AMERICA’S WORLD ROLE: DIVIDED WE STAND : The Divisions : Similarity Can Breed Disparity : * U.S. leaders tend to be white, male, affluent and highly educated. Yet their goals increasingly differ.

Just how divided are American leaders on foreign policy issues? According to the new poll by the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, they can’t even agree on what time it is.

The poll asked U.S. opinion makers to imagine a clock that measures how near we are to nuclear catastrophe. During the Cold War, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists placed the hands of the clock at two minutes to midnight--or Armageddon. A thaw in global relations later pushed that estimate back by 15 minutes, to 11:43 p.m. “What time,” asked the poll, “would you put it at now?”

Among the 649 people interviewed, business leaders were most optimistic--fully one-third set the clock further back, to 11 p.m. or earlier. Scientists and religious and cultural leaders were most content to leave the clock’s hands where they were, while some state and local government officials anxiously set the clock forward.

“The people who pushed the clock back focused on the fact that there’s no longer a Soviet threat. Others said: ‘But wait a minute. There’s a Third World threat,’ ” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Times Mirror Center. Here, as throughout the survey, he said, “There appears to be very little consensus.”

By and large, members of America’s leadership elite are white, male, affluent and highly educated. But the recent poll indicates that, especially as the threat of communism recedes, they are far from homogeneous in their views of the world and America’s place in it.

The poll picked the brains of influential Americans in nine areas: academia, business, culture, foreign affairs, media, religion, science, security and state and local government. Analysis of their responses revealed as many as four distinct subcultures, each with its own global priorities.

Business leaders were pragmatic and unsentimental in their approach to foreign policy, generally favoring stability over ideology. They put relatively little priority on promoting democracy, human rights or environmental protection, particularly if such activities might risk undesirable consequences.

*

By contrast, religious leaders, cultural figures and scientists took a more global or universal approach, tending to champion some of the same values that business leaders tended to reject. These groups showed above-average sympathy for the United Nations, for example, and for helping to improve living standards in the developing world.

Professional foreign affairs and defense experts--once joined hip to thigh on containing the former Soviet Union--still see eye to eye on issues such as preventing weapons proliferation and guarding against Mideast threats, the poll suggests. But here too there are fissures: The security group leaned more toward maintaining military vigilance, while the foreign affairs group placed much hope on diplomatic efforts.

Closest in their answers to the main concerns of the general public--jobs, drug trafficking and immigration--were state and local officials. Contrary to the views of some media critics, the media elite also were relatively in sync with the public. In general, however, the poll signals that opinion-makers’ influence over the public may be waning.

“Traditionally, opinion leaders led the public on foreign policy issues. . . . But if there’s a stunning lack of consensus, then there’s going to be less of a leader-follower pattern,” said Kohut, of the Times Mirror Center. “If the leadership were speaking with one voice, it could begin to focus public opinion. But that’s not the case.”

Below, a sampling of the views of America’s fragmented leadership class--what the Times Mirror Center has dubbed “American Influentials”:

Academia

The academic leaders were chosen from the officers of the most competitive private and state universities, as well as the heads of various influential think tanks, and they were among the groups most approving of President Clinton.

Academics, more than any other group, believed that Germany will probably come to dominate Europe politically and economically by the year 2000. Asked to evaluate a list of potential events affecting peace and stability, either for better or worse, more than 55% of the academics polled made that prediction. This was in marked contrast to most Influentials, who saw the emergence of China as an assertive global power as much more likely.

Business

The business group consisted of chief executives picked at random from the Fortune 1,000 list of industrial and service companies. More than others, this group generally voted as a bloc, tending to come down solidly on one side or the other of questions that often split other groups more evenly.

For this group, economic concerns seemed paramount. When asked whether European or Pacific Rim nations are most important to the United States, business leaders led the way in picking Japan and the Pacific Rim--83% of them for economic reasons. Business leaders also said Japan is the nation that poses the greatest danger to the United States.

