The findings and interpretations of public opinion analyst Daniel Yankelovich as presented at a recent Japan Society Corporate Luncheon were particularly timely and important in understanding the future of U.S.-3,apan relations. For that reason, they are reproduced here in their entirety.

If the U.S.-Japan relationship is not to deteriorate and if it is to improve and serve the interests of both countries as well as the world community, a vision of a possible "win-win" relationship between the United States and Japan is desperately needed. This vision, which is absent today, must convey a message to the people of both countries that each has a powerful incentive to prevent cultural differences and bickering on trade relations from getting in the way of a redefined bilateral relationship in which everyone stands to gain.

This vision cannot be an updated version of the security arrangements that dominated the cold war era. Nor is the vision of a new global partnership in which the United States and Japan cooperate on such issues as protecting the environment or addressing world hunger the correct one for this time. This is not a vision to which the majority of Americans will respond positively at the present time. It's not that these two alternatives are undesirable; they simply don't address the concerns in the United States that are currently causing the strain in the bilateral relationship.

The only vision that will revitalize Ambassador Michael Mansfield's concept of the U.S.-Japan relationship as the most important in the world is one in which American and Japanese industry and technology together become the engine that drives a new wave of economic growth. This vision is greatly influenced by the current political mood in the United States and its effect on the U.S.-Japan relationship.

The American people are frustrated and anxious, and feelings about Japan are an important element in the mood, so it's especially important to understand it. I must emphasize that the mood is not one of Japan bashing or Japan scapegoating. Furthermore, I believe the current American mood is somewhat distorted by the media.

 

Americans in an Activist Mood

The press often describes the current mood as one of anger and outrage; while there is an approximately 20 percent minority of the public who are angry, the majority are more worried than angry. Americans have also been described by U.S. media as "alienated" and "cynical," terms which suggest a withdrawal from involvement. It's true that the public is mistrustful, but far from being alienated, it is in an extremely activist mood, determined to break through the gridlock and lack of responsiveness that has characterized American government for a very long time.

Over the past few years, America's middle-class majority has been forced to lower its economic expectations. Most once assumed their jobs were reasonably secure; consequently, they went easily into debt, anticipating that their earnings would steadily increase. They also assumed that they had robust savings in the form of their homes, the value of which they also expected to steadily increase.

Suddenly, without any announcement or preparation, these assumptions have proven to be unrealistic. White-collar workers can no longer take their continued employment for granted. The value of their homes has been declining instead of adding annually to their net worth, and the prospect for automatic annual raises looks bleak. In this new context, the burden of debt has been transformed from a benign, easily managed lifestyle, to something like a threatening, snarling beast. In my firm's annual study of changing social values, the top priority in the hopes and dreams of the upper middle class in America has become "Reducing and getting better control over debt." This is a major shift in outlook.

Our nation's economists often express bewilderment at the high level of public anxiety when the objective indices suggest that this is far from the worst of the post-war recessions. I cannot emphasize enough that the current recession is not the main cause of the current national mood of worry and frustration. It is merely a prism to focus the public's slowly mounting concern over the future health of the economy and the ability of the government to deal effectively with the nation's problems.

 

A Public Perception of Decline

Fully 77 percent of the American public believes the United States is falling behind Japan in economic strength. Three-quarters believe our economy is stagnant or declining. Fewer than one in 10–8 percent–rate America's ability to compete as "excellent," which is higher than the paltry 2 percent who rate as excellent the quality of America's job training and the job opportunities for young people starting out. Reacting to a list of 11 ways the United States is seen to be a world leader, the number one attribute is military strength, at 91 percent. At the very bottom is the quality of U.S. products exported, at only 3.3 percent.

Consequently, six out of 10 Americans today believe their future standard of living and their jobs will be adversely affected by our weakened ability to compete in world markets. By a ratio of more than two to one, Americans lack confidence that life for their children's generation will be better than their own. The linkage between what is seen as a stagnating American economy vis-a-vis Japan and the social consequences of this slowdown is the main source of George Bush's vulnerability in the 1992 presidential election and the main cause of his dramatic drop in the polls.

