THE TIMES POLL : Public Fears the Price of Security May Be Liberty : Terrorism: Americans strongly support measures to deter future attacks. But they’re wary of losing freedoms.

Even after the Oklahoma City bombing, Americans’ concerns about terrorism are strongly bounded by fears that a crackdown could endanger civil liberties, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

Although the survey found strong support for specific measures to tighten surveillance of suspected terrorists, it also suggests that Americans are ambivalent about signing over individual freedoms in the quest for greater security from terrorist violence.

Americans say they would be willing to give up some civil liberties to bolster the fight against terrorism. But slightly more of those polled worry that government will go too far in restricting “the average person’s civil liberties” than fear that government will fail to enact “strong, new anti-terrorism laws.”

The survey also contains several tantalizing hints at the degree of support the extreme anti-government militia movement enjoys. Asked, for example, who holds most responsibility for the bombing, 9% blamed the government. Asked if they know someone who is a member of a militia, 3% said yes. And 7% of those surveyed said that while “there is no excuse for the bombing . . . one can understand the frustrations and anger” that may have produced it as compared to the 92% who said “there is simply no excuse . . . period.”

On several other questions, support for the central concerns of the militia movement varied. Taken together, the responses indicate that potential supporters of the militias make up a small, but not insignificant, share of the population--probably only a few percent of Americans as a whole. But even that number would amount to several million people.

The questions about how to respond to the possible threat of violence from the extreme right reveal substantially more pronounced concern over threats to civil liberties from conservatives than liberals--a finding that may help explain why the Republican-controlled Congress is planning to examine anti-terrorism proposals at a more measured pace after promising breakneck action.

By a margin of more than 9 to 1, Americans credit President Clinton for an effective response to the catastrophe. But the survey found Americans much more reluctant to blame anyone other than the principal suspect, Timothy J. McVeigh, and the militia movement to which he has been linked. Majorities reject the idea that talk show hosts, conservatives in Congress or gun-control opponents bear responsibility for creating a climate that encouraged the tragedy. Even the militias are fingered with substantial responsibility by only about half of those surveyed.

The Times Poll, supervised by John Brennan, surveyed 1,032 adults Wednesday and Thursday; it has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2 percentage points.

The poll offers no suggestion that Americans are in a panic over terrorism. The most basic measure of sentiment about the country’s direction is actually slightly less pessimistic than it was in March, the most recent survey taken before the bombing. In the new poll, 56% of those surveyed say the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared to 60% in March.

Almost half of those polled say terrorism is a serious problem in the United States. About as many also say they expect terrorist attacks like the bombing to be common in the future--although only 15% say they expect them to be very common. Half of those polled say the attack has shaken their personal sense of security, although only one-quarter say they have been greatly shaken. Perhaps most revealing, just 35% say they worry about terrorism while they are in public places--while 64% say they do not.

As a general proposition, those surveyed consider anti-terrorism laws too weak. Just 21% say existing laws are adequate to the challenge, while 3% say they are too strong; 57% say they are not strong enough.

And there is substantial support for giving the FBI greater latitude to monitor and investigate suspected terrorist groups. Nearly 3 in 4 surveyed support loosening restrictions on FBI infiltration of groups suspected of plotting criminal acts. Sixty-four percent of those polled say the FBI should be given more freedom to trace telephone calls and easier access to information from credit agencies, hotels and airlines, as both Clinton and congressional Republicans have proposed.

But those instincts for a crackdown are tangled in concerns about protecting civil liberties. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed say they would be willing to “give up some civil liberties if that were necessary to curb terrorism in this country.” But when asked whether the fight against terrorism will require the “average person to give up some civil liberties,” Americans are closely divided: 49% said yes, and 43% said no.

Moreover, concern is widespread that anti-terrorism measures may crimp personal freedoms: 70% say they are worried that new laws may restrict civil liberties, while 31% say they are very concerned. (Only 28% say they are not worried.)

