....surveyed members of the American public mostly spend their lives doing things other than comparing economic statistics and considering world affairs. People who do nothing else with their lives than compare economic statistics and consider world affairs might ponder what adjectives the public they cheerfully call "dumb" might apply to them.

Complacent. Self-satisfied. Unproductive. Minimally useful. These are just some possibilities, but while these are being mulled over we should all take a moment to remember that a responsible foreign policy doesn't sustain itself without public support; that public support requires a measure of public understanding; and that public understanding of foreign policy isn't any more likely to develop spontaneously than public understanding of any other specialized branch of knowledge.

I prefer "ignorant", but all too often it is "willfully ignorant."

The fact that attitudes are based on erroneous beliefs about the world would indicate they are somewhat unstable, but with two provisos:

First, there is a substantial minority of the American public that for whatever reason are completely immune to facts. I suspect that's universal to humanity, but there are enough studies to show that 20-30% of the American public cling to their beliefs even when confronted with overwhelming disconfirming information.

Second, I'm not sure it is possible to re-educate the public about public affairs any more. Yes, you can put out factual information and try to disseminate it widely, but given the fragmentation of the media landscape and the quantity of "information" sources that apparently exist solely to spread inaccurate information, I think we're screwed.

Most people look for facts to support their opinions (or have news outlets feed them such information). This is not news. Also, in American society the news outlets are geared towards profits, and a hysterical story about the rise of China or the decline of America is much easier to sell than a ho-hum stat-based analysis about America's economic influence. This mirrors political discourse, where nobody's going to win votes during a period of high unemployment by reminding people that America still has a higher share of world GDP than anyone else. A politician may invoke bland overused rhetoric about the resilience of American spirit or work ethic, but if he does not convince the voter that the Chinese (or Islamic terrorists) are taking over the world, then the voter may as well stay at home on Election Day. H.L. Mencken wrote in the 1920's that every political campaign in America on both sides of the aisle came down to repackaging Puritan, apocalyptic rhetoric in their terms. I see no evidence that this has changed, and it is this climate of exaggeration, fear and outrage, rather than ignorance, that causes the American public to gravitate towards opinions unsupported by fact.

This is not going to be a very PC statement but, Americans are "pussing-out". We are soooooo afraid to offend anyone with criticism, (not racism, insults, etc)that people here have gotten into their heads that there is no such thing as wrong.

There is only "my way" or the word "choice" being blended with the word "opinion".

We have made an exodus from facts and logic, because they are too black and white. Thinking outside of the box is not so much like network hacking or troubleshooting a problem, it is now the exaggerated emotional feeling of someone's impulses and urges in various forms of expression.

It creates imbalance. One side gets disgusted by the other and both sides retreat to extreme positions. Completely unaware that they are both feeding illogical/irrational desires that are self defeating and destructive.

For example, some of the criticisms of Bill Cosby a few years back, were very spot on, in regards to issues in the black community. Micheal Eric Dyson and other scholars quickly jumped up to discredit Cosby and attack his personal character, in "defense" of Black America's shortcomings.

Dyson is not a dummy, he has a PhD, and he makes good points when he uses a factual analysis. Cosby is not a dummy either when he does not make stereotypical rants based on what he probably sees on TV.

The bottom line is that the two of them fighting each other by retreating hard to extreme positions based on their own personal feelings, did not maximize the effect their valid points could have had on the community. It just creates a "Who's side are you on?" scenario and everyone loses.

Same thing applies to local and international politics. Now this kind of thinking, mental process, teaching style, learning style, is RAMPANT. Everyone is doing it. It is now a part of American culture, which makes it HARD to shake off.

It is a height of sheer absurdity for US government to claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic extremists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistan’s current democratic as well as previous military governments are sheltering and protecting the leaders of that very Taliban Afghan insurgency in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan.

General McChrystal clearly laid out in his assessment to President Obama that:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.

Pakistan is sheltering and protecting these Afghan insurgent groups to reestablish its writ in Afghanistan as and when US leaves.

As Times of London reported on 9/28/09, Pakistani government started to relocate Afghan Taliban’s QST leaders to Karachi to protect them from impending US drone attacks on Quetta after the submittal of General McChrystal’s assessment.

With an ally like Pakistan, US has NO chance of winning in Afghanistan no matter how much military efforts or aid US pours there.

The American public is pretty realist as the title implies, that sentence makes me so happy that I would like to quote the first man on the moon Neil Armstrong to express my satisfaction with this great progress "this is a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind”. However when I take a closer look at the questions above, I am dismay to see that the questions are the epitome of arrogance and ignorance, the staggering percentage to the answers shows that American public has not move an iota from the "American Exceptionalism" mindset. One doesn't have to hold a degree in International Relations or PolSci expert to know that without the US meddling in others business, the American people would not be able to live that kind of lifestyle. We are living in a globalized world where interaction with others is the norm. I think we should adopt the Chinese policy instead, interact with everyone, but not meddling in others businesses. We cannot do as we want in the current international context, if we choose to do so; we would always be asking ourselves that same question: Why do they hate us?

I'm not sure if I buy the argument that Americans are realist for two reasons. The first is due continued American support of the UN's role in international affairs. In fact, they hold that the organization should play a large role in the world according to the Gallup survey from this past March. Second, the Pew report shows that a high majority of Americans believe that the US government should consider the views of its major allies. Americans aren't realist, just caught between wanting their own way while having others like them.

Surveys also show a declining percentage of the American public believes in global warming, down from a peak a few years ago. It is a disturbing trend and, along with the misinformed views on China, a reflection of cultural attitudes mixed with a terrible, terrible "media" that does not serve anything in the form of relevant information for the citizenry

I think its a bit unfair to call the public 'dumb'. The derision should be squarely aimed at the media and its associated politicians who have created this impression and, it must be said, the academics who have gone along with this 'China is taking over!' narrative. I've said it before on FP.com and I'll say it again: the extent to which the U.S. has declined economically and (therefore) geopolitically should not be underestimated, however taking that serious decline and comparing it to the fact that the U.S. is still overwhelmingly supreme in more or less every economic and geopolitical sense just goes to show how unbalanced the situation was to begin with.

The U.S. has fallen far - but from such great heights that the bottom remains out of sight.

Of course, this is not sensationalistic enough so the narratives of 'beware China!' tend to take over. Hence the misperception.

Blame the lack of intelligent public discourse, not the public per se.