In light of this general mood, where does Japan fit into the picture? The first and most important point is that Americans do not see Japan as the primary cause of their economic problems. In response to a question in which people were given five alternative causes to America's problems in trying to compete economically in the world, Japan ranks fourth, at 14 percent. The first three most frequently cited reasons, selected by 80 percent of those surveyed, were "Short-sighted attitudes of American corporate management," "the failure of the government to provide a plan for competing with Japan and other countries," and "Low productivity of American workers." (The unification of Western Europe was the fifth item on the list, and not seen as that much of a threat.)

Furthermore, more than two-thirds of the public agrees with the statement that "Americans are too inclined to blame Japan for problems of our own making." A similar proportion agrees with the statement that "the chairmen of the Big Three automakers put too much blame on Japanese trade policies, and don't try hard enough to make their own cars better." And when Americans are asked to compare the virtues of American and Japanese cars, by huge margins Japanese cars are seen as superior in fuel economy and value for the money, and moderately better than American cars in overall quality and reliability. American automobiles are ranked superior in styling, as being enjoyable to drive, and as safer.

 

How Americans See the Problems

When Americans are asked why they believe American products don't sell as well as they might in Japan, 40 percent attribute this to the Japanese restricting market entry by U.S. companies. But over half cite other reasons, including lower quality of American products and a lack of effort by U.S. companies.

By way of summary, when Americans were offered three possible reasons why the United States may have problems competing internationally, the number one reason was "The world has changed to become a global marketplace, and the United States hasn't done enough to adjust to the new challenges of economic competition." In second place was "The American work ethic and commitment to quality has declined, and other countries are trying harder." Third, at a low level of 19 percent, was "Countries like Japan are out to be number one economically, and they ignore the principles of free trade in order to get ahead."

When you turn to the matter of Japan's image in the United States, again you see a rather discriminating profile. Japan is seen by Americans as having better-managed companies, better-educated citizens, and harder-working workers, with a slight edge given to the United States for technology and for better skilled workers. Overall, the experience of Americans with Japanese products is deemed to be excellent.

On the other hand, a majority of Americans (65 percent) believe that anti-Japanese feelings in this country are increasing; 58 percent believe that the Japanese are prejudiced against Americans, and a very serious and significant two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) believe that most Japanese look down on Americans, and therefore believe that the U.S.-Japan relationship is getting worse.

In other words, on economic matters, American perceptions are far more discriminating then on the psychological and cultural front. Here there is a perception that, as a consequence of besting the United States in economic competition, the Japanese look down on the United States, a serious blow to American pride. (Incidentally, while a majority of Americans feel competition from Japan is a very important problem, they don't feel the same way, for example, about competition from Germany.)

 

Japan Perceived as Stronger

By a ratio of three to one, Americans feel that Japan is currently in the stronger economic position compared to the United States. There is also a pervasive feeling that Japanese investment in the United States threatens America's economic independence and weakens America's economy. Six out of ten (63 percent) agree with the statement "We are allowing other countries like Japan to own and control too much of our manufacturing and real estate."

As a consequence, three out of four Americans said they would vote for a presidential candidate who took the position of imposing new restrictions on the sale of Japanese products to protect American jobs, even if it meant higher prices for consumers. This potential protectionism arises not so much from placing blame on Japan, but from the mood of anxiety and worry and great frustration. However, economic relations with Japan are at the very center of this mood.

Throughout the four decades of the cold war, from the late 1940s through the late 1980s, U.S. and Japanese interests were reconciled through a mutual security arrangement against a common foe. The division of effort between Japan and the United States suited both countries and helped preserve the peace. The arrangement also helped to counteract the tensions which arose from economic competition and cultural cross-pressures. So important was this arrangement that, at least in foreign policy circles in the United States, it took clear-cut precedence over economic interests and concerns.

Today, the end of the cold war has diminished the priority of military security, and greatly increased that of economic growth and well-being. Americans hold the Japanese people in the greatest respect for their historic accomplishments, and identify the Japanese with hard work, high standards, discipline, quality and intelligence. But they also see economic competition with Japan as a zero-sum game: as Japan wins, the United States loses.

There are those who argue that the old military security vision is still valid, despite the end of the cold war. Whatever the objective merits of this view, it holds very little credibility for Americans in their present mood because it doesn't address the sources of their anxieties, which are the future of jobs and the well-being of their children. Furthermore, it is associated with the American policy which sacrificed economic interests for U.S. military security, now seen as obsolete and counterproductive.

The second alternative, the global partnership vision, has great appeal in Japan, but has one fatal defect in the United States: it doesn't address the source of America's anxieties, the perception of a zero-sum economic relationship. A U.S.-Japan global partnership to deal with such problems as Third World poverty or the environmental threat is not wrong. It is simply premature, a second step if and when the United States returns to a pattern of three-plus percent annual economic growth and rising expectations. Then it becomes a wonderful and inspiring vision. Until then the global partnership vision is like inviting a starving man to dinner and showing him travel brochures instead of feeding him.

 

The "Win-Win" Relationship

In my view, the best way to strengthen the relationship, and to save it from deteriorating, is to offer a new vision of why the bilateral relationship will benefit both sides at least as much as the cold war security relationship once did. From the U.S. point of view, the only possible such vision is one in which the American people see the relationship with Japan as the key to conquering and overcoming their economic stagnation, as a way to help them move toward a new era of economic vitality. Instead of the present zero-sum perceptions, Americans would then see a "win-win" relationship in which both sides benefit.

This is not an impossible, impractical dream. On the contrary, the trade relationship does benefit both sides. In fact, there already exist a number of U.S.-Japanese partnerships that are of mutual benefit. Americans in places such as Tennessee, where Japanese companies have more than 70 plants, do see the relationship as positive. Furthermore, a win-win relationship is totally compatible with vigorous competition; very often the best way to build successful markets is through the competitive process.

At the same time, however, it would be naive not to admit that the actions required to achieve this vision are difficult and complex. For example, some new forms of cooperative ventures, especially in the pooling of R&D and the commercial application of technology, have encountered great obstacles. I have personal knowledge of a number of offers by Japanese companies to create just such projects with American firms which have been turned down because of mistrust. I believe similar offers would not have been rejected had they come from Europe.

This new vision would also require certain changes in corporate competitive patterns and rules, which would be difficult to achieve on a company-by-company basis. I t would be much more complicated than the old government-to-government security relationship, because so many more actors would be involved: companies, unions, the educational establishment, trade associations, as well as governments. Certainly there does not now exist a clear-cut strategy on how to achieve this vision. But my central point is that if the people of the United States saw this vision as a desirable, positive and achievable goal, this would help counteract all the other kinds of inevitable tensions. The total absence of such a vision is the main reason these tensions are taking such a toll.

The creation of a positive vision for U.S.-Japan cooperation is essential; without it the relationship will deteriorate. The cultural differences are considerable: we do have a gift for misunderstanding, for talking past each other, and for rubbing each other the wrong way. This is not an insuperable obstacle if you're doing something big and important together, but intolerable if you're not.

Finally, I have believed for a number of years that the right pattern of U.S.-Japanese competition and cooperation can be the driving force for a new wave of dynamic global growth that would be good not only for the United States and Japan, but would also give Eastern Europe a lift, as well as stimulate the economies of Western Europe and the Third World.

To get there will require patience, good faith, imagination, determination and flexibility. Old habits will need to change, trust will have to replace mistrust, good will must transcend special interests. The realistic odds are against all this happening. But can it happen? Absolutely, it definitely can. Which is what a vision is all about.