Even in the aftershock of the traumatic Oklahoma City bombing, slightly more Americans worry that Congress might go too far in trying to fight terrorism than fear it won’t go far enough. Forty percent of those polled say they worry Congress will fail to enact strong new laws against terrorism; but 44% are more concerned that Congress will enact laws that “excessively restrict the average person’s civil liberties.”

*

The ideological division on that fundamental choice defies initial expectations. It is conservatives who are most concerned that government will go too far in limiting civil liberties; indeed, the conservative and liberal positions are mirror images. In the poll, 51% of liberals say their principal concern is that government won’t enact strong enough laws to fight terrorism, while 36% say they worry most about government going too far in restricting civil liberties. Conservatives break in the precise opposite manner, with 52% saying they are most concerned about restricting civil liberties, while 36% say they worry most about Congress failing to enact tough new laws.

On other questions regarding civil liberties, the gap between right and left is less pronounced. But consistently, conservatives express roughly as much concern as liberals about restricting civil liberties, slightly less in some cases, slightly more in others. For instance, conservatives are less supportive than liberals of allowing the FBI greater freedom to review travel records or trace telephone calls.

Although only preliminary, these findings suggest a shifting calculus in the politics of domestic security. During the Cold War, conservative politicians consistently supported strong steps to root out domestic subversion. With the Communist threat having evaporated--and concerns over terrorism turning not only toward foreign radicals but to far-right domestic groups--key elements of the Republican coalition appear to be extending their traditional concerns about intrusive government to include law enforcement. More gun owners and white fundamentalist Christians, for instance, are more concerned that government will restrict civil liberties than are worried that it won’t go far enough to fight terrorism, the poll found.

More traditional ideological and partisan divisions resurface around Clinton’s suggestion last Sunday that “angry voices” on the airwaves bear some of the blame for the tragedy. Overall, 62% of those surveyed agree with the President, while 31% disagree. But opinion sharply breaks along partisan and ideological grounds, with Democrats and liberals much more likely to agree than Republicans and conservatives.

*

Clinton gets high marks for his response to the crisis; 84% approve, while just 9% disapprove. His overall approval rating, likely because of that strong tail wind, has jumped to 56%, up six percentage points since last month. And when asked whether Clinton or the GOP-controlled Congress has better ideas for coping with the country’s problems, Americans now give the Republicans only a two percentage point advantage, 37-35. Last month the gap was 11 percentage points.

Notwithstanding the support for Clinton’s general criticism of intemperate voices, the poll finds Americans quite circumspect about placing blame for the tragedy.

Asked if conservative talk show hosts bear responsibility for “creating a climate that encouraged” the bombing, just 19% say a great deal; another 17% say a good amount, while 55% say not much or none. Similarly, just 27% say anti-gun control advocates significantly contributed to a climate that encouraged the bombing, while only 20% point a finger at conservatives in Congress.

But other findings suggest the limits of those sentiments. Liberals were much more likely than moderates or conservatives to impugn Congress or gun advocates--although just over 40% of moderates joined a roughly equal number of liberals in concern about the possible role of conservative talk shows.

Still, when asked in an open-ended question who was to blame for the bombing, less than 1% named either talk radio hosts or gun advocates; about 1 in 5 named the militia movement, while about 1 in 7 picked McVeigh himself.

*

If not an endorsement of violence, the poll found slightly wider sympathy for some of the key concerns that motivate the militia movement. About 1 in 4 of those polled agree that the “United Nations poses a threat to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the average American.” And 3 in 10 say the government was not justified when it raided the compound of the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, Tex., two years before the Oklahoma City bombing; 58% say the attack was justified. About one-fourth back lifting the ban on 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons that Congress approved last year.

Triangulating those three positions, which are all central to the ideology of the militantly anti-government groups, also gives a sense of the breadth of their support. Just 4% of those polled agree with all three: that is, they consider the United Nations a threat, oppose the assault-weapon ban and believe the government was wrong to attack in Waco. Fourteen percent believe two of the three statements; 45% believe none.

