Pope Leo Most Favorably Viewed of 14 Newsmakers
by Lydia Saad
Among 14 prominent U.S. and global figures, Pope Leo XIV has the most positive image by far, with many more Americans viewing him favorably than unfavorably. His 57% favorable rating and 11% unfavorable rating result in a +46 net-favorable score, far ahead of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (+18) and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (+11).
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
No opinion |
Net favorable |
|
|
|
% |
% |
% |
|
|
Pope Leo XIV |
57 |
11 |
31 |
46 |
|
Volodymyr Zelenskyy |
52 |
34 |
14 |
18 |
|
Bernie Sanders |
49 |
38 |
14 |
11 |
|
Emmanuel Macron |
30 |
31 |
39 |
-1 |
|
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez |
34 |
38 |
28 |
-4 |
|
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. |
42 |
47 |
10 |
-5 |
|
Joe Biden |
43 |
54 |
3 |
-11 |
|
JD Vance |
38 |
49 |
13 |
-11 |
|
Gavin Newsom |
30 |
41 |
28 |
-11 |
|
Pete Hegseth |
26 |
38 |
37 |
-12 |
|
Donald Trump |
41 |
57 |
2 |
-16 |
|
Marco Rubio |
31 |
47 |
22 |
-16 |
|
Benjamin Netanyahu |
29 |
52 |
19 |
-23 |
|
Elon Musk |
33 |
61 |
6 |
-28 |
Favorable ratings for several current and former Trump administration officials have slipped since January. This includes Trump himself, Vance, Kennedy, Rubio and Musk, who stepped down two months ago as head of the Department of Government Efficiency and has since sparred with Trump over policy and personal matters.
The Trump officials’ image declines have been most pronounced for Musk and Rubio, who are each down 24 points in net favorability.
Pope Leo’s 57% favorable rating is the first Gallup rating of the American-born pontiff since he was elected to his position in May. Relatively few Americans, 11%, view him unfavorably, while the rest either aren’t familiar enough with him to have an opinion (18%) or have not heard of him (13%).
These figures closely match Pope Francis’ ratings when he assumed the role in 2013, then viewed favorably by 58% and unfavorably by 10%, as well as Pope Benedict in 2005 (55% favorable, 12% unfavorable).
All three pontiffs also earned higher-than-average support from American Catholics in their initial ratings, with Leo viewed favorably by 76%, Francis by 80% and Benedict by 67%.
One way Leo differs from his predecessors is that his favorable rating is higher among liberals than conservatives (65% vs. 46%), whereas in Benedict’s and Francis’ early days as pope — in 2005 and 2013, respectively — they were each viewed more favorably by conservatives than liberals. That pattern persisted for Benedict through Gallup’s final reading on him in 2010, three years before he resigned in 2013. Francis, on the other hand, saw his popularity with conservatives wane over time to the point that by Gallup’s final reading on him, in December 2023, he was liked much more by liberals (70%) than conservatives (42%), similar to Leo’s ratings today
Unlike the political figures measured in the latest poll, Leo is viewed more favorably than unfavorably by all party groups — although, consistent with the ideological differences in his ratings, he is liked better by Democrats than Republicans.
Pope Leo has broad appeal in the U.S., setting him apart from public figures with clear party associations, whose images are often highly polarized. Although liked by all party groups, he gets better ratings from Democrats and liberals than Republicans and conservatives. Given the similarity to Francis’ image in his later years, this could indicate that Americans perceive Leo to be continuing Francis’ approach to religious and social questions, or that they are assuming that’s the case until shown otherwise.
As one NCR opinion writer has pointed out, many of Leo's speeches about immigration and other social issues have been given in Italian and might have much more impact if they were given in English.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that giving them in Italian is appropriate given that he is bishop of Rome and what he has to say about social teaching is just as true for Italy and anywhere else in the world as it is for the US.
Leo seems to be slowing edging into the being the multi-lingual person that he is, for example being able to take questions in English and Spanish which covers a large part of the world. It took Frances a while to develop his own style, so that might be true for Leo also.
It would certainly help if he had a great impact upon the many people in the world who could hear him in their own native languages.
I am rooting for him, and certainly have not seen anything that makes me feel disappointed or negative, but truth to tell, he hasn't made much of an impression on me so far. If I had to name the thing he has done that is most notable or defining so far, it is that he has repeatedly spoken up for peace.
ReplyDeletePerhaps when he publishes is first encyclical, we'll have something of substance to discuss.
