SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Sinking in the Polls: Karen Hughes' Public Diplomacy Moment
Sep 24, 2007
"Osama dyes his hair and nobody likes him -- what is this, grade six?" -Blogger byoolin
Karen Hughes, George W. Bush's longtime confidante and spin-stress, is one of his few loyal creatures left on the sinking USS Dubya. Unlike other White House cronies, Ms. Hughes refuses to fade away -- at least for now -- into the private-sector sunset, trying as best she can to stay in the Beltway limelight.
Her most recent effort to bring positive attention to her much criticized performance as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs appeared in her article in the Washington Post, "Sinking in the Polls" (September 17).
One cannot resist asking: in choosing the title for her piece, was Ms. Hughes inadvertently thinking about her boss' low performance ratings among her fellow Americans? Perhaps she was, subconsciously, but the main point of her op-ed was far more upbeat: America's Public Diplomacy Moment -- let's define it as when citizens of other countries are willing to listen to, and have a dialogue with, the U.S. -- has finally arrived. Or has it?
Public diplomacy -- programs "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences," to quote the State Department homepage -- can now have a greater impact than before because the world's view of bin Laden "is turning darker than [his] newly dyed beard," according to the Under Secretary. This "drop in support for violent extremists," she says, "presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Quaeda's attempts to radicalize young people."
"English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy," Ms. Hughes notes (without mentioning crucial information programs such as international broadcasting), now face fewer obstacles in creating "more positive views of our country," given the evaporating attraction of bin Laden's terror message throughout the world.
Ms. Hughes cites the Pew Global Attitudes Project as her source for the growing disapproval of bin Laden, so her contention about terrorism's declining appeal is hard to refute.
Her article, however, not only fails to document what (if anything) her public diplomacy programs have done to lessen bin Laden's influence, but overlooks another key point: lack of support for bin Laden does not necessarily translate into approval overseas for Mr. Bush's foreign policy (and public diplomacy is, after all, an instrument and reflection of policy).
An alert reader of the Washington Post, Robert Anton Mertz of Bethesda, had this pearl of wisdom about Ms. Hughes (letter to the editor, September 22):
Karen P. Hughes ["Sinking in the Polls," op-ed, Sept. 17] ... barely mentioned that the formerly positive view of America held by an overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East has dropped precipitously.
In Turkey, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, those with a favorable view of America dropped from 52 percent of residents surveyed in 2002 to 9 percent of those surveyed today. In large part this is due to hostility to U.S. foreign policies in the region, but it is also due to the ineptitude of public diplomacy under Hughes' leadership at the State Department.
Not loving bin Laden and terrorism, in other words, does not automatically mean loving George W. Bush and his policies. So, Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy programs -- some of which, created decades before she was under secretary, certainly can contribute to better US relations with the rest of the world in the right conditions -- continue to face great difficulties in their implementation and effectiveness, due to their inevitable association with an administration criticized and hated the world over for the barbaric havoc it has been unleashing overseas for years.
Bin Laden may be a declining problem for American public diplomacy, but the president's actions abroad continue to be a major one, if not the major one.
What steps has Ms. Hughes (or Secretary of State Rice, for that matter) taken to change the president's foreign policy, so harmful to is public diplomacy, in a substantive way? (Hughes' omission of information programs in her article suggests that her public diplomacy has, in fact, essentially given up on efforts to explain or even describe this policy). We are still in Iraq, Guantanamo remains open, the Middle East continues to be in a state a turmoil because the administration is unable (or unwilling) to work on a peaceful solution to its problems.
No wonder Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy -- even if it includes, in her words, "teach[ing] English to thousands of young people in more than 40 majority-Muslim countries" -- is indeed marked by a basic ineptitude: its failure to change (or even explain) policies that mock and disregard the rest of the world.
