Ladies and gentlemen,
“I need not tell you [.] that the world situation is very serious. […] I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation.”
I wish I could start my remarks on a more optimistic note. A lot has happened in the 70 years since George C. Marshall gave his famous speech at Harvard University that came to be known as the Marshall Plan. Today, his words are as true as ever. As our Atlantic Action Plan outlined, today’s complexities are not limited to one policy area, one location or one set of actors. Instead, challenges in trade, education, energy, environment, security, migration and technology are closely linked and interdependent. They affect us on both sides of the Atlantic. They affect us globally. It is obvious that “America first”, “priorité nationale” or however you want to call the recent nationalist surge is not going to solve our problems.
What worries me deeply is the level to which emotion and messaging are determining how policy debates play out in public and in the (social) media. The level of distrust in institutions and fellow citizens, the degree to which fear, uncertainty and plain anger have affected our politics and even national elections is unsettling to me. It adds another layer of complexity to an already complex situation. The question is: What holds our societies together? How can we counter narratives of isolation?
I have worked in the German non-profit sector for almost three years, focusing on international relations. What I have come to realize is that at each conference I attend and at each event I take part in I am surrounded by dedicated ‘transatlanticists’. That is comforting and inspiring, but does preaching to the choir really give us that extra boost of energy that we need in order to reinvigorate transatlantic relations?
Don’t get me wrong. We need you, we need decision makers and leaders who believe in the importance of transatlantic relations and who are willing to engage others. Fortunately, ties between the German and U.S. government are still close – despite recent disagreements. What is unprecedented though is the level of unpredictability when it comes to American priorities and interests – a third layer of complexity. That is why I am convinced that a new transatlantic narrative cannot be based on policy matters and decision makers alone. We need to engage more stakeholders.
A recent Deutschlandtrend survey showed that only 21 percent of Germans think that the U.S. is a trustworthy partner. Certainly, a lot of that can be attested to President Trump’s unpopularity with most Germans. I am sure though that, looking ahead, it will be essential to find ways to engage people who are not usually part of transatlantic debates. We need to broaden the foundation of transatlantic cooperation and we need to lay the groundwork for open societies. That is why I am proposing five steps to win new allies and to increase public support for a transatlantic agenda.
First, get out of your comfort zone. Look beyond Berlin and Washington, DC, beyond politics and academia, beyond roundtable discussions, keynotes and conferences. Go to towns and cities in the U.S. and Germany where people don’t usually have access to transatlantic debates. Be willing to take risks and to try out new formats like town halls or culture festivals. Reach out to diverse audiences and be willing to accept different opinions.
Second, listen. Finding new stakeholders means listening to people. We cannot include new voices in a conversation, if we don’t understand their beliefs and concerns. This can be the mayor of a small midwestern town or a high school student in Sachsen. Don’t enter conversations with an agenda, but try an open mind and a blank page of paper instead.
Third, be more specific. Talking about abstract benefits of transatlantic exchange and our shared values is not enough anymore. Cater events and topics to people’s interests to get their attention. Young people in Germany have a huge interest in American popular culture, young Americans are fascinated by Berlin. Use that interest. Have professionals share best practices from their fields – be it the latest tech start-up, urban planning innovations or vocational training programs. You cannot create a more political transatlantic civil society without creating that initial spark, that initial momentum for bilateral cooperation, first.
Fourth, find strong partners. In order to create broad public support for and interest in transatlantic relations, you need cooperation across the public, private, and non-profit sectors. In times when trust in “elites” is low, non-profits can be important honest brokers. It is equally important to find partners “on the ground”, small foundations, NGOs and other multipliers that can facilitate conversations with stakeholders.
Fifth, bring people together. In the end, it all comes down to personal interactions – be it through exchange programs, study tours or virtually through online platforms. This is the best way to counter stereotypes and prejudices on both sides.
The wonderful thing about an action plan is that it makes things sound incredibly easy. I don’t want to curb your or my enthusiasm, but it is not that simple and it is going to take time and work. But let me finish by saying that…
… I want to invest that time.
… I want to step outside my bubble and listen.
… I want to strengthen a network of people with the same passion for transatlantic dialogue.
… I want to bring more people into the conversation.
In complex societies like ours there is not just one narrative of transatlantic cooperation. There are multiple narratives and multiple stories to tell. My narrative is that of inclusion and diversity. What is yours?
Hi Carolin,
thanks for your very personal and motivating speech. I agree to your 5 points of action. The word “spark” in your 3rd points describes perfectly what is missing and what needs to be accomplished. Could you elaborate a bit more on this point? What do you imagine?
