Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public Affairs’ Category

Lesson 373 “Soft Power” Communication in the Age of Trump

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 14, 2017| 1 Comment »

In the foreign policy world “hard power” is military strength and “soft power” is diplomacy, public diplomacy and all those communication initiatives related to building understanding between countries and cultures. Hard power deters potential enemies and confronts them when necessary. Soft power builds international relationships, increases cross-cultural understanding, and helps solve global problems.

Soft power diplomacy is government-to-government communication, and soft power public diplomacy is government-to-people communication and people-to people communication. People to people communication carries the most credibility because of its genuine authenticity.

A  number of years ago there was an agency of the U.S. government that was responsible for soft power. It was the United State Information Agency (USIA). It developed programs to communicate and demonstrate the exceptional “idea of America” around the world. Artists, scholars, and musicians were sent abroad to show their talents. Groups and individual exchanges were arranged to encourage continuing dialogue. Libraries of materials were established. Films were produced and distributed. And the Voice of America (VOA), broadcast trusted news and information programs 24 hours a day all over the globe.

But, during a widespread austerity move, the Clinton administration eliminated the USIA and moved its programs into the Sate Department. As a result, soft power funding was dramatically reduced and programs and projects were eliminated. The negative consequences of this mindless move have never been remedied.

For about a year I was a part of many discussions (including a project at the Wilson Center think tank) that brought together legislative staffers, government professionals, educators, and politicians in Washington who were concerned about the diminished state of public diplomacy communication in the state department. It was a concern strongly reinforced by several staffers from the defense department. They told us that the Defense Department was sponsoring public diplomacy projects only because soft power initiatives were urgently needed in places where hard power was not appropriate… and because the state department did not have the resources.

The PBS News Hour recently reported that the Trump administration is working on a budget that reduces state department funding by another 37% in order to help pay for dramatic increases in the defense budget. Can you imagine the devastating impact this will have on soft power public diplomacy communication?

No matter your politics, the need for significant increases in soft power initiatives to communicate the “idea of America” and enhance cross-cultural understanding has never been stronger. To ignore this urgent need is not only short-sighted, it is a major threat to our national security.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 372 How Trump Won

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 6, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Senor Editor at the Atlantic, Derek Thompson, wrote a very perceptive book called, Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction. It avoids articulating a specific formula for popular success, but it certainly clarifies many of the compelling factors involved.

It became a particularly important read for me because it helped me understand the election victory that many experienced and intelligent people failed to predict. For example, my takeaway was that bold and surprising pronouncements can have a strong audience appeal if they are surprising and credible enough sounding to a specific audience. Constant repetition of themes related to those pronouncements can then reinforce that initial appeal. And new and outrageous remarks will also guarantee ongoing media distribution and even news coverage.

In addition, in such a climate a super hero can be created by establishing that a superstar performer alone is capable of solving your problems. And when you combine bold repeated themes with the powerful persona of a superhero you have the potential for enormous popularity… especially with an already sympathetic audience.

In many ways Mr. Trump became a super hero for a very small segment of American society… people who had good reason to be unhappy and felt that they had not been heard. His “Make America Great” theme sounded new enough, but it also had a familiar ring. This was because Ronald Reagan used much the same theme and Trump just made it sound new, relying on the power of it also sounding familiar. And then he captured ongoing news coverage for this revived theme by constantly making new and outrageous remarks.

Simply put, this analysis suggests that Trump is an experienced entertainment machine skillfully designed to make himself a super hero… the only person who can fix your problems. And while much of his base would eventually see all this as over-bragging, over time they would merely overlook his crazy remarks as “just Trump,” choosing to believe that he could still deliver a better life for them.

Now that he is President this analysis does raise compelling questions about how effectively these instincts for achieving popularity in unique situations transfer over to leading a nation, solving complex social problems, dealing with relentless terrorists, managing huge national and international crises, and making life and death war decisions.

Make no mistake, this analysis is not about political ideology. It is about the scary psychology of popularity, the winning instincts of a previously successful entertainer, and the good and bad consequences of this age of instant technology, “tweeting,” and 24/7 news.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 371 Presidential Tone And Citizen Behavior

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on March 1, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Will President Trump follow his address to Congress with an ongoing change in the tone of his leadership? What follows now is obviously what matters most. There is a good deal of compelling anecdotal evidence that leading with arrogance, threats, and anger unleashes similar behavior in organizations and citizens.