Culture

The culture group, composed of artists, writers, musicians and critics, was chosen at random from Who’s Who in America and stood out from other Influentials particularly when asked which specific foreign policy problem should have top priority for the U.S. government. While a great majority of leaders in other fields said “strengthening the domestic economy,” 80% of the culture group listed protecting the global environment.

Cultural leaders showed above-average sympathy for the United Nations and protecting U.S. jobs and stood out as most opposed of any group of Influentials to passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Foreign Affairs

The foreign affairs group, which was selected at random from the membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations, was concerned most about such problems as strengthening the U.S. economy, bringing peace to the Mideast, protecting the global environment and adopting NAFTA. Members of this group sought to ensure adequate energy supplies for the United States, strengthen the United Nations, reduce proliferation of weapons and cut trade deficits.

They also strongly supported maintaining U.S. troop strength in Europe at the planned level of 100,000.

Along with the security group, foreign affairs leaders were most critical of Clinton’s handling of foreign conflicts, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Government

These respondents were chosen from among state governors and mayors of cities with populations over 80,000. Their answers often jibed with those given by business leaders, particularly in giving high priority to trade and economic issues. When asked to name the top priority among long-range foreign policy goals, for example, 71% of government leaders and 70% of business leaders cited the need to ensure an adequate energy supply for the United States.

But in other key areas, they went their separate ways. The government group was more supportive of military vigilance and buttressing democracy. Business was more supportive of NAFTA and other matters of benefit to free trade.

More than their fellow elites, government officials were also most in tune with the public on issues of employment, drugs and immigration. When asked to name the most important problem facing the country today, for example, both groups chose “lack of jobs” over all other choices.

Media

Media respondents, selected from among top editors in television, newspapers, radio and newsmagazines, mostly stayed with the pack.

Along with academics and security experts, they came out strongly saying nationalism and ethnic hatred are the most dangerous problems threatening world stability. And media leaders were in accord with foreign affairs, security and business groups in their belief that America’s authority in the world today has declined from what it was a decade ago.

Fittingly, a question about the dissemination of information prompted one of the few responses in which the media elite stood out.

Asked if government intelligence agencies like the CIA should provide American industry with the economic information they routinely collect on foreign businesses, 78% of media respondents--more than any other group--said no.

Religion

Those polled were national religious leaders from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim faiths, as well as top people at the National Council of Churches.

More than any other group, religious leaders were willing to antagonize friendly nations in order to push for human rights, and 56% of them made that a priority among long-range foreign policy goals. Along with cultural leaders, the religious elite strongly opposed promotion of capitalism if it seriously risks exploitation of underdeveloped peoples.

This group also had a strikingly different perspective on the Middle East: While Influentials as a whole were twice as sympathetic to Israelis as to Palestinians, it was just the opposite for religious leaders. Protestant leaders were equally divided between the two sides, but Catholic leaders heavily favored the Arabs.

Science

The science group, picked at random from members of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, seemed consistently to give answers shaped by a long-range, big-picture view of the world.

When asked to name the greatest threat to global stability, more than half of these respondents cited population growth--more, by far, than any other group. They were also strong on environmental protection, with 73% of those polled assigning it top priority.

Scientists and engineers were also among the most supportive of proposals to decrease U.S. troop strength in Europe. Thirty-one percent of engineers and 21% of scientists even wanted to bring all Americans home from Europe, and they offered similar support for bringing troops home from South Korea.

Security

The security group, selected at random from American members of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, was notably guarded in its views.

Only among security experts, for example, did an absolute majority say America today plays a less important role as a world leader than it did 10 years ago. While all the groups of Influentials overwhelmingly favored a shared global leadership, the security group had the largest minority--17%--in favor of the United States being the single world leader.

The security group was also most concerned with countering North Korean militarism and ensuring that democracy succeeds in Russia.