Pope Leo is the American Dream come true: Kid from humble Midwest beginnings makes the Big Time. Leo is still a feel good story. Go White Sox!
ReplyDeletePlus Americans love spectacle, and popes are good value even to those outside the Church--opulent ceremonies drawing huge crowds in fabulous tourist destinations. And popes encourage people to be like Jesus, condemning actions but never naming actual names or with the power to impose consequences, so the messaging is easy to take.
Pope Leo strikes me as bland and careful, and I expect the excitement of nonCatholics will fade when he starts reiterating teaching on LGBT issues, birth control, and the proper role of women.
" I expect the excitement of nonCatholics will fade when he starts reiterating teaching on LGBT issues, birth control, and the proper role of women."
DeleteIt's possible that could happen. Do you perceive that Francis reiterated church teaching on those issues?
My expectation for Leo is that it is not his United States roots, but rather his time in Peru, that will characterize his papacy - that when he gets around to doing or saying things that are distinctive and fresh, it will be rooted in his pastoral experience in Peru. I think that was the hope of those who elected him.
Thinking about Francis as a point of comparison: I guess Francis could reiterate traditional teaching from time to time. I don't think those things were the things that animated him, and I suspect he would rather have talked about other things. I don't think he was a culture warrior about those those traditional teachings, in the way that Benedict or JPII would have been. But perhaps I'm projecting myself onto Francis there.
Pope Francis tried to reiterate traditional teaching while modeling how not to be a militant a-hole about it. He set a tone of niceness that apparently read like capitulation and even collusion to militant a-hole Catholics. In some ways, the American Church got meaner as a backlash against Francis. I don't think Pope Leo will make it nicer.
DeleteI haven’t followed Pope Leo news. Pope Francis grabbed my attention immediately because he appeared on the balcony after his election without all the traditional papal finery. He asked the people in the square to bless him and pray for him - first thing. He moved into the apartment house with Vatican workers. He rejected much of the imperial symbology of secular monarchies. He focused on caring for the poor, refugees, immigrants and others on the fringes. He put hot button issues like contraception, and LGBTQ on the back burner, essentially advised divorced people to consult their own consciences on taking communion, and even soft- pedaled abortion as only one among many possible sins. He tried ( too late) to stop the destructive TLM engine that Benedict unleashed, and which was dividing the US church not only liturgically but politically. He was the first pope to at least begin to listen to victims of sexual abuse by priests- course correcting after a terribly bad start on that in Chile. He was slowly - very slowly- moving away from his hardcore understanding of complementarity with women as less than equal human beings. .
ReplyDeleteWith his focus on the gospels, Francis brought me back to a quasi Catholic identity again, and I see no signs yet that Leo will keep me there. But I haven’t really been paying attention, because he’s not so far piqued my interest. “Bland and careful” is probably a good description.
I guess I don't see him as bland and careful. He seems to be a diplomat (multilingual, experience in many cultures), and that's a different thing. It's early days, but I see his focus as being on peace. He has pretty much been calling for a ceasefire in Gaza all summer, not that the PTB are listening. I don't look for the culture war stuff to be his main focus.
DeleteI am fine with the church still being in a honeymoon period. Lord knows we could use a break without high waves and wind.
Like Jim said, it will be interesting to see what direction his first encyclical takes.
I used to read Pope Francis’s talks at the America website. I am going to let my subscription die next spring, but in the meantime I suppose I should start reading Pope Leo’s weekly addresses. One thing I’ve noticed at America - they dutifully report papal talks etc, but it seems few people read them. They almost never generate a single comment. Few articles on non culture wars Catholic issues, or spirituality attract much interest.
DeleteI doubt many Americans will pay any more attention to Leo than they did to Francis. They mostly liked him, but not really concerned about what he said. But Francis aroused deep hostility in the Catholic folk who used to insist during Benedict’s era that cafeteria Catholics and not accepting all papal pronouncements with “ docility” weren’t “ real Catholics. Then they didn’t like a pope and They did their best to destroy his papacy.
For most Anericans, especially non Catholics, Leo is of interest right now because he’s American, and, as Jean points out, Americans like lavish shows. They will probably love trumps grandiose, $200,00,000, 90,000 sq ft ( the current WH complex is 55,000 sw ft) “ ballroom” edition ( symbolizing the very European type monarchies the country’s founders rebelled against) covered with garish gold gilt everywhere. I shudder to think about it. A week or two ago he finished destroying Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden, and put in pavers. From photos, it looks like a bit like a pool patio at Motel 6. If he turns the WH - a stately and non-garish historical building- into a mini- palace, it will destroy something not easily replaced. But that is exactly what his supporters want - the destruction of American values, replaced with celebrity culture and an authoritarian government.