For example, threatening rhetoric about vetting refugees from specific Muslim countries unleashed anger on several fronts, even though most citizens might have agreed on a softer approach. A surprising resurgence of antisemitism around the country has been occurring for no apparent reason… except for a growing feeling of anger. A widespread fear of military style deportations came over huge numbers of Hispanics as a result of the rhetoric… even though there were no changes in the law. Responding to scary ambiguities about health insurance coverage, refugee vetting, and deportations brought shouting crowds to Republican town hall meetings, even though these were not new issues. Angry students at universities across the nation protested and tried to block speakers with extreme messages, even though the appearance of such speakers had been fairly commonplace. Shouting crowds related to gun violence and police brutality brought a resurgence of dramatic news media coverage. And in the midst all this unrest the news media was angrily declared the enemy.

It is as if a hostile tone was set at the top, and then it spread into to the streets encouraging all kinds of frustration and anger to be acted out. In fact, many of us have been getting awake each morning afraid of what might happen next… a situation that is also expressed by many foreign policy professionals around the world.

My study of communication dynamics clearly suggests that leadership tone can either bring people together or produce even deeper divisions, more anger, and high levels of anxiety. Did Trump’s address to Congress put his leadership style on a more constructive course, or will his angry tone reappear and keep feeding a climate of chaos and unrest? Only time will tell.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 370 War and 24/7 Television

Posted in International, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs on February 21, 2017| Leave a Comment »

There are endless horrible images of the ravages of war on television. Do they compel people to act?  Do they horrify, but just leave us feeling helpless?  Or, do most of us just quickly dismiss them with mumbles about a world that’s coming apart?

The Vietnam war was reported every day on television. I remember that my first exposure to real war on the tube was horrifying. But gradually as those images became daily experiences they lost much of their early shock. People I interviewed admitted that eventually these reports started to look more like a movie to them. And those early feelings of real horror would only return when they reminded themselves that this was actually real war.

War reporting on television is our daily reminder that a steady diet of most anything on this medium eventually can become accepted as commonplace. We learned that surprising lesson in our recent presidential election. Flat-out lies, personal attacks, and vulgarities became commonplace all too quickly. And I fear that the horrible daily images of bombed-out buildings with desperate families and dying children are becoming all too commonplace as well.

But once in a while there is an image so powerful that it sticks in the mind and won’t let go. We all are haunted by that one image of that lone little child, fully dressed, curled-up, so innocent-looking, washed up on that beach– even though we deep down also knew that there were countless others just like him.

Now, much to my dismay, the other day I saw one more such horribly haunting image.

A bomb had just exploded and people were running away from the rubble for their life. In the middle of the chaos and devastation there was one lone child sitting there with only two bloody stumps remaining for his legs. His father was running aimlessly and yelling desperately for help. And with his arms both stretched upward toward the sky this ravaged little child simply said,” Daddy, please pick me up!”

This one will leave me crying for a lifetime.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 369 “Delegitimatizing” Institutions and People

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on February 14, 2017| 1 Comment »

Delegitimatizing is a new and questionable tactic in our 24/7 digital world. It is relentlessly attacking institutions or people by raising questions about their fundamental legitimacy.  And it sadly can cut through the clutter of information overload because the attacks are both outrageous and dramatic.

For example, Mr. Trump declared the news media to be the enemy. He claimed that mainstream media never report the truth. He declared what they do to be fake news. For example, he recently asserted that mainstream media never report terrorism. He followed by having his staff release a list of more than 70 instances. But every event on this list was covered, and many were covered exhaustively. But delegitimatizing does not require truth. It just must be outrageous and dramatic.

During the campaign Mr Trump attacked Mrs Clinton by declaring her a criminal, and then relentlessly reinforced his charge by leading the chant “lock her up.” What complicates matters is that all of us have vulnerabilities that can make us reluctant to defend ourselves. There may be a small grain of truth in the charge, or we may fear being drawn into a shouting contest that is just not our style. For example, in the case of terrorism news coverage the opposite criticism might have been more appropriate, i.e. covering terrorism gives terrorists the publicity they seek. Or a charge that entertainment values and industry competition are influencing too many news decisions might have had some legitimacy.

Nonetheless, relentless attacking to delegitimatize the opposition is joining mindless lying, vulgarity, and fake news as factors that are tearing our society apart. No matter our political preferences, more and more of us are awaking every morning with a nagging anxiety wondering what the hell will happen next. This is not about our political ideology. It is the consequence of a 24/7 out-of-control digital media produced fog.

