Author Joyce Carol Oates, who penned the Marilyn Monroe biographical fiction novel “Blonde” upon which this weekend’s Netflix film is based, has weighed in on the discourse surrounding the controversial movie by filmmaker Andrew Dominik.
Having been quiet about the film in the lead-up to its release, Oates answered some questions from fans on Twitter today, including ones about the backlash the film has received, saying it exploits Monroe’s trauma in its “fictionalized retelling” of her life and death.
The film loosely recreates several tragedies during Monroe’s life, from childhood abuse by her mother to sexual assaults within the Hollywood industry.
Though Dominik has said Oates’ work was his guiding light in the project, dubbing it “Joyce’s vision of Marilyn” in interviews, Oates herself was not involved in the movie’s production. She says:
“I think it was/ is a brilliant work of cinematic art obviously not for everyone. Surprising that in a post#MeToo era the stark exposure of sexual predation in Hollywood has been interpreted as ‘exploitation.’ Surely Andrew Dominik meant to tell Norma Jeane’s story sincerely.
[The film is] not for the faint of heart. The director is unflinching, and intransigent. The last 20 minutes or so are almost too powerful to be viewed. Overall, brilliant cinematography & performance by Ana de Armas.
Some see the exposure of sexual mistreatment of Marilyn Monroe as ‘exploitation’ & others [will] see it as a revelation of how a gifted young woman was treated in Hollywood & elsewhere, pre#MeToo.”
The comments come as social media, whilst offering universal acclaim for de Armas herself, is proving very divided on the movie, with labels of it being sexist, detestable, and cruel.
Dominik himself hasn’t helped matters in interviews. In an interview with Sight & Sound Magazine he says he’s more interested in creating a film based on specific images and emotions than he is on reality. Meanwhile, an outtake from the interview shared on Twitter sees Dominik asking if anyone actually watches Marilyn Monroe films anymore.
Last week, we at EdChoice released our annual Schooling in America survey. For the past ten years, we have asked a representative sample of Americans a battery of questions about the American education system. Each year, it gives us the opportunity to see what Americans think about our nation’s schools. It also gives us the chance to see how opinions have changed over time.
I can’t give every finding justice, but here are five things that stood out to me.
General opinion on education doesn’t change that much.
The survey asks Americans if they believe that the education system is heading in the right direction or if it is on the wrong track. Looking at the last decade of responses, we don’t see a great deal of change.
In 2013, 62% of Americans thought that the education system was on the wrong track and 26% thought it was headed in the right direction. By 2022, it was 61% wrong track and 34% right direction. When we ask parents specifically, we see a similar result.
In 2014, 54% of parents thought schools were on the wrong track and 40% thought it was headed in the right direction. By 2022 it was 52% wrong track and 48% right direction.
There have been two presidential elections, a pandemic, the Royals have won the World Series, and there have been a host of other unexpected events in that time period, and yet, opinions on schools have barely budged.
Opinions on school choice policies have changed.
In the first four years of the survey (2013 to 2016) support for education savings accounts, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers, and charter schools all declined among the general population. After starting with levels of support between 60 and 66%, they dropped to between 52 to 59% over that time period.
Since then, though, there has been a substantial increase. At the peak of school choice support in 2020, 81% of Americans said they supported education savings accounts, 74% said that they supported tuition tax credits, 73% said that they supported vouchers, and 72% said that they supported charter schools. Those numbers have declined slightly, but education savings accounts are still up 12 points from 2013, tax credits are up 5 points, vouchers are up 9 points, and charter schools are up 6 points.
People have no idea how much we spend on schools.
In our 2022 survey, 71% of Americans and 81% of school parents underestimated how much money their local public schools spend. We ask respondents to estimate how much their local public schools spend and then use their location to compare their guess to the true amount. The median response for the general population was $8,000 per student and the median response for parents was $5,000 when the true numbers ranged from $8,287 to $25,273 depending on location.
Most parents are happy with their child’s school, but a significant minority of dissatisfied parents exists.
Putting together those parents who responded that they were either “very” or “somewhat” happy with their child’s school, we see that 69% of public school parents, 72% of charter school parents, 78% of private school parents, and 73% of homeschool parents are satisfied with their child’s schooling. Even if we set aside that being “somewhat satisfied” is not exactly a ringing endorsement, 31% of public school parents being either “very” or “somewhat” dissatisfied translates to a lot of people. We’re talking probably north of 10 million parents there that are not happy with their child’s school.
Different parents want different things from schools.
We asked traditional public, charter, private, and homeschool parents the top three reasons why they chose the school or learning environment that they did. Traditional public school parents prioritized proximity to home or work, academic quality, and the fact that they were assigned to the school. Charter parents prioritized academic quality, safety, and structure and discipline (tied with class size). Private school parents’ top three were academic quality, safety, and moral instruction. Homeschooling parents led with safety and one-on-one attention, and then academic quality.
Some of these findings are surprising. The fact that opinions on the general direction of education appear impervious to all outside events is not something I expected. Americans continuously failing to grasp how much money is spent on schools even though they have a strong incentive to know how and where their tax dollars are being spent surprised me as well.
But others are not. We are in a big, diverse country, so we shouldn’t be surprised that different parents prioritize different things when choosing their child’s school. We also should not be shocked to see school choice increasing in popularity as more and more people have more and more choices in their daily life. It was bound to bleed into schooling preferences. Schools’ responses to the pandemic likely played a role as well.
It will be interesting to continue following these trends into the future. One can only imagine what they will look like in another ten years’ time.
Pew Research Center recently published a report entitled “As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System,” which indicates a growing dissatisfaction among young voters. Of course, in addition to such survey data, most of us have experienced and felt this in our own lives over the past several years.
Rather than real policy solutions which require critical thinking, analysis and compromise, what we often get from our elected officials is inflated rhetoric intended to conjure up a tribal reaction among their most vocal and loyal supporters. Meanwhile, such emphasis on partisan lines and symbols has the effect of diminishing the shared principles and values which have long united and defined America.