An American Public Diplomacy Moment may never occur, given the enormous damage done to the US reputation by the administration Under Secretary Hughes serves. But this much-needed moment could come -- let us hope -- with a new president in the White House who has the ability to show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
John Brown, a former Foreign Service officer, compiles the "Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review," available free by requesting it at johnhbrown30@hotmail.com
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
"Osama dyes his hair and nobody likes him -- what is this, grade six?" -Blogger byoolin
Karen Hughes, George W. Bush's longtime confidante and spin-stress, is one of his few loyal creatures left on the sinking USS Dubya. Unlike other White House cronies, Ms. Hughes refuses to fade away -- at least for now -- into the private-sector sunset, trying as best she can to stay in the Beltway limelight.
Her most recent effort to bring positive attention to her much criticized performance as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs appeared in her article in the Washington Post, "Sinking in the Polls" (September 17).
One cannot resist asking: in choosing the title for her piece, was Ms. Hughes inadvertently thinking about her boss' low performance ratings among her fellow Americans? Perhaps she was, subconsciously, but the main point of her op-ed was far more upbeat: America's Public Diplomacy Moment -- let's define it as when citizens of other countries are willing to listen to, and have a dialogue with, the U.S. -- has finally arrived. Or has it?
Public diplomacy -- programs "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences," to quote the State Department homepage -- can now have a greater impact than before because the world's view of bin Laden "is turning darker than [his] newly dyed beard," according to the Under Secretary. This "drop in support for violent extremists," she says, "presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Quaeda's attempts to radicalize young people."
"English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy," Ms. Hughes notes (without mentioning crucial information programs such as international broadcasting), now face fewer obstacles in creating "more positive views of our country," given the evaporating attraction of bin Laden's terror message throughout the world.
Ms. Hughes cites the Pew Global Attitudes Project as her source for the growing disapproval of bin Laden, so her contention about terrorism's declining appeal is hard to refute.
Her article, however, not only fails to document what (if anything) her public diplomacy programs have done to lessen bin Laden's influence, but overlooks another key point: lack of support for bin Laden does not necessarily translate into approval overseas for Mr. Bush's foreign policy (and public diplomacy is, after all, an instrument and reflection of policy).
An alert reader of the Washington Post, Robert Anton Mertz of Bethesda, had this pearl of wisdom about Ms. Hughes (letter to the editor, September 22):
Karen P. Hughes ["Sinking in the Polls," op-ed, Sept. 17] ... barely mentioned that the formerly positive view of America held by an overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East has dropped precipitously.
In Turkey, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, those with a favorable view of America dropped from 52 percent of residents surveyed in 2002 to 9 percent of those surveyed today. In large part this is due to hostility to U.S. foreign policies in the region, but it is also due to the ineptitude of public diplomacy under Hughes' leadership at the State Department.
Not loving bin Laden and terrorism, in other words, does not automatically mean loving George W. Bush and his policies. So, Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy programs -- some of which, created decades before she was under secretary, certainly can contribute to better US relations with the rest of the world in the right conditions -- continue to face great difficulties in their implementation and effectiveness, due to their inevitable association with an administration criticized and hated the world over for the barbaric havoc it has been unleashing overseas for years.
Bin Laden may be a declining problem for American public diplomacy, but the president's actions abroad continue to be a major one, if not the major one.
What steps has Ms. Hughes (or Secretary of State Rice, for that matter) taken to change the president's foreign policy, so harmful to is public diplomacy, in a substantive way? (Hughes' omission of information programs in her article suggests that her public diplomacy has, in fact, essentially given up on efforts to explain or even describe this policy). We are still in Iraq, Guantanamo remains open, the Middle East continues to be in a state a turmoil because the administration is unable (or unwilling) to work on a peaceful solution to its problems.
No wonder Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy -- even if it includes, in her words, "teach[ing] English to thousands of young people in more than 40 majority-Muslim countries" -- is indeed marked by a basic ineptitude: its failure to change (or even explain) policies that mock and disregard the rest of the world.