Trump says he is paying for the ball room. I'll believe that when it happens, he's not known for paying for other things that he said he would, and he is known for stiffing contractors.
DeleteWhen (I hope and pray) this administration comes to an end, I think it would be pretty easy to raise money for some jackhammer work to help restore the rose garden. Pretty sure the trashy gilt stuff in the oval office will be leaving when the next administration comes in.
When ( IF) he leaves he will be succeeded by another MAGA type. They anre rapidly remaking election districts and laws to ensure long- term control of the authoritarian government they have been planning for in recent years. According to the opinion writers ( who are just making educated guesses and really don’t know) the heir apparent is Vance. I’m not convinced it will be Vance unless trump resins due to health or dies in office. But it will be someone awful. I’m not sure anyone in MAGA would take a jackhammer to a trump fixture.
DeleteYears back when trump bought a different DC historical landmark building on Pennsylvania Ave ( the Old Post Office) I hated seeing the cranes and building crews turning it into his hotel. It was painful. Now it’s someone else’s hotel, sold because it was no longer useful to him as a source of bribes from foreign governments and domestic companies that reserved and paid for large blocks of rooms that were never used. I’m guessing the interior design now is more tasteful than it was. Now I will dread seeing the WH with its monstrous addition. I’m quite sure trump won’t spend a dime of his own money - in order to fast track it he will accept more huge bribes that he will call tax deductible donations for the billionaires who are regularly buying him to get the things done that they want done.
If Trump builds his Lil Versailles, you can bet your bitcoin that it will be rented out for events, with proceeds to go to something like The WH Ballroom Foundation, to be headed by one of the Trump family or faithful who shovel it all into the gaping maw of Trump Inc.
DeleteAbsolutely right. You see very clearly, Jean.
DeleteThe value of this Gallup article is that it says that Popes start out with a great deal of good will across both the American populace in general and also American Catholics in particular. As their pontificate unfolds that may change but usually in the direction of getting more support from Americans who perceive the Pope as agreeing with them ideologically and less support from those who perceive him as disagreeing with them ideologically both in regard to church and civil politics.
ReplyDeleteAs for encyclicals, Francis made a huge impact upon the political world by his encyclical on climate change and the environment. It was far more read and acted upon that any encyclical by any Pope. However, it failed to have much impact upon American bishops, clergy, and the faithful.
The lesson from this is that no matter how well the Pope may do in his relationship to the world on an issue, if he does not carry the American bishops, clergy and laity with him, its lasting value may consist only in history's judgement that on this case, the Pope said and did the right things. I think we Catholics need to be far less focused upon the Pope, and far more focused upon our bishops, clergy and fellow laity.
Jack, what do you suggest? The majority of American Catholic bishops, clergy and white laity are MAGA. Millions of progressive Catholics have given up and disappeared from the pews, and most of the remaining progressives in the pews are old and will die off soon. Lay Catholics have little to no influence on hierarchy and lower clergy anyway and are increasingly distancing themselves from the MAGA laity. Benedict’s smaller, “ outer” church had too strong a foothold by the time Francis took over. I do t see Leo as a trailblazer - at least not so far. I’m hoping his years working with the poor in Peru may become a guiding feature of his papacy at some point, but if it does, the American bishops will ignore him just as they did Francis. He may be trying to placate them and the conservative Catholic laity by resuming some of the imperial symbols of the Papacy, but I don’t think that will mollify the trads enough, nor will it sway the bishops and clergy if he pushes too hard on social justice teachings.
DeleteThe RCC had the potential to be the most powerful voice of Jesus’s teachings in the gospels in the world, but in the US at least, it succumbed to being invited to the MAGA table - loving rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful.
Delete“ purer”
DeleteGallup polling has a reputation of being slightly biased to the Republican and conservative sides of issues. Yet Republicans and conservatives do not come out well in this poll.
DeleteBernie Sanders comes off as the best American. Of course he got only a 49% favorable. But he is not a completely polarizing person and ends up with an 11% net favorable, -better than any other American.
AOC is a somewhat polarizing person. Be she still has 28% undecided. If she split off half of that without alienating the rest she could be a successor to Bernie, a viable presidential candidate. Therefore, Bernie teaming up with her was a wise idea.
RFK jr has let himself become too polarized to be viable in any party or a third party.
Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom both have too high unfavorable ratings as does JD Vance on the other side. If conservative Catholics are looking for a Catholic successor to Trump, Vance is probably not going to be it.
Trump has a 41% favorable rating. That is rather good for him. His base has aways been just about a third of Americans. But look at all the people at the bottom of the list that he has been surrounding himself with. I don't see them as being the future of America. I don't think Trump is going to survive by firing or distancing himself from all of those folks at the bottom of the list. JD Vance and RFKjr do have favorable ratings closer to Trump but their unfavorable ratings are approaching Trump territory.
The polling data do not support your vision of the future; you are assuming that Trump, etc. will be able to continue by undemocratic means. Like Bernie I am not willing to concede that.
Jack, I don't think the polling data is predictive of national political outcomes. Here's why:
ReplyDeleteIf the Texas gerrymandering plan works, a lot of Red states will be looking to follow suit to stack the vote between now and next year to increase MAGA representation in 2026. I believe Ohio is already quietly looking at redistricting. Popularity will be irrelevant if MAGA can rig districting.
Trump's also calling for a new census. One guess which states will lose population and congressional seats.
What happens in 2028 will largely depend on how Americans perceive the nation's economic health. Now that Trump is hand-picking who controls the numbers, he can gaslight the nation. My guess is that those economic numbers are going to look rosy no matter what the actual wage and employment situation is. And Medicaid, food assistance, Obamacare, and disability rolls will be down (cuz Elon axed them) and, presto, no poor people!
If the economic numbers "look rosy", but significant numbers of people aren't doing well, not to mention they lost healthcare access or food assistance, I don't think they're going to buy a bunch of happy talk. No matter how they criss-cross-monkey-sauce the lines of districts, reality is going to matter if enough people get fed up. There's a lot to get fed up about.
DeleteThe fact that Trump has been elected twice should tell you how easy it is to bend reality. And if votes are diluted with redistricting, it won't matter how many people are fed up.
Delete“ What happens in 2028 will largely depend on how Americans perceive the nation's economic health.”
DeleteIt will be all over before 2028 if they manage to get a long- term stranglehold on Congress in 2026 via their gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation.
I think the Gallup poll numbers reflect people who are fed up.
DeleteWhat I am seeing in the media is reflected in the conversion here, namely assumptions that Republicans are going to be able to win unfairly. The experience here in Ohio has been when the Republicans attempt to win unfairly as they did twice on the abortion issue, the people including some Republicans come out against them. That did not make them into Democrats however.
The media continues to make Trump the center of everything. I had to look very carefully to find anything in the NYTimes that was not directly or indirectly about Trump.
It all depends on where things are at election time, if Trump and the Republican have a lot of good luck they could win since they are in charge, otherwise they are going to be responsible for everything that has gone wrong. I don't think Trump is going to be able to blame it all on the people whom he fires.
Yah, sorry. I wish I could be hopeful that fed-up people had any power to stop the oligarchy. But MAGA has learned that the current voting system is their biggest threat, and it will use the next 3.5 years to weaken that system.
DeleteMoreover, fed-up people will become disengaged people very quickly when they see their vote us useless, especially if the oligarchs keep eroding wages and benefits and forcing people to work two jobs to get by.
A friend of our son who is visiting dropped by to say Hi while our son is in town. He’s totally brilliant, a PhD, and a great human being. He WAS working for the Department of Energy, but was apparently judged to be wrong thinking (he’s an alternative energy guy). DOGE has now become a verb, as in “ I’ve been DOGEd”., A whole lot of really good people have been DOGEd. America’s loss.
DeleteMaybe it’s a matter of a broken clock being correct twice a day, but Marjorie Taylor Greene surprisingly put forward a bill to block 500M in US funds for Israel’s “Iron Dome” anti-missile defense system. It was almost unanimously voted down in the House and one of the down votes was AOC, claiming it was ok because only for defense. The take I agree with is that AOC voted to provide a bullet proof vest for a school shooter. Maybe she’s afraid of AIPAC which is understandable but does not exactly make her a profile in courage. Eventually everyone becomes a player. Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar voted with MTG to block the Iron Dome aid so I guess that’s all that’s left of “The Squad”. As for MTG, I can honestly no longer say she’s a total waste of protoplasm. AOC has become a total disappointment. I now am basing my hopes on Kshama Sawant of Workers Strike Back running non-duopoly in a Washington State district against an incumbent warmonger Democrat. She would be an uncompromising voice. Refreshingly, she says she will represent workers and definitely not billionaires. Flush the kumbaya nonsense. This is war.
ReplyDelete