A new WSJ/NBC News poll (via Sullivan) contains some interesting findings that show how much of a political liability support for activist foreign policy is becoming. Respondents were asked about voting for candidates for Congress, they were given a list of different traits and positions, and then asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for the candidate because of each one. On foreign policy, these were some of the results:

One area of agreement among respondents of either party was on whether the U.S. should reassert itself on the world stage. Adults surveyed were less likely to support a candidate who wants to see the U.S. assume an expanded role in policing foreign conflicts and more likely to support one who doesn’t. Republicans, Democrats and independents showed more agreement on those questions than many others.

If a candidate believed that America should be doing less to “try to resolve conflicts around the world,” 45% were more likely to support him and just 31% were less likely. The disadvantage for an advocate for doing more was slightly greater: only 23% were more likely to support such a candidate, and 47% were less likely. This is consistent with the Pew survey from the end of last year, which found that most Republicans and independents and almost half of Democrats believe that the U.S. is doing too much to address global problems:

There is very little popular support for the idea that the U.S. is not doing enough in the world. The most surprising thing is that there is still any support for such a view after the last decade. There is not much incentive for politicians to be demanding a more activist role in the world, and there is no advantage with voters in being an advocate for doing even more than the U.S. already does, but virtually all leading Republicans are still wedded to demanding something that at least half their party doesn’t want.