Indeed, George Washington warned against the “spirit of party” in his farewell address stating that it “serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
As a Republican candidate and elected official, I have consistently advocated for conservative policies. I believe it is critical for our future to support policies and leaders who will uphold free market capitalism and apply fiscally conservative solutions to our out-of-control spending and national debt. To me, a sincere allegiance to these principles, along with an individual’s character, competence and commitment to the Constitution have always been prerequisites for my political support — and are more important to me than an “R” next to a candidate’s name.
When Evan McMullin decided to run for president in 2016 it was not because he felt uniquely qualified for the office, but rather because he and many others were concerned that Donald Trump did not represent the principles and values of the Republican Party (which McMullin had historically aligned with) and that Hillary Clinton was an unacceptable alternative.
Ironically, Mike Lee came to the same conclusion in 2016 after the “Access Hollywood” tape surfaced, and Lee ultimately cast his vote for McMullin.
Unfortunately, after four years with President Trump, in 2020 we had another presidential election in which principled Republicans and conservative-leaning independents were left wanting for a better choice. This time around, however, Lee was all in for Trump — carried away by the spirit of party to the point of comparing Trump to Moroni, campaigning in Mar-a-Lago after Jan. 6, and failing to publicly speak out against the embarrassing and un-American “stop the steal” movement.
Lee is a good man with an impressive family legacy in the law and public service, but I remain discouraged by his lack of leadership and his misguided priorities in this critical moment for our country.
Meanwhile, Utah Republicans such as Sen. Mitt Romney and Gov. Spencer Cox were among the first members of the GOP nationally to acknowledge the election results and call for a peaceful transition of power that is so fundamental to our democracy.
These are the types of leaders I support. I wanted to find a Republican of this mold to work alongside Mitt Romney for Utah in the U.S. Senate. I donated to and supported another Republican candidate in the GOP primary. But, Lee prevailed and I am grateful that McMullin had the foresight to run as an independent to give another option to Utah voters.
For me, McMullin was made for this moment. He is highly qualified for the job — with foreign policy expertise from his days in the CIA, domestic policy experience advising Congress and a strong business background from his education at Wharton.
More importantly, he has spent the last several years building a coalition locally and throughout the country united on common ground and ready to win. He has aligned Republicans, independents and fiscally conservative Democrats around real policy solutions and an approach to governing which calls for a renewal of constitutional principles, American values and civil policy debate. He is seeking what is right rather than what will play well in the next political campaign.
This is a time for those of us who are frustrated with the current options presented by the two-party system to demand more. Winning elections in the future will require the activation of an increasingly silent, unrepresented, unaffiliated block of voters. Lee does not represent a majority of Utahns, but if only highly partisan voters show up on election day, he will win.
If, however, individuals who have become frustrated with the process view this as an opportunity to send a message, and principled Republicans, independents and Democrats rally together to support McMullin, we will have proven that some things are more important than party affiliation.
I hope you’ll join me in voting for McMullin. This is our moment.
Tanner Ainge is a Republican and former Utah County Commissioner. He currently serves as managing partner of a Utah-based private equity firm and as a reservist JAG officer in the Utah Army National Guard. He was also appointed to serve on the Governor’s Economic Development Board for the State of Utah.
I can understand those who say they would rather “push a Ford than drive a Chevy.” And it is acceptable that some prefer Coke to Pepsi. There’s even space for those misguided souls who would rather have a Big Mac than a Whopper. Those are personal preferences and subject to personal opinion.
But as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former ambassador, senator and advisor to four presidents famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
That’s why the response I received from my recent piece, “Will the losers concede defeat?” was so baffling. I obviously turned over a hornet’s nest, judging by how many swore to me that the 2020 election was stolen and swore at me for claiming otherwise.
Here are three responses: Susie wrote, “Please stop spreading your lies that the 2020 election was one [sic] fair and square. There is NO WAY in hell that mushroom beat MY president by 80,000,000 votes [note: actual margin was 7 million]. You obviously didn’t watch DT in Wilmington last Thursday night. Your mushroom of a leader can’t draw 1000th of that many people so get over it. Trump won and you know it.”
I snidely asked what flavor of the Kool-Aid she preferred? Denying any taste for the drink, she added that the left was, “destroying everything Trump put in place.” I took the bait, asking Susie to list his great accomplishments. Her response: “There’s not enough time in the day. If you can’t figure it then you’re hopeless. Guess I’ll just send you my gas and food bills.” Susie, if I don’t pay them will that be Biden’s fault?
Concerning Biden’s win Roberta wrote “…In fact, we have overwhelming evidence that he did not win:
“-We have the confession in the Time magazine article that the Dems “reinforced” the election for Biden.
“-We have the confession (with documentation to prove) that Zuckerburg [sic] gave over 400 million to Democratic districts.
“-We have the report from Justice Gablemen [sic] in Wisconsin recommending that Wisconsin decertify the 2020 election.
“-We have the movie “Rigged 2020” as well as “2000 mules” which proves drop box stuffing.”
Knowing it was pointless, I felt compelled to respond: “Please present all this overwhelming evidence to the courts. So far, 60 of them have thrown out all these assertions because they are not factual. Facts still matter. If you have provable facts, bring it on.” Not to be denied, this obvious denier responded, “You are mistaken. The courts have not looked at the evidence. I don’t drink Kool-Aid — I have researched the election thoroughly. It is not possible to get an accurate picture watching only mainstream media. I hope you will look at sights such as Revolver.news. War room (on rumble.com), Epoch Times, but I believe you are not open-minded enough to do this.”
I’ll put my open-mindedness against anyone’s, so I accepted the challenge. The headlines on Revolver.news read, “Was the fake boobs teacher a hoax?”, a columnist writing, “The CIA is not your friend.” Another headline, “FBI raids home of Catholic pro-life speaker, author with guns drawn as his terrified kids watch.” Where were Lester Holt, Norah O’Donnell and David Muir when these compelling stories were revealed?
Advertisements
Next, I visited Rumble.com. The feature on the home page from “Louder Crowder” was “Wrong! Italy’s new PM is not a fascist.” Scrolling down the page I saw stories like, “The Dem’s diabolical history,” “Would you give up your finances for a better society?” And I had to stop at “Creepy Satanic Imagery is infecting our music and freaking people out.”
