top priorities.

Thus, we may be seeing a temporary shift in Americans’ priorities. On one hand, this shift opens the door for Americans to think differently about what role the military—and by extension, the United States—should play in the world, what we should be investing in, and/or how vital the War on Terror really is. Groups working to reduce the Pentagon budget can discuss the programs we could have invested in and how that could have helped mitigate this crisis. Groups working on the broader “progressive foreign policy” could use this moment to chart a new path we could take.

And we should be prepared for Americans’ priorities to shift again if and when this pandemic calms. ReThink’s research in 2018–19 showed that Democrats and some left-leaning Independents are most receptive to "guns vs. butter” messages (diverting funds from the military toward other investments like education, healthcare, and infrastructure). Republicans and right-leaning Independents largely rejected this exchange but were receptive to “guns vs. guns” messages (diverting funds from nuclear weapons toward other military investments like new technology and the Veterans Administration). So, while more Americans than before may be receptive to “divert funds toward health threats” messaging currently, that will likely change.

One final consideration is the economic recession. As of writing (April 2020), the United States is experiencing a deep and unprecedentedly rapid recession. Economists are unsure what the recovery will look like, but it is very likely that many Americans will be sensitive to government spending once the immediate danger of COVID-19 has passed and we are fighting our way out of recession. If so, this may be an opportunity to press for reduced military spending.

3.         “This pandemic shows that we’re all connected—there’s no room for isolationism and America First.”

Advocates for peace through interdependence, diplomacy, and connection should strategize now about their main message at the end of this crisis. Our opponents will likely push a message of isolationism, independence, and competition, using COVID-19 as a proof point for the danger of being too dependent on or trusting of others. Some are already predicting that Americans (and people around the world) will support a populist agenda even more than they did before COVID-19, although current populist leaders may lose their seats.

A message that critiques isolationism—such as, “Seeking protection through blanket isolationism would be misguided and counterproductive”—has a strong foundation, but it could be better. For one thing, it repeats opposition rhetoric. For another, it doesn’t provide a vision for the future—what is the messenger for?

Americans generally default to supporting diplomacy, but that doesn’t mean they won’t simultaneously support withdrawing from cooperation out of fear. As we have seen countless times in our past (e.g., treatment of terrorism suspects), many Americans will sacrifice their higher ideals when fear takes hold.

Therefore, our messaging must help our audiences overcome their fear and reach for their ideals: a vision of a connected, cooperative, peaceful world.

4.        “Foreign policy and America’s role in the world should be a major issue in the 2020 presidential election.”

Foreign policy is unlikely to be a voting issue for most Americans even under normal circumstances. Amid and even after the current crisis, the portion for whom it will be in the top three is very small.

However, the crisis does provide an opening to argue that we should lead on issues like climate change, public health, and international cooperation. Politicians may use this rhetoric as a way to generate publicity, boost their “leadership image,” or connect multiple issues together—even if it is not what drives most voters to the polls. And because this is not the make-or-break issue for most voters, it may be a way for politicians to build their public profiles without taking a risk on those vote-determining policies.

Depending on when the crisis ends, we could see the news cycle and political discourse return to a broader range of topics before the election. If so, foreign policy may well re-emerge as a topic, particularly because Joe Biden has a strong background in the area.

5.         “COVID-19 is this generation’s 9/11”

Generations are defined largely by their common experiences and contexts. American generations have often been defined by a cataclysmic event that shapes their political and social outlooks for the rest of their lives: the Greatest Generation lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II, Baby Boomers fought in (and opposed) the Vietnam War, Millennials came of age around 9/11 and the Great Recession.

Given the cataclysmic nature of COVID-19, it’s inevitable (and probably correct) that pundits and Twitter users alike will compare this pandemic to the most recent generation-shaping event. However, the comparison to 9/11 is highly problematic when it veers into “national security” territory, as that context brings with it a host of very bad associations: broad civil rights infringements, forever wars, attacks on particular religious and ethnic groups. We’ve already seen the national security frame used in this crisis to propose new surveillance methods, expanded executive powers, and jingoistic rhetoric that encourages people to harass Asian-Americans.

Instead, as advocates of peaceful foreign policy, we should frame the current crisis as one of institutional and leadership failure, not of an attack on our national security.

Moreover, even if we feel compelled to characterize the crisis, we should pivot toward a solution message: reshaping the post-COVID world to be more peaceful and prepared, or investing for the next public health challenge rather than pouring money into endless conflicts. (It could be persuasive to some audiences to draw a connection between conflicts with Iran, North Korea, and others and the spread of COVID-19, but we don’t know whether this will be persuasive.) One clear trend in media consumption during this crisis is that many Americans are actively seeking out good news and positive stories. As messengers, we should take a cue from that trend and point our audience in a positive direction.