Wb News

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.

President Obama will be traveling across the Atlantic again, and as judging by the pictures below in Germany, there?"s already a lot of enthusiasm about his trip:

Obama begins his trip June 3 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he?"ll meet with King Abdullah. He travels June 4 to Cairo for meetings with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his long-anticipated speech at Cairo University.

On June 5 Obama heads to Dresden, Germany, for talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel, a visit with wounded U.S. troops at a military hospital and a tour of the former Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald. He closes his trip June 6 with a trip to France to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy on D-Day.

For more, see ?SObama Seeks Enhanced Engagement with the Middle East, Europe.?

Over the weekend, there's been a minor uproar over New York Representative Charlie Rangel's remarks about President Obama's visit to New York. When a reporter asked Rangel what Obama should do when he visits the city, Rangel replied, ?SMake certain he doesn?"t run around in East Harlem without identification.?

The remark was a reference to the killing of police officer Omar J. Edwards by fellow officer Andrew Dutton. Edwards was in plainclothes, and chasing after someone who was breaking into his car. He had his weapon out. Three other plainclothes officers arrived and yelled for them to stop. One, Dutton, shot Edwards three times as he turned around.

The thing about Rangel's joke is that he's not wrong: We're living in a country where a black man can be president but where black men are still so at risk of accidental violence from police that even black officers are concerned about it. That said, Rangel is a public official whose constituency includes some of the officers he was criticizing. It's his responsibility to make sure that when he does criticize the police, he does so in a respectful and constructive manner. His remark would have been appropriate for a comedian, not a congressman.

In the meantime, it's worth pondering the significance of such an event. There's no indication that Dutton harbors any special animosity towards black people -- rather, racial bias is so socially ingrained that we draw on our biases subconsciously, when we aren't even thinking. That kind of racism is a much greater problem than the forthright prejudice of yesteryear, which for the most part has become socially unacceptable.



-- A. Serwer

Nate Silver has an exhaustive and exhausting post on how Republicans could win the White House while losing further slices of the Latino vote. It's doable, but extremely hard. They have to hope for a double-dip recession and a divisive appeal to white voters. That's the kind of short-term idea that leads to long-term defeat (i.e. Karl Rove might love it). I didn't realize this:

In 2008, the Latino vote made the difference in

the outcome of three states: New Mexico, where about 2 in 5 voters

identify as Hispanic, as well as -- somewhat surprisingly -- Indiana

and North Carolina -- where Obama lost nonhispanic voters by a tiny

margin and was put over the top by Hispanic votes. It probably also

made the difference, believe it or not, in the 2nd Congressional

District of Nebraska -- Omaha actually has a decent-sized Hispanic

minority -- although the exit polls aren't detailed enough to let us

know for sure.

Nate's bottom line:

This is the sort of electoral future the GOP might

have to contemplate if they start losing the Hispanic vote by margins

of 3:1, 4:1 or more. Giving up on New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado is a

feasible, and perhaps even wise, strategy. But if they don't thread the

needle just perfectly, and they make it difficult for themselves to win

back Florida, while putting Arizona and perhaps even Texas increasingly

into play, their task will become nearly impossible.

Oy:

(Hat tip: Conor)

The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, while seeing their costs lowered as our reforms take hold. But for those who don't have such options, I agree that we should create a health insurance exchange -- a market where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that's best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can. None of these plans should deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition, and all of these plans should include an affordable basic benefit package that includes prevention, and protection against catastrophic costs. I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

By plunging into the details of the reform rather than cheering from the sidelines, as he has done for months, Obama raises the political stakes for the summer?"s big legislative battle, and will hearten liberals who have yearned for his intervention to put a public sector option on the table.

We are thrilled to see President Obama's strong, unambiguous commitment to reform that includes the choice of keeping private health insurance or joining a new public health insurance option. The choice of a new public health insurance plan is the only way to control costs, guarantee coverage, ensure quality and transparency, and set a benchmark by which patients will know whether their private health insurance is truly giving them what they're paying for.

There is tremendous unity among President Obama, key committee leadership in both the House and the Senate, the broad coalition represented by Health Care for America Now, and the American people for reform based on the choice of private or public health insurance plans. It is now clearer than ever that this choice will be a fundamental part of the reform sent to the President's desk this year.