Intermap

by Shawn Powers

In the November/December edition of Foreign Policy, Bruce Jentleson and Steven Weber welcome their readers into a “new age of ideology.” In an essay titled “America’s Hard Sell,” Jentleson and Weber argue that a strategy relying on the “five Big Ideas” that have historically been the foundation for American leadership and influence is certain to fail. The five big ideas—(1) Peace is better than war; (2) Hegemony, at least of the benign sort, is better that a balance of power; (3) Capitalism is better that socialism; (4) Democracy is better than dictatorship; and (5) Western culture is better than all the rest—are each becoming increasingly contested around the world. Different models of leadership, governance, economic policy and cultural value present serious competition to the American paragon, a model that has been essential to its “brand,” soft power and international influence throughout the 20th century.

Jentleson and Weber point to America’s “appeal for a war of ideas to defeat international terrorism” as a metaphor for America’s failure to grasp the nature of political influence in today’s age of networks and information. “Ideas don’t go to combat; they vie for the commitment of individuals in an arena that is less like a battlefield and more like a marketplace.” Indeed, Jentleson and Weber suggest that international influence—and I would add, public diplomacy—is now best understood in terms of a marketplace of ideas rather than a “battle” for “hearts and minds,” a reframing that dramatically changes the rules of international politics. Similar to Joseph Nye’s argument for the increased import of soft power in international affairs, Jentleson and Weber contend that in today’s marketplace of place of ideas, “leaders don’t issues orders; they make offers…Market leaders don’t depend heavily on private deals or subterfuge to hold their bargains in place; there’s too much transparency to offer inconsistent options to different constituents…Put simply: In a marketplace of ideas, we offer and they choose.”

While the article doesn’t mention public diplomacy specifically, it is most certainly relevant to the study and practice of the discipline. Jentleseon and Weber outline the four central motifs that will determine which actors—Governments, corporations, and non and extra governmental organizations—will succeed in today’s ideological contests: (1) mutuality, (2) a just society, (3) a healthy planet, and (4) societal heterogeneity. Their relatively pessimistic look at America’s foreign policy goals suggests a revised public diplomacy agenda. Mutuality “requires greater sharing of decision-making responsibilities around global issues.” A just society demands that attention be paid to both human freedoms and rights, but also governmental protections for those facing “mass poverty and endemic injustice.” The health of the planet is the “ultimate public good,” and therefore resonates with people everywhere. Societal heterogeneity is a measure of how countries can overcome collective fears of cultural “others” and effectively and respectfully integrate disparate cultural groups into their society. Truly embracing these four motifs would necessitate a dramatic shift away from the talking points and the underlying policies utilized during the Bush II era. However, the historic election of Barack Obama not only makes such a rebranding possible but probable.

Mutuality
Mutuality speaks to the process by which public diplomacy should take place. This is similar to the concept of “collaborative” public diplomacy that was outlined by Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault in “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy.” Importantly, this is not an endorsement of Charlotte Beer’s Shared Values Initiative, nor is it a call for another Listening Tour of the Middle East, both of which were PR stunts that flopped. Rather, this is a call for structural changes in the way that foreign policies are developed and implemented. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama seems to understand the necessity of mutuality as a means of communication. As Monroe Price wrote, the “Obama campaign has been on the Web on steroids,” using new media technologies not as a means to an end, but rather as a “visionary” form of collaboration and decision making.

A Just Society & A Healthy Planet
“A just society” and a “healthy planet” offer two important frames through which American policies should be developed and presented to the world. For evidence of the success of the “just society” motif, simply look to the world’s reaction to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, an event that nearly single handedly restored the world’s faith—and America’s too—in the archetypical “American Dream.” Moreover, the “just society” frame is further vindicated in the failed American effort to drum up global support for its war in Iraq. Colin Powell’s now infamous effort to persuade the international community to support the invasion of Iraq based upon Saddam Hussein’s capacity to build nuclear weapons failed not because the (doctored) evidence wasn’t credible, but rather because the Bush administration’s effort to deprive other countries of nuclear weaponry while it continued to develop new nuclear weapons and violate its obligations to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was seen as hypocritical and, thus, entirely unpersuasive. In today’s highly transparent communicative environment, credibility is a prerequisite to influence, and double standards are antithetical to credibility.