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 368 Responding to Polarized Legislatures

Posted in Higher Education, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on February 7, 2017| 1 Comment »

For most of the 20 or more years I was responsible for university communication I was also responsible for the institution’s legislative relations… first the state legislature and later the national legislature as well. In both cases I experienced a gradual polarization of political ideology, eventually to the point where very little was getting accomplished.

My recourse was to try to focus on influencing higher education policy, no matter the party. This meant I would have to formulate our position on higher education issues and work hard to demonstrate the advantages for both parties.  In time I came to see my issue agenda as essentially bipartisan, and described myself as an independent with no party affiliation.

Of course, this meant that I didn’t support any politicians financially or otherwise at election time, thereby diminishing my capacity to influence them. My frustration accelerated as I came to realize that while many legislators’ staffs responded positively to my positions, this success had virtually no influence on how the legislator would vote, or what he or she said in public. I was in a world where there was no compromise, and where as a non-donor I had no influence.

Looking back I now think that nonprofit institutions need to influence government policy outside the legislative process. They must plan aggressive and collaborative marketing and strategic communication  initiatives  aimed at asking those who do make political contributions for their help… trustees, alumni, community leaders, corporate heads, faculty, staff, voting age students, the news media, etc.

Political debate tends to reinforce polarization. Extreme polarization leads to gridlock. Gridlock only unlocks in those very specific places where donors have influence. Institutional communicators therefore must learn how to use both new and traditional communication technology to ask major constituents who are also political donors for help in championing their cause.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 367 May VS. Trump: A Communicator’s Perspective

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on January 31, 2017| 1 Comment »

The new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, recently came to the US on a mission. Her first stop was the United Nations, and she came prepared. Her address was comprehensive, articulate, and carefully shaped to reveal the UK’s position on a wide range of international issues, from Russia to NATO to Syria. It was a major address, well crafted and effectively delivered. And it set her up for a visit the next day to the White House.

The purpose of her visit to the US was to lay the groundwork for a strong partnership with the new Trump administration. At home she will be managing the consequences of Britain pulling out of the EU, and she sees similarities with what happened in the American election. Both situations were driven by voters who felt left behind by globalization. Both voters saw their jobs being lost when companies moved operations abroad. And both voters were also fearing the impact of immigration and large numbers of refugees.

But can this Trump-May partnership work?  Can the earlier Thatcher-Reagan duo be their model?

From a communication perspective it was interesting to observe the difference in presence and body language between the two at the press conference following their White House meeting. She stood tall looking and sounding like a Prime Minister. She even demonstrated a little gamesmanship by noting that Trump offered his support for NATO in their private talks, thinking he would not mention it with reporters present. But what was most striking was that her remarks were about issues. And when Trump began to explain his position he suddenly seemed to be lost for words. Then he quickly uttered something like “it’s going to be really good,” and stopped talking.

What’s new in this fast-moving digital world is how a leader with real substance and solid experience on a wide range of issues may not win the day over one who simply conveys self-confidence and makes repeated bold assertions. May wants the US to be her partner. But at the end of the day who will be the lead partner… the one with substance or the one with endless daily tweets?

We could conclude that bold might win at first but substance will win the day. But the truth is we really don’t know. What we do know is that in the short run we will be living in a world where explaining well thought-out ideas and actions is on the decline, and creating confusing chaos with disruptive tweets is becoming the norm.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 366 Polarization is Self-Perpetuating

Posted in Leadership, Lessons Learned, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on January 26, 2017| Leave a Comment »

A number of years ago the political parties formed Republican and Democratic districts all across the country.  This meant that elections would almost guarantee party victory and eliminate the honest discussion of competing ideas right at the outset.

Newly elected legislators would then arrive in Washington in the middle of a competitive partisan environment, discovering that huge amounts of time would be spent on political fighting, continuous fundraising, and there would be little if any time for governing or for cross-party socializing. The result was gridlock, and a situation where our representatives would not even know each other very well.

People all across America found this appalling. But somehow legislators missed or just ignored this growing discontent. Many of these people had real problems requiring solutions.  Companies had moved out of their towns creating high unemployment. Salaries were not keeping up with overall economic growth. Poverty was increasing. Drugs were destroying lives. Gangs were more violent, and problems with some police departments were not being addressed.

