News Paper

About the Author: P.J. Crowley serves as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs.

Last week, I began my tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs.  I am humbled and exhilarated by the task before me and am grateful for the trust and confidence President Obama and Secretary Clinton have placed in me.

Almost 20 years ago, I was assigned to Germany, one of the highlights of my 26 years serving with the U.S. Air Force.  I have been contemplating those days as I prepared for this assignment.  During my time in Germany, the Berlin Wall ceased to divide East from West.  The people of East and West Germany literally pushed until the wall was breached and ultimately removed.

In the aftermath, when given a choice, the people of Eastern Europe rejected Communism and moved swiftly to associate themselves with the rule of law, market economies and responsible and accountable governments.  This success was due in no small measure to institutions like the United States Information Agency, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, which helped foreign publics understand that they could have the rights and opportunities of free people.  This was public diplomacy at its best, and proved to be a cornerstone of our policy of containment.  Now, Secretary Clinton’s focus on using smart power – the full compliment of diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural tools is leading us back to a balanced approach to foreign policy that served us well throughout our history.

As we know, global challenges hardly disappeared with the end of the Cold War.  Today, we continue to combat extreme ideologies in an expanding conflict in Afghanistan while dealing with festering violence in Iraq.  Success in this current struggle will require the same kind of patience, determination and skill that we demonstrated during the Cold War – identifying a clear, peaceful and modern alternative to the people of the world, reinforcing our strategic narrative while diminishing that of extremist insurgents.  As Secretary Clinton stated in her recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department is seeking the resources to deploy a new strategic communication strategy to buttress our foreign policy.  Ultimately, we cannot succeed unless we build and sustain public support at home and around the world.

Today’s global communications environment is dramatically different than it was even a few years ago.  A digital image can be transmitted from anywhere in the world at an instant, as we saw with the cell phone image of the execution of Saddam Hussein and its impact.

One of my goals is to have the State Department communicate its message more strategically.  In order to do this, we must be dynamic and use all available means both old and new media - traditional methods such as the Daily Press Briefings as well as experimenting with new media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and video through the Internet.  The culmination of this effort will be a virtual presence that is engaged in a global dialogue, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in all corners of the world.

Given the expanded nature of the communications environment, Secretary Clinton decided to restructure the Bureau of Public Affairs.  I will serve as the Assistant Secretary, but not as the every day spokesman for the department.  One of my foremost responsibilities will be to ensure that public affairs informs public policy.  This is why you’ll hear me repeatedly coming back to the idea of a strategic communications plan.  My task, working with Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale and the newly designated spokesman, Ian Kelly, will be to serve as the senior advisor to the Secretary, contribute to the administration’s interagency strategic planning and lead the Bureau of Public Affairs and the dedicated public affairs professionals at the State Department and around the world.  I am an avid Red Sox fan.  Judith is a Yankees fan and Ian, a Cubs fan, but we are united by a higher calling and significant challenges.

Tackling these global challenges – extremism, nonproliferation, climate change, global health and food security just to name a few – will require, as Secretary Clinton has said repeatedly, coordinated, international partnerships at the government-to-government and people-to-people levels and all variations in between.  In order to build and sustain such partnerships, we must communicate effectively.  Effective communication is a two-way street, so as much as I look forward to keeping you informed on new initiatives, I’m even more eager to hear your ideas.

As both Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch argued last week, commenting on this article in The Weekly Standard, we are seeing the "last gasp of a losing argument" from opponents of gay marriage. A few days later, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore for the Bushies, joined forces with liberal lawyer (and former Gore council) David Boies and filed a legal challenge to California's Prop. 8. Now former Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at the National Press Club, affirmed his support for a federalist approach to same-sex marriage, telling assembled journalists that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish."

The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

Via RealClearPolitics, which also has the video.

O'Reilly really wanted to get his hands on Tillman. Media Matters found the clip:

Just a figure of speech? Yeah. Wink, wink.

What's the administration's specific aim in bailing out GM? I'll give you my theory later.

For now, though, some background. First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad -- something I don't recommend -- we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology.

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 -- before the asset bubble and subsequent bust -- 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, and China had a 15 percent drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30 percent of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5 percent do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30 percent.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...

by Pam Spaulding

A reader of my blog named Kevin wrote me the other day to say that he is interested in building bridges with people of color (POC) about race and equality but doesn’t know how to engage when the conversation turns tense. I asked if I could post his letter to generate discussion because I know he’s not the only one out there who had this reaction to my recent blog posts about the topic.

I am a twenty-one-year-old white, gay male living in California. I campaigned for ridiculous amounts of time (seriously, I had a huge void in my life when President Obama was safely elected—a sign that I was addicted! Or something.) for Obama and against Proposition 8. I was part of the effort in San Diego, California and frequently rubbed arms with POC (as you call them in your HuffPo) people while campaigning for both things.

I wanted to say I just read your post on ”Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’“ and I found it to be very inspiring. It also reignited my interest in working toward some form of outreach toward the local black community. I found that while I spoke about Obama and why he was the right choice for America, etc, I had the focus of the people I was talking to 100% (assuming they weren’t McCainites) but when I tried to segue into Proposition 8 a lot of people would slip into an interesting… defensive stance? Their demeanor completely shifted to what I liked to call ”I am not listening to anything you said while trying to think of a way to escape from this conversation“. Anyway, I noticed that certain members of the black community were quick to dismiss me as some kind of white, gay racist. I am not sure when this became such a widespread stereotype, nor am I sure why I of all people was labeled a racist for bringing up a collection of quotes from MLK and Coretta Scott King. My boyfriend is bi-racial (he doesn’t like being called ‘black or white’ and dislikes people being labeled and sorted into groups) and I had to do a lot of convincing to get him to march with me, and to go out and talk to people about Prop 8.

