Kate Delaney

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 691 words from this article are provided below; about 1391 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase this article in PDF form for $10.00.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

Kate Delaney | What's New? Don't Forget Capitol Hill | The Journal of American History, 93.2 | The History Cooperative

What's New? Don't Forget Capitol Hill

In his eloquent, personal, and heartfelt examination of his evolving perceptions of America, Rob Kroes posed the question, "what's new?" regarding anti-Americanism in Europe. In his attempt to answer that query, he correctly pointed to changes related to the ending of the Cold War, to the U.S. response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, to the growing political influence of conservative religious groups, and to "blinkered and parochial American journalism." In ways large and small, all the factors mentioned by Kroes have altered the way the United States relates to the rest of the world and, in turn, is perceived.¹	1
An additional factor, more structural and systemic, is the change in the U.S. Congress. While Kroes focused most of his attention on the statements and acts of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, it can be argued that the changes affecting Congress will be more enduring than the actions of even a two-term president and therefore have more serious implications for U.S. policies. In their recently published study, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson documented the growing polarization in American politics and the increasing centralization of political power, which have upset the system of checks and balances.² While Hacker and Pierson concentrated on developments in U.S. domestic policy, the changes in the Congress and the media that they discussed also have implications for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and for the way foreign publics perceive the United States. The question of how the United States is perceived by foreign publics is one that has engaged me for many years, both academically and in practice.	2
Since 9/11, the perception of the United States by others has become a matter of considerable debate in the United States. The issue is most often expressed by someone asking, "Why do they hate us?" in a puzzled and disbelieving voice. In the United States government the chief responsibility for information and cultural programs directed at foreign publics now rests with the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. The nomination of Karen Hughes to that position in June 2005 attracted much attention in the United States and abroad. As a former counselor to the president and a longtime adviser to George W. Bush, Hughes was expected to raise the profile of the U.S. government's efforts to win favorable international public opinion. The initiatives of her predecessors, Charlotte Beers, a former advertising executive, and Margaret Tutwiler, Secretary of State James Baker's press secretary during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, were widely considered ineffective, especially in the Muslim world.	3
Until 1999, U.S. public diplomacy efforts had been carried out in the field for more than forty years by the United States Information Service (USIS), as the United States Information Agency (USIA) was known overseas. Scholars such as Rob Kroes and others studying or teaching about the United States would have had access to books, films, lecturers, and conference and travel support from USIS offices attached to their local American embassy or consulate. I served as a foreign service officer employed by the USIA for over two decades.	4
The tasks of a USIS officer included "telling America's story to the world"—a mission statement that was emblazoned on a plaque at the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters—and promoting "mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries" of the world as provided in the Fulbright Act of 1946.³ The American system of government was always part of the "story" that was told. Federalism, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press and its watchdog role were described and explained to foreign publics through brochures, lectures, and films, and by "exchange" visits to the United States for foreign scholars and students. Promoting an understanding of those constitutional principles was seen as an essential component of explaining U.S. policy.	. . .

There are about 1391 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.