Al Gore’s global presence and the growing transnational movement to combat climate change also point to the power of the “healthy planet” motif. People around the world are feeling the consequences of global climate change, regardless of the politics of who (or what) is to blame. Prescribing and describing policies that help further a healthy planet send a signal to the world that “we are all in this together,” and that “we care about your well being too,” two messages that are rarely seen as important considerations driving American foreign policy. Importantly, this does not require a “greening” of American foreign policy, though that certainly wouldn’t hurt either. Rather, it means being conscious of and, when appropriate, emphasizing the health-related consequences that are a result of American foreign policy. As an example, the US could do a better job combating the “rampant opium poppy growth” in Afghanistan that is responsible for 93 percent of the world’s opium. Not only does Afghanistan’s opium industry provide the Taliban over $100 million in revenue each year, making it nearly impossible to develop Afghani democracy and civil society, but it is also responsible for a large majority of the illegal heroine sold throughout Europe, Russia and Iran. Reducing the amount of heroin available is something that is both possible with current reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, but would also be popular in cities around the world that are hurt by the urban decay and crime related to illicit drug use. Indeed, even Iran has signaled that efforts to curb Afghani heroine production would “improve overall American-Iranian relations.”

Social Homogeneity
The fourth characteristic—societal homogeneity—is perhaps the most difficult, but also the most promising in terms of a natural strategy for US public diplomacy. In The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria, a natural born Indian Muslim, lays out a compelling case for why America’ greatest national asset is its historical record of respectfully and successfully accepting migrant communities into the fabric of American culture: “this is America’s great—and potentially insurmountable—strength. It remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different and may not fall into the trap of becoming rich, and fat, and lazy.” Indeed, two foundational thinkers of Socialist theory, Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci, identified “something admirable and even equalitarian in American society…a chance to rise in a society where all classes emphasize the virtues of hard work.” While cliché, the statement “America is a nation of immigrants” is not merely a historical fact, but rather integral to the identity of American culture as well to its economic prosperity. As an example, despite the stereotypical attitudes towards and occasionally racist treatment of Arab-Americans, Arab-Americans are by far more prosperous and content with their immigration experience when compared to Arabs that migrated to Europe. And, as Zakaria points out, America’s key economic competitors—China and India—continue to have serious racial and religious tensions and a poor history of overcoming cultural conflict, while the United States continues to be seen as a model for effective integration of migrant communities. .

It is perhaps this fact that best explains just how significant the impact that the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States has on international perceptions of America. Sure, President-elect Obama came from a relatively poor family and worked his way into the most prestigious educational institution in the world. His life has become a hyper-publicized story used to validate faith in the concept of the “American Dream.” But this explanation seems to be a bit reductionist, and more importantly, falls into the public diplomacy trap of touting America as “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere,” a strategy that is likely to backfire in today’s international environment. Instead, Obama’s election to the Oval Office is significant in that it demonstrates to the world, not that anybody can succeed, but that Americans are capable of overcoming the cultural and racial prejudice have historically plagued perceptions of American abroad. As French political analyst Dominique Moïsi describes it, “In this election, the Americans not only chose a president, but also their identity.”

“America’s Hard Sell?”
Hardly. Jentleseon and Weber’s rubric for how to best grasp and utilize influence in today’s international environment, focusing on mutuality, a just society, a healthy planet, and societal heterogeneity in many ways leaves the US well suited to provide healthy leadership from a thoughtful Obama administration. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of another government or international actor better positioned to capitalize on this conception of influence in international politics. Welcome to the age of ideology indeed.