On two separate occasions, while trying to use him to display that I am not at all racist, he was told by the black people we were talking to that he ‘gave up’ being black when he decided to be gay. I’ve also tried explaining that my two best friends growing up were both black, though I imagine that probably worked more against me than for me. This isn’t just an issue within minorities and several of the white people outwardly called me a faggot on multiple occasions (I live in an oddly socially conservative part of California).

So I guess what I am asking is… how do I establish the dialogue? How do I get through to members of the black community that seem to think if I sneeze on them they will catch some gay disease? I am going to work my ass off again in 2010 and beyond, but I am not able to do it all by myself and you seem to be very educated on the subject.

Well, I’m not exactly well-educated about such things, so much as I have had to deal with inhabiting two worlds that frequently have problems with my very existence because it challenges assumptions they would like to remain intact.

That out of the way, I want to thank you and your boyfriend for being willing to step outside of your comfort zone and take the predictable abuse in order to challenge these black residents on their bigotry. Most people are so scared of being labeled racist by perfect strangers that they avoid the outreach. Honestly, those in the black community who are homophobic don’t get challenged enough—the charges they lob is a defense for not wanting to engage. They know they can play the dreaded race card—even at black gays, denying their blackness, something I’ve personally experienced (and it occurred yet again, in the comments of that HuffPost piece).

My suggestions are below the fold. Contribute yours in the comments.

You see, they have no sense of their own hypocrisy—that not all white gay men are racist, just as not all blacks are homophobic. Both groups tend to cling to the generalizations because there is always a factual basis for any bias or stereotype. The fact is the faces of the LGBT community are largely white gay men. There are no insurmountable reasons for this in this day and time, yet the lack of diversity (including class) in the visible leadership in our organizations continues. It should be no surprise to hear this charge.

However, one should always use a face-to-face interaction as a mutual learning opportunity by actively listening and testing assumptions. When you come up against that wall of resistance—when the “white, gay racist” retort comes up—it’s going to sting. You can’t help feeling slighted but you have to move past it and acknowledge the truth in the statement. You could have said something on the order of:

“I understand why you may feel that way; there are too many in the LGBT community who have not visibly engaged in struggles affecting the black community, but I can’t change the past. What I am offering, with my presence here today, is to work for change across the board—and why this election is important. I want to address all instances of discrimination that have gone long unaddressed. As part of that I would like you to consider voting against Prop 8 because it represents instituting government-based discrimination.”

You are: 1) acknowledging a truth; 2) representing that you are both taking personal responsibility as a white gay man to counter racism in the LGBT community; and 3) asking her for support in stopping all discrimination.

BTW, it’s doubly difficult sometimes if you bring up MLK or other black civil rights leaders since the people you’re meeting with may object out of the box to the “appropriation” of that movement’s figures. In fact, some try to explain away or ignore black leaders still with us who support LGBT civil rights, such as John Lewis, Ben Jealous of NAACP national and Julian Bond.

That’s my two cents; I’m sure others will be glad to contribute in the comments.

My suggested answer, of course, doesn’t even address religious objections to homosexuality; if it hasn’t been brought up as a defense shield yet, would likely come up next. One way to respectfully approach scripture being tossed out or that religious freedom is under attack is to discuss the church state separation issue, but the conflation of state/civil marriage with anti-gay people makes this a tough nut to crack. A better approach is to say that this kind of discrimination:

1) Opens the door for government to allow religious discrimination—ask them about why they would vote for a measure that discriminates against other faiths, including other Christian ones, that DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples.

2) That placing civil rights at the whim of a majority vote at the ballot box endangers all civil rights.

I’m sure other readers have other ideas for you. There is no answer that can cover every encounter you may have when engaging on this challenging topic, but just know that by doing something, rather than sitting back and doing nothing out of fear and the desire to avoid discomfort, that you are making a difference.

Over at my pad, someone suggested that the writer’s partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts was in itself racist. My reply:

I don’t see partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts as racist; it’s a reality that the people they are encountering often refuse to acknowledge that there are POC LGBTs and start right into the attack mode. Obviously his BF went willingly (if apprehensively, knowing what was coming), and the fact is his presence allows the conversation to turn away from invisibility to their ownership of the fact they consider he’s turned in his black card. That’s their public admission of bigotry.

That’s why I have advocated that when canvassing POC neighborhoods that may be hostile to LGBT rights, whites should pair up with someone of color to take that “weapon” out of the hands of those you talk to. These are people who are rarely challenged about their own prejudices. The major problem with this is we have to tackle the racism in the LGBT community that makes it difficult for POC to feel they will be accepted if the come out. So that leaves a movement with precious few POC to rise to the challenge of taking the almost-certain abuse by members of their own communities of color for the goal of full civil equality. A tall order.

If you read through the HuffPost column, POC who were anti-gay tried repeatedly to turn the argument around to “what about racism in the white LGBT community?”. That’s not an answer to the question being asked (and I’ve covered that before anyway), nor does it explain away the problem at hand. No one is denying the racism exists in that sphere, it’s about pointing out that it’s not one way either. You can’t address the problem if it’s not acknowledged or if it is deflected by tossing out a different question. The bottom line is a good number homophobic POC want to change the subject rather than own up to the problem that is costing those community lives—exploding HIV/AIDS rates—because of their silence and promotion of homophobia in the pews.

***

NOTE: These discussions are essential and The Dallas Principles are something to keep in mind when you are facing this uphill battle, particularly 3-6 in this context. Kevin and his boyfriend are participating in the kind of activism that does change hearts and minds. Even for those who disagree, they have been in engaged in a way that forces them to confront their biases.

1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now.  Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2. We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3. Separate is never equal.

4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5. The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6. Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7. Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8. Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Related: Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’