My open-mindedness was closing fast, but I ventured onto The Epoch Times and quickly learned they wanted me to subscribe to their “independent, truthful and unbiased reporting.” I wasn’t willing to spend $99 for 12 months, but sneaked a peak at their “truthful and unbiased journalists” including Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Dr. Sebastian Gorka and Carrie Sheffield, who I Googled and learned formerly worked for Robert Novak, The Washington Times and defended the Tea Party movement.
Gary said he felt sorry for me, “because you are obviously living in the past.” He continued that, “traditional sources of news and information are no longer neutral and truthful purveyors of the facts. Yes, all mainstream media and most major universities are biased against Conservatives, Christians, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. Will you ever open your eyes and ears to the truth that the 2020 election was stolen?… You yourself are a fraud sir, for writing your stupid editorial denying the truth about the 2020 election. I’m flabbergasted that you really believe what you wrote. Are you deaf, dumb and blind?”
Here’s my spin: Civility appears to be just an antiquated notion these days. Can’t we disagree without name calling, angry and bombastic responses?
And where is the “silent majority” today? Why aren’t they just as vocal in espousing their opinions? Do they think that by taking the high ground and sitting by quietly, watching this circus, that they will somehow prevail against those making their own facts? With their polite, politically correct manners, these modern-day Neroes may wake up Nov. 6, 2024, to learn they won a moral victory but lost the country.
Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina Broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. He recently retired from writing, producing and moderating the statewide half-hour TV program NC SPIN that aired 22 ½ years.
Contact him at tomcamp@carolinabroadcasting.com.
For the last few years, I’ve been on a journey to better understand the experiences of women of color within Utah. Although our Utah Women & Leadership Project reports have always included race and ethnicity as one of several demographics — when the data was available — we had never focused specific research on women of color.
Fortunately, with some one-time funding from the Utah Legislature this past year, my team and I made this a priority. Frankly, my eyes were opened as to the multitude of challenges Utah women of color face that were previously invisible to me. I want to focus on just one important element of these findings: educational attainment.
Educational attainment is the foundation for so many things in life. As research has shown over and over, there are direct links to college and university certificates and degrees (the more education the better) with job opportunities, higher income, employment benefits, job security, career advancement and job satisfaction. Postsecondary education is also linked to an improved ability to communicate effectively, heightened capability to make good choices, increased benefits to your children and an overall happier and healthier life.
Susan Madsen poses for a portrait at her home in Bountiful on Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2022. Madsen is a Utah State University professor, speaker, author and a renowned global thought leader on women and leadership.
Kristin Murphy, Deseret News
Because of these and hundreds of other benefits, I think most of us would agree it would be good for individuals, families and communities to have more educated Utah residents. Yet, access and opportunity to education is not the same for all of us.
In our research, we gathered data from many sources and published five reports that detailed the available data on Utah women of each U.S. census race/ethnic category: American Indian/Alaskan Native women, Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Black and Asian. Here are some highlights:
American Indian women in Utah end their education with a high school diploma (33.2%) more than Utah women generally (23.8%), and, transversely, they have lower rates of attaining bachelor’s degrees (11.2% vs. 29.0% of all Utah women). In addition, more American Indian women in Utah (17.6%) and the U.S. (18.3%) end their education without a high school diploma than attain bachelor’s degrees (11.2% and 15.1%, respectively).
Pacific Islander women in Utah end their education with a high school diploma (32.6%) more than Utah women generally (23.8%), and they have lower rates of attaining bachelor’s degrees (18.1% vs. 29.0% of all Utah women).
More Latinas in Utah end their education with a high school diploma (30.8%) than Utah women generally (23.8%), and Latinas are more likely to end their education without a diploma (25% vs. 7.1% of all Utah women). Utah Latinas also attain bachelor’s degrees at much lower rates than all Utah women (13.2% vs. 29.0%).
Black women in Utah end their education with a high school diploma (26.0%) slightly more often than all Utah women combined (23.8%) and have much lower rates of attaining a bachelor’s degree (19.0% vs. 29.0% of all Utah women).
In every instance, except among Asians, women of color are educationally disadvantaged.
Interestingly, although Asian women in Utah appear to do better than all Utah women combined on educational attainment, the term “Asian” represents more than 20 different ethnicities and multiple geographical regions, including the far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Even in Utah, there is a range of Asian women from economically developing countries to high-income nations. Hence, Asian women from certain countries fair much worse than others in all the metrics we found data on, including educational attainment. Watch a recent panel for additional details.
Since higher education is foundational to opportunities for so many things in life, it is imperative that we provide access and opportunities to all.
Solutions will include a combination of public policies; work around inclusion in our schools, higher education institutions, businesses and community groups; and an analysis of our practices, policies and systems that unknowingly advantage some and disadvantage others.
Honestly, I’m just starting down the path of understanding the experiences of my sisters of color. It has been hard for me to set my own experiences aside and to just listen and learn. But as I do, I see that change is essential. I must change. We must change. And Utah must change to be a place where everyone can thrive.
Susan R. Madsen is the Karen Haight Huntsman endowed professor of leadership in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University and the founding director of the Utah Women & Leadership Project.
The Chinese Communist Party is preparing for its 20th National Congress, an event likely to result in an unprecedented third term for President Xi Jinping. Since Xi took office in 2013, opinion of China in the U.S. and other advanced economies has turned precipitously more negative. How did it get to be this way?
In the U.S., views of China experienced minor fluctuations in the years preceding Xi’s presidency. Throughout this period, around four-in-ten or more had positive views of China and only a minority had negative views of the country. Still, views ebbed and flowed somewhat alongside domestic and international events.
Negative views of China were slightly more elevated when Xi took office and during President Barack Obama’s second term. Alongside frictions in the bilateral relationship, such as China’s efforts at land reclamation in the South China Sea and America’s negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, American views of China turned somewhat more negative, with around half or more saying they had an unfavorable view of the superpower.