*

Questions that measure broader attitudes toward government find disenchantment that extends well beyond the fringe. A head-turning 47% of those surveyed say they are angry at government (51% say they’re not) and 45% say that the government’s activities pose “a threat to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the average American.”

On the other hand, another focus of the militia movement--opposition to gun control--finds much less mainstream support. Fully 63% of those surveyed say gun control laws should be “more strict,” while 26% say they are about right and only 7% want them loosened. Even pluralities of gun owners and Republicans say gun-control laws should be more strict; just 1 in 9 members of both groups say they should be looser.

On the assault-weapon ban, the 24% who support repeal are outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 by the 71% who say the ban should be maintained. Notably, 60% of those polled strongly support the ban, while just 15% strongly oppose it. Majorities of gun owners, Republicans and conservatives say they strongly support the ban; overall, 68% of gun owners say they back the ban, 30% oppose it. Republicans favor the ban, 63% to 31%.

The political impact of those numbers remains uncertain. In the past few years, gun control has increasingly resembled abortion as an issue in which most of the passion seems to be concentrated among opponents. The assault-weapons ban registered overwhelming support in public-opinion polls last fall too. But even so, the National Rifle Assn. utilized it as a powerful weapon against Democrats in the midterm elections--when more than two-thirds of gun owners voted Republican.

Since the bombing, the NRA has come under fire for attacking the federal agencies charged with enforcing the gun laws in barbed language not far from that of the right-wing militia movements linked to the attack. But there appeared to be little backlash against the group in the poll. In the survey, 49% of those polled say the NRA has too much influence over lawmakers, but 43% disagree.

*

Concern about the NRA’s influence is about the same as in 1989, the last time The Times asked that question. Among gun owners almost 60% reject the idea that the NRA has too much influence. But almost 4 in 10 gun owners say it does.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

American React

On Steps To Fight Terrorism

The public thinks anti-terrorism laws are too weak, but worries that strengthening them may end up infringing on civil liberties. Most doubt law enforcement can prevent terrorist acts.

Do you think the anti-terrorism laws in this country are too strong, too weak or are they about what they need to be?

Too strong: 3%

Too weak: 57%

About right: 21%

Don’t know: 19%

How concerned are you that new measures enacted to fight terrorism in this country may end up restricting some of our civil liberties?

Concerned: 70%

Not concerned: 28%

Don’t know: 2%

If law enforcement officials are given the tools they need, do you think they will be able to revent all future terrorist attacks in the United States, many of them, only a few or none of them?

All: 4%

Many: 36%

Few: 48%

None: 8%

Don’t know: 4%

ON THE PUBLIC DEBATE AND TALK SHOW HOSTS

Most agree with President Clinton when he denounces “loud and angry voices,” on the airwaves. They don’t lay blame for the bombing with conservative talk show hosts, however.

President Clinton has attacked what he called “loud and angry voices” on the public airwaves who he says spread hate and give the impression that violence is acceptable. Do you agree or disagree with the President that such voices pose a problem for our society?

Agree: 62%

Disagree: 31%

Don’t know: 7%

How much responsibility----if any--do conservative talk show hosts bear for creating a climate that encouraged the Oklahoma City bombing?

Great deal/Good amount: 36%

Not much/none: 55%

Don’t know: 9%

ON THE MILITIAS THEMSELVES

Nearly half agree that the federal government threatens constitutional rights. But just 1-in-8 are sympathetic to anti-government militia groups.

Do you think that the activities of the federal government pose a threat to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the average American?

Threat: 45%

Not threat: 49%

Don’t know: 6%

Are you sympathetic, or not sympathetic to the goals and concerns of armed citizen militia groups?

Sympathetic: 13%

Not sympathetic: 82%

Don’t know: 5%

How the poll was conducted: The Times Poll interviewed 1,032 adults nationwide, by telephone, April 26 and 27. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education. The margin of sampling error for the total sample is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; for certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.