An American Public Diplomacy Moment may never occur, given the enormous damage done to the US reputation by the administration Under Secretary Hughes serves. But this much-needed moment could come -- let us hope -- with a new president in the White House who has the ability to show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
John Brown, a former Foreign Service officer, compiles the "Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review," available free by requesting it at johnhbrown30@hotmail.com
"Osama dyes his hair and nobody likes him -- what is this, grade six?" -Blogger byoolin
Karen Hughes, George W. Bush's longtime confidante and spin-stress, is one of his few loyal creatures left on the sinking USS Dubya. Unlike other White House cronies, Ms. Hughes refuses to fade away -- at least for now -- into the private-sector sunset, trying as best she can to stay in the Beltway limelight.
Her most recent effort to bring positive attention to her much criticized performance as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs appeared in her article in the Washington Post, "Sinking in the Polls" (September 17).
One cannot resist asking: in choosing the title for her piece, was Ms. Hughes inadvertently thinking about her boss' low performance ratings among her fellow Americans? Perhaps she was, subconsciously, but the main point of her op-ed was far more upbeat: America's Public Diplomacy Moment -- let's define it as when citizens of other countries are willing to listen to, and have a dialogue with, the U.S. -- has finally arrived. Or has it?
Public diplomacy -- programs "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences," to quote the State Department homepage -- can now have a greater impact than before because the world's view of bin Laden "is turning darker than [his] newly dyed beard," according to the Under Secretary. This "drop in support for violent extremists," she says, "presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Quaeda's attempts to radicalize young people."
"English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy," Ms. Hughes notes (without mentioning crucial information programs such as international broadcasting), now face fewer obstacles in creating "more positive views of our country," given the evaporating attraction of bin Laden's terror message throughout the world.
Ms. Hughes cites the Pew Global Attitudes Project as her source for the growing disapproval of bin Laden, so her contention about terrorism's declining appeal is hard to refute.
Her article, however, not only fails to document what (if anything) her public diplomacy programs have done to lessen bin Laden's influence, but overlooks another key point: lack of support for bin Laden does not necessarily translate into approval overseas for Mr. Bush's foreign policy (and public diplomacy is, after all, an instrument and reflection of policy).
An alert reader of the Washington Post, Robert Anton Mertz of Bethesda, had this pearl of wisdom about Ms. Hughes (letter to the editor, September 22):
Karen P. Hughes ["Sinking in the Polls," op-ed, Sept. 17] ... barely mentioned that the formerly positive view of America held by an overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East has dropped precipitously.
In Turkey, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, those with a favorable view of America dropped from 52 percent of residents surveyed in 2002 to 9 percent of those surveyed today. In large part this is due to hostility to U.S. foreign policies in the region, but it is also due to the ineptitude of public diplomacy under Hughes' leadership at the State Department.
Not loving bin Laden and terrorism, in other words, does not automatically mean loving George W. Bush and his policies. So, Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy programs -- some of which, created decades before she was under secretary, certainly can contribute to better US relations with the rest of the world in the right conditions -- continue to face great difficulties in their implementation and effectiveness, due to their inevitable association with an administration criticized and hated the world over for the barbaric havoc it has been unleashing overseas for years.
Bin Laden may be a declining problem for American public diplomacy, but the president's actions abroad continue to be a major one, if not the major one.
What steps has Ms. Hughes (or Secretary of State Rice, for that matter) taken to change the president's foreign policy, so harmful to is public diplomacy, in a substantive way? (Hughes' omission of information programs in her article suggests that her public diplomacy has, in fact, essentially given up on efforts to explain or even describe this policy). We are still in Iraq, Guantanamo remains open, the Middle East continues to be in a state a turmoil because the administration is unable (or unwilling) to work on a peaceful solution to its problems.
No wonder Ms. Hughes' public diplomacy -- even if it includes, in her words, "teach[ing] English to thousands of young people in more than 40 majority-Muslim countries" -- is indeed marked by a basic ineptitude: its failure to change (or even explain) policies that mock and disregard the rest of the world.
An American Public Diplomacy Moment may never occur, given the enormous damage done to the US reputation by the administration Under Secretary Hughes serves. But this much-needed moment could come -- let us hope -- with a new president in the White House who has the ability to show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
John Brown, a former Foreign Service officer, compiles the "Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review," available free by requesting it at johnhbrown30@hotmail.com
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.