As President Donald Trump took office, views of China improved somewhat. Early in Trump’s tenure, he heaped praise on Xi, inviting him to his residence at Mar-a-Lago and discussing their personal chemistry. Republican views of China, in particular, turned significantly less negative during these two years and in 2018, there were no partisan differences in views of China for the first time since 2008 – a year that was characterized by a new administration.
Unfavorable views of China continued to increase as COVID-19 spread globally. By March 2020, around three-quarters of Americans had unfavorable opinions of China – a view which was particularly high among those who thought China was doing a bad job handling COVID-19.
A large majority of Americans see China unfavorably amid concerns about China’s policies on human rights, its partnership with Russia and other factors. Views of China continue to be broadly negative as Americans view multiple issues in the bilateral relationship as very serious problems for the U.S. (In 2020, Pew Research Center switched the mode by which it asks views of China.)
Overview
Multiple factors have affected views of China over time. In the U.S., the sense that China has handled COVID-19 poorly and is at fault for the virus’s spread certainly is related to negative opinions of the superpower, but is not the only factor driving attitudes. Rather, negative views of China were already rising prior to the pandemic. The same is true in other countries, including some of China’s neighbors, like South Korea, Japan and Australia.
Unfavorable views of China in South Korea have increased dramatically since 2017. South Korea was heavily affected by Chinese economic retribution following the country’s 2017 decision to install an American missile interceptor (THAAD). Negative views of China went up substantially in 2017 alongside this turmoil; they increased again in 2020 when, in the wake of COVID-19, unfavorable opinion went up in nearly every country Pew Research Center surveyed. But views have continued to sour, and today unfavorable views of China are at a historic high of 80%.
Japanese views of China have been broadly negative for the past decade. Negative views of China skyrocketed in the early 2000s amid myriad bilateral tensions, and for the past 20 years, Japanese views of China have always been among the most negative in Center surveys, if not the most negative. Negative views peaked at 93% in 2013, following extreme tension in the East China Sea. Very unfavorable views of China have also been particularly elevated since 2020, with around half of Japanese adults saying this describes their views of China.
While COVID-19 and resulting trade frictions led to the most negative views of China on record in Australia, unfavorable views had been ticking up since 2017.In that year, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization issued warnings about Chinese attempts to influence Australian domestic politics, resulting in new Australian laws to curb foreign interference and strong responses from China. And while views went from broadly favorable to unfavorable between 2017 and 2019, the largest year-on-year increase in negative views took place between 2019 and 2020; at the time, negative views went up 24 percentage points as trade tensions spiraled following Australia’s calls to investigate the COVID-19 virus’s origins.
% in each country with a(n) __ view of China
Note: In spring 2021 and summer 2020, the Center ran concurrent phone (solid lines in chart) and online panel (dashed lines in chart) surveys in Australia. In spring 2019 and prior to 2019, Australia surveys were conducted over the phone.
Source: Spring 2022 Global Attitudes Survey. Q5b.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER
The same pattern holds true in Canada and Sweden: Although negative views of China went up in both countries between 2019 and 2020, unfavorable views had already grown markedly in both countries amid bilateral tensions. Beyond these specific countries, unfavorable views are at or near their historic highs in many of the advanced economies we have surveyed since 2020. And, even in some emerging economies – which we have been unable to survey since 2019 due to the challenges of conducting face-to-face surveys during the pandemic – negative views of China were already commonplace three years ago. This is the case in countries like the Philippines, India and Turkey. Still, around half or more had favorable views of China in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa when those countries were last surveyed in 2019. Views of China are also relatively more positive in Singapore, Malaysia and Israel – three countries where surveys were possible in 2022. For detailed tables on views of China, see the Appendix.
Pew Research Center has been researching views of China since 2002 and has collected data from more than 60 countries on the topic. While this report endeavors to include relevant data from both emerging and advanced economies, as appropriate, unfortunately we have not been able to survey in most emerging economies since 2019, due to the outbreak of COVID-19.
Because this report stresses many of the recent shifts we have seen in views of China, we focus more on the data from the advanced economies that we were able to collect between 2020 and 2022. Opinion of China in emerging economies may differ somewhat and we hope to be able to resume our work measuring views of China in a broader group of countries next year.
This report also does not include data from China. We have been unable to do polling in China since the introduction of the Foreign NGO Law in 2017.
We also include data from an open-ended question asked in both Australia and the U.S. on what people think about when they think about China. Responses are presented in respondents’ own words and have only been edited lightly for clarity. As a result, some phrases found throughout this data essay – and particularly those in the section discussing perceptions of Chinese people – may contain offensive content.
% in each country with a(n) __ view of China
Note: In spring 2020, the Center ran concurrent phone (solid lines in chart) and online panel (dashed lines in chart) surveys in the U.S. In summer 2020 and prior to 2020, U.S. surveys were conducted over the phone.
Source: Spring 2022 Global Attitudes Survey. Q5b.
Much like opinion of China, views of Xi – which were already quite negative in 2014, just about a year after he took office – have become increasingly negative in recent years. In the spring of 2014, people in most places surveyed felt more negatively than positively about the new president. The primary exceptions were in emerging and developing economies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Take Uganda as an example: There, 41% were confident in Xi to do the right thing regarding world affairs, and 23% said they were not confident. Notably, 36% of Ugandans said they did not know or otherwise did not answer the question, as did roughly a third or more in 16 of the 43 countries surveyed that year. As Xi’s tenure has continued, the share who did not provide a response has decreased across some survey countries.
Views of the Chinese president turned even more negative between 2019 and 2020. By 2022, majorities in all but two advanced economies surveyed had little to no confidence in his approach to world affairs. Around four-in-ten or more in most places surveyed even say they have no confidence at all in Xi, including more than half of those in Australia, France and Sweden.
In both the U.S. and Australia, when respondents were asked an open-ended question on what they think about when they think about China, some specifically highlighted China’s leadership or Xi in particular. For example, one Australian man said, “Their leader seems to be on a path to try to control too much of the world.”
How Australians and Americans speak about President Xi in their own words
“China is an autocratic dictatorship led by a tyrant, Xi Jinping; the Chinese Communist Party is an amoral kleptocracy interested merely in its own survival and not at all concerned with the welfare of its citizens. The Chinese government is a bad faith actor in world affairs increasingly resorting to economic and military threats to deal with the rest of the world.” – Man, U.S.
“A rising power that will become problematic when it cannot maintain growth. Xi’s style of ambitious authoritarianism is deeply worrying.” – Man, U.S.
“Totalitarian state, spying on citizens 24/7 … President Xi’s aim is to be the ruler of the entire world and won’t stop until he is. No regard at all for what any non-Chinese person thinks about being ruled by him, as he has no regard for the people he currently rules over.” – Man, Australia
“The people are basically good, but leader Xi is too controlling and should not be in power this long. They need to let Hong Kong be an independent state as they promised and stop persecuting the Uyghurs.” – Woman, U.S.
“Communist pigs. Not referring to ordinary people, they are the same as you and I. But their government is nasty including their president Xi Jinping.” – Woman, Australia
More broadly, this data from the U.S. and Australia suggests that people are generally referring to the country’s leadership or government and their actions, or its economy – not the people – when thinking about China. Views of China’s government are not automatically conflated with views of China’s people. Still, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, discrimination against people of Chinese descent has intensified in the U.S. and across the world, raising concerns about the link between negative views of China and discrimination and harassment against people of Chinese descent.
In the following essay, we will explore global opinion toward China through the lens of five topics: China’s power and influence, its human rights policies, the country’s economy, COVID-19 and the Chinese people.
China’s influence, global threat and military
Members of the People’s Liberation Army head to the closing of the 19th Communist Party Congress at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People in 2017. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)
The sense that China’s power and influence on the world stage is growing is both widespread and long-held. As of this year, a median of 66% across 19 countries say that China’s influence in the world has recently been getting stronger, including seven-in-ten or more in Australia, Italy, Israel, Greece and the Netherlands. Few – a median of 12% – say China’s influence has gotten weaker. In 2018, similarly large shares said that China was playing a more important role in the world than it had 10 years prior. And the share describing China’s influence as growing was many more than said the same of Russia, India, the U.S. and Germany, among others.
In fact, when asked to directly compare China’s power on the world stage with the United States’ in 2015, roughly half or more in 24 of the 40 countries surveyed said that China was on track to replace the U.S. as the top global superpower or already had. This sense was particularly acute among some of China’s neighbors – like Australia and South Korea – as well as across most Western European countries surveyed.
How Australians and Americans speak about China’s power, influence and military in their own words
“I see a similarity between China and pre-WWII Germany. It’s very scary that they have become such a powerhouse and wield so much influence and are able to get away with so much.” – Woman, Australia
“Western politicians underestimated China and its desire for world dominance (political, economic and military), destroyed their own economies and capacity to manufacture, allowed individual greed and corruption to overtake national interests and now it is too late to stop it and rebuild capacity of the western world to be self-reliant. If China decides to invade Australia, or any other country, no one could stop it.” – Man, Australia
“A rapidly developing world leader. Aggressively pursuing technological dominance and we need to work with other countries to negotiate the rise of China’s influence.” – Woman, U.S.
“Beware. They want to dominate the entire world and control every aspect of our lives. God help us all, especially the people who already live under their rule.” – Woman, U.S.
“It is an emerging global superpower gaining significant influence in third-world countries. This is why it is so important that the U.S. deals with foreign policy, works with allies and exert influence in world organizations.” – Man, U.S.
China as a perceived threat
Alongside its growing influence is a sense that China is a growing threat. Roughly half or more in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia and the U.S. said China’s power and influence was a major threat to their country in 2018. But even outside these particular countries, around half or more in every country but Tunisia said China’s power and influence posed either a major or minor threat.
In the U.S., where the question about China’s power and influence as a threat was asked more recently (2022), the sense that China is a major threat increased another 19 percentage points to 67%. Similarly, the share of Americans who said limiting China’s power and influence should be a top priority grew from 32% in 2018 to 48% in 2021 (+16 points). This also made it one of the top priorities cited by Americans among 20 foreign policy goals tested. More Americans also said it was important to limit China’s power and influence than to limit the power of Russia, North Korea or Iran.
As early as 2018, the countries that stood out for seeing China as the greatest threat were the U.S., Australia, Japan and South Korea. In 2022, these countries were also among the most likely to express concerns about China’s influence in one other way: its interference in their domestic politics. In South Korea and Australia, more than half say China’s involvement in their domestic politics is a very serious problem and nearly half say the same in the U.S. In contrast, in Europe, Israel and elsewhere, around a third or fewer say China’s involvement in their own country’s politics is a very serious concern.
Xi also oversaw the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, which prompted territorial disputes with multiple neighboring countries. In 2014, when the Center first asked about the possibility of territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries leading to military conflict, there was already a great deal of concern across the Asia-Pacific region. More than eight-in-ten in the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea said they were very or somewhat concerned about military conflict with China, as were smaller majorities in India, Malaysia and Bangladesh. Still, opinions varied somewhat about how to handle such disputes in the region. In 2015, majorities in South Korea and Vietnam favored a focus on territorial disputes over economic ties with China; a large majority in Malaysia chose the opposite. Adults in the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia and India were more split.
More broadly, there remain widespread concerns about China’s military. As of 2022, a median of 72% across 19 countries surveyed describe China’s military power as a serious problem, including 37% that call it a very serious problem for their country. Concerns are highest in Japan and Australia, where roughly six-in-ten say China’s military is a very serious problem. Singapore, Greece and Israel stand out as places with the least concern about China’s military.
Human rights
A Hong Kong supporter holds a banned flag saying “Free Hong Kong, Revolution Now” during protests in Piccadilly Circus in London in March 2021. (May James/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Particularly in advanced economies, China has long been seen to have a problematic human rights record. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan and every European country surveyed, a majority has consistently said that the Chinese government does not respect the personal freedoms of its people since the question was first asked in 2008. Across Latin America and Africa – regions that the Center has not been able to survey in recent years – opinion was more mixed when they were last asked in 2018. In Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, half or more said China was not respecting the personal freedoms of its people, while in South Africa, Kenya, Tunisia and Nigeria, only around a third or fewer agree. Still, across both advanced and emerging economies and in both 2018 and 2021, the sense that China does not respect the personal freedoms of its people was closely related to unfavorable views of China.