This opened the door for a Washington outsider like Donald Trump to gradually find these people and promise to solve their problems. It did not matter that he verbally attacked innocent people, made outrageous pronouncements, and even was vulgar. His promises to solve all these problems was enough to secure their support.

Now president, he is giving endless executive orders everyday that disrupt government operations and social programs. They target the promises he made, but disrupt more than they solve. And in addition he makes threats that serve as attention diversions, putting the press in a quandary about what and how to report. Even his own party has to ignore his daily rants in order to move its partisan priorities ahead. So polarization continues and both parties remain caught up in it.

What we have now is a self-perpetuating cycle that’s generating chaos at home and abroad. And the social and leadership communication dynamics of the situation may already have taken on a life of their own. In fact, it could be that this entire situation will have to self-destruct before a more rational system can emerge.

Read Full Post »

Lesson 365: Trump: A Communication Analysis

Posted in International, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Planning, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on January 24, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Somewhere in the avalanche of pundit commentaries following the inaugural address I remember ‘hearing the words “Trump is more interested in America’s competitive interests than in our founding values.”  From my perspective as a communicator, that characterization rang true.

In fact, listening carefully to Trump’s actual content it seemed to me that he made “America first” his primary value, and possibly his only one. He asserted that coming together was important but there was no empathetic content or even tone there to support it.

He made firm promises to literally fix all of America’s infrastructure problems… from roads, to overpasses, to bridges, to tunnels, to organizations. All of them.  He also said all the problems of the inner cities… from poverty, to drugs, to police violence, and all that “carnage” will be fixed immediately. And he further asserted that beginning right now it will be “America first” in all dealings around the world.

Thinking as a communication analyst, experience teaches me that with speeches like this audiences will fall into at least three response categories: First, there are those who see these pronouncements as huge over statements; they don’t expect much of this to actually happen; but they are willing to hope that some improvements will be made. Second, there are those who are in really dire situations and actually do expect significant improvements in their personal lives. And finally, there are those who see all of this a pure theatre; they see the lies, personal attacks and vulgarities of the campaign as character traits, and therefore find that the tone of “America first” so aggressively stated to be a threat to the world order, and maybe even world peace.

If poles were completely reliable we could use audience research to see how many people are in each of these categories. We could then determine each category’s preferred media, and we could contact each of them… learning from and responding to interactive dialogue. In this way pragmatic problem solvers could try to work gradually at adjusting each overstatement to doable improvements.

But alas, the campaign proved that our polling is not yet accurate enough to accomplish this. And extreme polarization in congress currently continues without any hope of collaborative pragmatic planning. So from a communication perspective, we are beyond “calculated risk” well in to “high risk” territory.

Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal” argues that keeping the other guys guessing is good. But the entire history of foreign policy, diplomacy, and at least two world wars would warn that this approach could result in international chaos, or even worse.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Lesson 363 Win, Lose or Communicate?

Posted in Lessons Learned, Media Literacy, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication on January 9, 2017| 1 Comment »

During this pre-inauguration period I have become consumed with concerns about our American political system. What just happened to us?  Could this be our future?

In chess you simply win or lose. Strategy is a matter of anticipating, blocking, and responding with another move. You win purely by out-maneuvering your opponent. Is this what politics has become… game of chess? A horserace?

I wish I could assume that everyone who goes into politics does so because they have a set of sincere beliefs and thoughtful solutions for social problems. I would like to know they understood that clarity of thinking about content, consistency of message, ability to connect with a wide variety of audiences, basic American values, and commitment to truth, all are required. I’d like to know that they understood their biggest challenge will be to communicate their bold ideas more effectively than their opponent. And I wish the entire political system was structured so that winning would only happen if and when they convinced enough people to agree with them.

But alas, I am afraid the Chess game/horserace approach is what we had in this presidential election.  Political strategy was primarily calculating and anticipating the moves of opponents. Keeping adversaries off-balance and centering all attention on the candidates’ personalities was everything.  Doing this with lies and false news became acceptable because it all began to sound true when repeated often enough. Simply naming topics dramatically, making outrageous claims, launching personal attacks, engaging in bullying, and promising to fix everything intensified the drama and resulted in celebrity. Once the campaign rally as entertainment got rolling, too much detail interrupted that drama. Afterwards, when handlers and staffers explained outlandish and unclear remarks by using situation blurring weasel words, conditions reset themselves for the next big show.

Sadly, this is how our presidential campaign degenerated. Can we even bear to go through it again?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »