In the aftermath of the failure to come to a diplomatic resolution regarding Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent military strike by the United States (U.S.) and its allies without United Nations (UN) approval, the usefulness and role of international diplomatic institutions such as the UN is undergoing a reexamination. This study examined overall differences in U.S. leader and public support for the UN, as well as predictors of support for specific multilateral policies.

With regard to overall aggregate support, an exhaustive examination of polls from 1945 to 2007 showed that judgments of UN performance rose and fell over the years but overall support for the UN remained strong. A comparison of recent support for the UN from the 2004 Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) demonstrated that political leaders (administration, House, and Senate officials) were generally less supportive of multilateralism in comparison to the public and a larger group of policy leaders.

Statistical models predicting support for various multilateral policies showed that leaders and the public did not differ markedly in the pattern of prediction. Goals, values, and other attitudes were significantly better predictors of policy support in comparison to demographics and political identifiers such as Party ID and ideology. Both leaders, and the general public, displayed consistent logical congruence between attitudes and relevant policy preferences. These results question elite theories of public opinion that doubt the wisdom of the general public and indicate that political leaders should be responsive to public wishes in the area of foreign policy.