Although the sense that China did not respect the personal freedoms of its people was already high in most advanced economies in 2018, it nonetheless rose significantly again in 2021, following revelations about detention camps for Uyghurs, the U.S. declaring the situation in Xinjiang a genocide and calls to boycott the 2022 Olympics over human rights abuses, among other issues. In more than half the countries for which trends were available, this marked the largest share in history who said China didn’t respect the civil liberties of its citizens – with a majority in every public taking this stance.
This past spring, human rights was also the issue that concerned people most – above even China’s military power, economic competition with China and China’s involvement in politics in their own country. In 10 of the 19 countries surveyed, around half or more described China’s policies on human rights as a very serious problem for their country.
These concerns, again, are linked to views of China, overall. In 18 of 19 countries surveyed, those who say China’s human rights policies are a very serious problem for their country are significantly more likely than those who are less concerned to hold an unfavorable view of China.
Human rights are also salient in both Australia and the U.S. Results of an open-ended question in 2021 asking respondents what they think about when they think about China indicated that human rights in China are top of mind. People could name anything about China, from the Great Wall to current policies and everything in between, and yet around two-in-ten in both countries mentioned China’s human rights record – as many or more than said the same of any other topic.
In the case of human rights, some Australians and Americans described their view that the Chinese government mistreats its people. Around one-in-ten in each country specifically highlighted curtailed personal freedoms, whether in the form of censorship, the inability to protest or a lack of freedom of religion. For example, one American woman said China is “a country that limits its people and curtails all their freedoms in order to maintain the domination and total control of the people.”
A small share of Australians (4%) and Americans (3%) explicitly mentioned the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uyghur people, an ethnic minority group in Xinjiang, a region in northwest China. A few respondents used specific terms like “genocide” – a term now applied by the U.S. government and debated in Australia – or “concentration camps” when discussing the issue. Still, in both countries, this is many more than highlighted other high-profile human rights issues like Tibet or the Falun Gong.
How Australians and Americans speak about China and human rights in their own words
“I am very concerned that the people do not have any freedom in the police state in which they live. I have grave concerns about the Uyghurs and the way they are being rounded up and put into the so-called re-education centers. It seems as if there is another holocaust happening with these people. The lack of freedoms obviously.” – Man, Australia
“China has a huge human rights problem. Their citizens are spied on and arrested for speaking out.” – Woman, U.S.
“China is an authoritarian, racist dictatorship that crushes dissent, limits freedom of expression, and persecutes racial/religious minorities. They are a communist-in-name, fascist-in-practice rogue state that needs to be kept in check. They put Muslims into concentration camps, and crushed pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.” – Man, U.S.
“Many changes in Chinese society have allowed for a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity. Maintaining control of such a large population allows for the acceptance of violence and coercion. Individual rights and freedoms are not respected as they do not contribute to advances in Chinese society … Minorities in China are treated badly and their cultures are suppressed as shown in Tibet and the Uyghurs.” – Woman, Australia
“An advanced country that is willing to sacrifice the basic human rights of its people for its lust of power. – Woman, Australia
Australia and the U.S. are also two countries where a majority think that it’s more important to try and promote human rights in China, even if it harms economic relations with China. The same is true in Canada, Japan and nearly all of the European countries surveyed in 2022. But in Israel, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea, a majority think it’s more important to prioritize strengthening economic relations with China, even if it means not addressing human rights issues.
In nearly all places surveyed, those who see China’s human rights policies as a very serious problem are more likely to favor promoting human rights regardless of economic consequences. For example, 87% of Canadians who see China’s policies as a very serious issue prioritize human rights, compared with 64% of those who show less concern. This is the case in each country surveyed except Malaysia.
In the U.S., human rights is one of the few issues related to China that is bipartisan in nature. Generally speaking, Republicans tend to have more negative views of China, to be more likely to see China as an enemy of the U.S. and to support taking a tougher approach to China than Democrats. Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party are equally as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to support challenging China on human rights even at economic cost, to describe China’s policies on human rights as a very serious problem for the U.S. and even to mention human rights in the open-ended question asking how people think about China. Some of this may be related to media dynamics. Results of a separate analysis find that Republicans who turn only to news outlets with right-leaning audiences and Democrats who turn only to outlets with left-leaning audiences are also more likely than others in their respective parties to say the U.S. should try to promote human rights in China, even if it harms economic relations, and that China is doing a very bad job dealing with climate change. (For more on news consumption and its relationship to views of China, see “Americans in news media ‘bubbles’ think differently about foreign policy than others.”)
Because the American surveys have recently been conducted on an online, probability panel, we are also able to look at change of opinion within individuals. Results of this analysis allow us to clearly see that changing views of China’s policies on human rights are strongly related to changing views of China. In other words, between 2020 and 2022, people who increasingly saw human rights as a serious problem for the U.S. were also more likely to have negative views of China. (For more, see “Some Americans’ views of China turned more negative after 2020, but others became more positive.”)
Economy
Container ships leave a deep-water wharf in Shanghai on Sept. 11. (CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Despite a year-end slowdown, China’s pandemic recovery outpaced that of other major nations in 2021, and economic competition from China is seen as a serious problem among advanced economies. Those in South Korea, Japan, the U.S. and Australia are particularly concerned. About eight-in-ten or more in these four countries see economic competition from China as a serious problem in 2022, including about a third or more who say competition is a very serious problem. The survey was ongoing when Japan recorded a decline in exports to China and finished before South Korea registered a months-long trade deficit with China. Australia has seen a trade surplus with China since before the pandemic, but was hit with a series of sanctions from China in 2020.
Majorities in all but one European country surveyed also say economic competition with China was a serious problem, including at least a third in France, Greece, Spain and Italy who see it as a very serious problem. The European Union put out an official communication labeling China a “systemic rival” and “economic competitor” in 2019.
In the U.S., the Center has recorded additional concerns about the loss of jobs to China and their country’s trade deficit with China. More than eight-in-ten Americans considered both issues to be serious problems in 2021, including about half who said the loss of jobs to China was a very serious problem. Concern about the United States’ trade deficit with China has become slightly less intense over the past decade, with the share considering it a very serious problem declining from 61% in 2012 to 43%. The 2021 results were recorded before the end of the year, when the trade deficit with China increased for the first time since 2019.
How Australians and Americans speak about China and its economy in their own words
“Massive economic power that cares little about their workers but have brainwashed them with propaganda into thinking that they matter. It’s hard to compete economically with a nation that has a workforce that puts their job and allegiance to country above all else. Their workforce is so industrious. The workers are like robots. Everything I buy says made in China.” – Woman, U.S.
“China is the only major country in the world that has lifted the majority of its population out of poverty and progressed from a third-world status to a first-world economic status in just under 40 years!!” – Woman, Australia
“I really do not know very much about China, except that the U.S. owes them a great deal of money, and they produce less than acceptable products.” – Man, U.S.
“No respect for the intellectual property of others. Exploitation of the working class to enrich a few and to gain economic power for the few.” – Woman, U.S.
“Trade partner – we need to keep the tariffs fair to U.S. interests. Human rights abuse.” – Woman, U.S.
While those in advanced economies all saw economic competition from China as a serious problem in 2022, some have not always considered China’s economic growth to be bad for their countries. In North America, in 2019, about half said China’s growing economy was good for their respective countries, and roughly half or more in Australia, Japan and South Korea said the same. Among Europeans, roughly half or more in the UK, Greece, Germany and France also considered China’s economic growth as good for their country in 2014.
Most among the non-European economies surveyed in 2019 also saw China’s economic growth as a positive development for their country. Majorities in three of four Middle Eastern countries, the three African countries and two of three Latin American countries surveyed all labeled China’s growing economy as a good thing for their country. They were also inclined to see investment from China as benefiting their country: Majorities welcomed Chinese investment in Nigeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Mexico, Israel, Kenya, South Africa and Brazil. All African countries and most Middle Eastern countries surveyed in 2019 have signed agreements with China regarding China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Mixed feelings about China’s growing economy are accompanied by a preference for closer economic ties with the U.S. than with China. In 2021, most among the advanced economies surveyed saw more value in having close economic ties with the U.S. The difference was greatest in Canada: 87% said close economic ties with the U.S. was preferable compared with just 7% who said the same about close ties with China. Large differences were also seen in Sweden, Japan and South Korea, where a close economic relationship with the U.S. led by 71 percentage points, 66 points and 58 points, respectively. Only Singaporeans were less likely to prefer ties with the U.S. than with China (-16 points) among all publics surveyed in 2021. The same was true among the countries last surveyed in 2019, most of which were emerging economies. In Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea, the preference for economic ties with the U.S. has also increased substantially in recent years. In Australia, for example, people were around twice as likely to prefer close economic ties with China when asked in 2015, but by 2021, the relationship had fully reversed; now by a roughly two-to-one margin, people prefer close ties with the U.S. (59% vs. 31%, respectively).
However, the preference for close economic ties with the U.S. over China in 2019 and 2021 was not necessarily because of the United States’ perceived economic strength. Instead, China was seen as the world’s leading economy in 11 of the 14 countries surveyed in 2020. In seven of nine European countries surveyed, there was a double-digit difference in the share who saw China as the top economy and the share who awarded the label to the U.S. The difference was especially large in Germany, where 55% said China was the world’s top economy and 17% said the same of the U.S. – a difference of 38 percentage points. The U.S. was more likely to be seen as the top economy by those in emerging economies, which were mostly last surveyed in 2019.
China’s economy was also relevant to Americans and Australians when asked what they think about when they think about China. Roughly a fifth in both countries mentioned topics related to China’s economy when answering the question. Some critiqued China’s economy and its manufacturing practices, such as this Australian woman who mentioned “cheap trashy goods exported to Australia.” Others brought up China’s economic system: “Trying to get the best of capitalism and communism with economic benefits of capitalism and authoritarian nature of communism,” said one American man. Still others highlighted China’s economic growth and potential or referred to it as an “economic superpower.”
COVID-19
Security personnel wearing protective clothing check the temperatures of people entering a subway station in Beijing in January 2020 as part of the country’s strict “zero COVID” policy. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP via Getty Images)
As COVID-19 spread around the globe in early 2020, views of China also shifted dramatically in advanced economies. In Pew Research Center’s first international poll following the virus’s emergence, negative views of China increased by double digits in more than half of the countries surveyed. In Australia, for example, negative views went up 24 percentage points, from 57% who had an unfavorable view of China in 2019 to 81% who said the same in the summer of 2020. These changes are among the largest year-on-year changes in views of China visible in the Center’s nearly 20 years of polling on the topic.
Between 2019 and 2020, the share saying they had no confidence in Xi also increased precipitously in almost every country. In the U.S., for example, 50% had no confidence at all in Xi in 2019 and 77% said the same two years later. A similarly large shift also took place in Australia. Outside of Japan – where eight-in-ten already had no confidence in Xi in 2019 – views shifted around 10 points or more in every country for which there were trends available.
These negative views of China and the lack of confidence in Xi are closely related to the widespread sense that China did a bad job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In 2020, around half or more in every country surveyed thought China had handled the pandemic poorly – including around two-thirds or more who said this in the U.S., Sweden, Denmark and all three countries surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region: Australia, South Korea and Japan.
Notably, assessments of China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak were generally much more negative than those of institutions like the World Health Organization and the EU and evaluations of their own country’s response. Still, in most countries, more thought China was doing a good job than said the same of the U.S.
An open-ended survey question asked in both Australia and the U.S. in 2021 revealed that when people think about China in the context of COVID-19, much of the focus is on how it originated. Respondents mentioned Wuhan, wet markets and even theories about China purposefully creating the virus in a lab. Others focused on a lack of transparency that caused the pandemic, such as one American woman who said “… they allowed the virus to spread globally by allowing citizens to fly out of their country but restricted travel within their own country,” or another woman who noted “… they knew about coronavirus well before they let anyone else know and caused much of this spread here.” In fact, to the degree that respondents mentioned how China combated the outbreak once it started, some complimented its relative success – even if it came with authoritarian measures or excesses (a sentiment some held even prior to the Shanghai lockdown in 2022).
How Australians and Americans speak about China and COVID-19 in their own words
“China has opened Pandora’s box with a worldwide pandemic that has devastated the world as we know it today. Economically and spiritually we now must endure a slow recovery, if in fact we are lucky enough to survive these trying times. China and China alone is totally responsible for the cover-up of their own deeds.” – Man, U.S.
“I think about the ruthlessness in which China deals with people at times, such as welding apartment doors shut in response to the pandemic, and how the military are engaged to quash dissent (i.e., public demonstrations). I also think of that doctor who was warned to not “spread information” when he tried to broadcast warnings about the dangers of COVID.” – Woman, Australia
“I think that China should be held accountable in some way for the outbreak of the coronavirus and pandemic. They should have to pay for the loss of so much money and especially for the lives lost of those who have passed away, still dealing with and who have had the virus. And definitely pay all of the money that has been lost and that our government is having to pay out for the effects of the coronavirus.” – Woman, U.S.
“China is an authoritarian regime, and its citizens are only exposed to government-sponsored information, effectively cutting them off from the realities of the world. China was only able to keep the COVID pandemic from spreading in its borders because it limited people’s rights and confined people against their will.” – Man, U.S.
In the U.S., adults were specifically asked about whether the Chinese government’s initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan was to blame for the global spread of the virus; 78% said the country deserved a great deal or a fair amount of the blame. Half of Americans further thought that the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the outbreak of the coronavirus, even if it meant worsening economic relations. Still, 38% thought the U.S. should prioritize strong U.S.-China relations, even if it meant overlooking any role China played in the outbreak.
People visit the Yu Garden in Shanghai during the celebration of the Lantern Festival marking the end of Lunar New Year celebrations on Feb. 15. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Data from the U.S. and Australia suggest that people are generally referring to the country’s government or the economy – not the people – when thinking about China. When asked what comes to mind when thinking about China, just 6% in Australia and 3% in the U.S. brought up people. In comparison, about a fifth or more in both the U.S. and Australia mentioned China’s political system or economy.
How Australians and Americans speak about Chinese people in their own words
“The Chinese people as individuals are no different than other people, but their government is a totalitarian Communist regime bent on conquering its neighbors and land-grabbing, as shown by their takeover of Hong Kong.” – Man, U.S.
“Disgusting; selfish; unethical; stingy; low quality; poor attitude; negative; bad people and leaders.” – Woman, Australia
“A country of humans, like all the other countries. An innovative, smart, and hardworking people. Their willingness to meet the needs of the global economy supersedes environmental and prudent usage of resources, which is disturbing.” – Man, U.S.
“The people as a whole are ok, the politicians and military are a bit to be desired.” – Man, Australia
Responses showed that views of China’s government were not automatically conflated with views of China’s people. Some made sure to contrast their positive views of China’s people with their negative views of the country’s government, such as this Australian woman who said, “The people themselves are lovely, but the government is power hungry.” Others specified that the negative views they expressed applied only to the government. “I’m concerned about the Chinese government but I don’t have a problem with their people,” said one American woman. The Center found a similar distinction between a country’s people and government with American views of Israel.
Others had only positive things to say about Chinese people. An American man described China’s people as “warm, kind, intelligent, smart, hardworking,” and an Australian woman said, “They are strongly family-orientated and they at the same time don’t go overboard with the number of kids. They are hard workers.” Still, some made negative characterizations, using adjectives like “barbaric” or “dirty” or mentioning stereotypes: For example, an American woman referred to “dog and cat consumers” when discussing China.
Older data shed some additional light on what traits Americans associate with Chinese people. In 2012, Americans were asked whether certain attributes described the Chinese people, and majorities described the Chinese people using positive attributes like hardworking, inventive and modern. Substantial minorities also said honesty, tolerance or generosity described the people. Negative attributes like competitive and nationalistic were also widely associated with the Chinese people, while roughly a quarter or more said aggressiveness, greed, arrogance, selfishness, rudeness and violence applied to the Chinese people.
Japanese people were also asked about the same stereotypes in 2016 and generally had few positive things to say about the Chinese, with majorities describing them as arrogant, nationalistic and violent. Even when it comes to the trait of being hardworking, only a minority of Japanese said it described Chinese people – down significantly between 2016 and 2006.
Though Americans and Australians mostly had the government or economy in mind when thinking about China, the Center nonetheless found that those with unfavorable views of China were about 20 percentage points more likely to support restricting Chinese students studying in the U.S. or Australia. In 2021, 55% in the U.S. and 50% in Australia supported limiting Chinese students studying in their country. Those holding unfavorable views of China were significantly more likely than those with favorable views to hold this opinion. Likewise, those who saw China as an enemy of their country were more likely to support limits on Chinese students than those who saw China as a partner or competitor; those who thought China was doing a bad job handling the pandemic were more likely than those who believed China was doing a good job to support such limits.
Support for restricting Chinese students studying in the country was also related to age and partisanship. Australians and Americans ages 18 to 29 were less likely than their older counterparts to support limits on Chinese students. Republicans in the U.S. and supporters of the then-governing center-right Liberal National Coalition in Australia were more likely than Democrats and nonsupporters of The Coalition, respectively, to favor limitations on the number of Chinese students attending their country’s college or universities.
In 2021, some in the U.S. saw a connection between racist political rhetoric about China and a rise in violence against Asian Americans. Among Asian Americans who said violence against Asians in the U.S. was increasing, a fifth attributed the increased violence to former President Donald Trump’s language about China as the source of the pandemic, such as his racist references to “kung flu” or the “Chinese flu.”
About this essay
This essay was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. It is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of a number of individuals and experts at Pew Research Center. Results presented in this data essay are drawn from nationally representative surveys conducted over the past 20 years in more than 60 countries. For detailed tables on views of China, see the Appendix.