Greetings,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik, Thanks for your kind words. This initial spark can be anything really. When I was a teenager, it was talking about New York City in school and watching Gilmore Girls that first got me interested in the U.S. That led to American literature and a summer vacation abroad and it went on from there. Common interests make it incredibly easy to start a conversation. If you bring people together who share the same personal (e.g. music, sports etc.) or professional interests (anything from transportation planning to energy policy to industry 4.0 ), you can create understanding and exchange beyond political or cultural differences. Once you’ve created that initial spark, you can move on to other topics.
Now I’m curious. What was your spark? 🙂 Best, Carolin
Perhaps you can even bring together people with different interests? It would require more energy to initiate the “spark”, but perhaps it would be worth it – bringing together liberals ans conservatives, urban and rural populations, etc.
My initial spark was a school exchange with Roseburg, Oregon and perhaps even before as I admired the “melting pot” of different cultures and American authors (as a teenager mostly Science Fiction 🙂 ).
Hi Hendrik, Yes, I’m definitely in favor of diverse groups, but I think you still need some kind of benefit or at least a good reason why they should take part in an exchange/a dialogue. That could also be something like professional development – an interest shared by liberals and conservatives alike. I also think that some of the groups you mentioned already share the same interests without being aware of it (e.g. job creation, prosperity and safety). That’s also something a transatlantic exchange could highlight. They don’t even need to come to an agreement on the appropriate measures as long as they listen to each other and recognize that there are other perspectives out there. Best, Carolin
True, creating understanding should be the key goal. The idea to appeal to the “homo oeconomicus” and their own interests is very goof for most other projects, too.
Exactly! And once you’ve passed that initial threshold, the “homo transatlanticus” might follow 😉
Dear Carolin,
Thank you for your great article. I agree with everything you said. Especially your fifth step of bringing people together. I am convinced that as soon as people realize that they are very much alike after looking behind the different languages and cultures, people realize that they are all the same and start fighting for common goals and mutual respect.
Cheers, Pascal
Thanks, Pascal! I appreciate your feedback. I think my speech also works well with your article (bridging the gap between political leaders and the electorate, targeted messages, credible sources etc.). And I agree: Bringing people together should always be the core of our activities. Best, Carolin
Hi Carolin, I think you brought up some interesting points, especially your fourth and fifth points. I’m curious what you think about the power of online forums in general. For me, whenever I look at the comments section of Youtube or news articles, it very quickly gets snarky and unproductive, which is why I barely look anymore and I’m afraid the Internet as a whole has become a place where true open dialogue is rather the exception that proves the rule. Do you have any thoughts here?
Thanks for your feedback, Andrew. I’m totally on your side when it comes to the power of online forums and comments sections (apart from this one obviously 😉 ). I do think that social media in general can be an effective tool to market ideas and to reach younger audiences as some people have suggested here. But when it comes to actual exchange there needs to be more. In college, I had a class on “German and American politics” where we collaborated with a college in the U.S. We followed the same syllabus and discussed our readings with each other. It was part online platform, part video chats. This format was a good way to exchange opinions and ideas, even if you don’t have the opportunity or the resources to travel abroad. Nothing is more effective than personal encounters though. Would you agree? All the best, Carolin
Dear Carolin,
I really enjoyed reading your personal speech. You bring up some really valid points. Regarding your first point, what would be your thoughts be on transatlantic cultural institutions, like the Goethe-Instituts in America, for example, touring the continental US to reach more secluded towns and cities to promote German-US ties?
Hi Johanna, I think that’s a terrific idea. That’s exactly what I had in mind. The Goethe Institutes in the States already have a vast network across the country (even if they don’t have actual institutes there). They have partner organizations and program alumni that could facilitate outreach programs. Thanks for this great suggestion. All the best, Carolin
Carolin,
Incredible article! I loved how you started out with the George Marshall quote. I didn’t know it was his, and was shocked to hear it was from 70 years ago! It highlights the point that communication between the political ‘elites’, the media, and the public is central to the problem, and has been throughout generations. I thought your 5 steps to tackling the solutions were great but had a question on the 5th. You suggested bringing people together “through exchange programs, study tours or virtually through online platforms.” These programs already exist, do you recommend changing existing ones or creating more? What type of virtual interaction do you recommend, and how would you go about regulating it?
Best,
Amy Jo
Hi Amy Jo, Thanks for your feedback and Happy 4th of July!
I agree, it also struck me as surreal that you could almost give the same speech that Marshall gave in 1947 in 2017… As for bringing people together, I’d suggest keeping the programs we have and
1) creating more opportunities for people who don’t usually get a chance to go abroad (people in blue collar jobs; high school students from poor families etc.)
2) creating more exchanges that focus on specific professional fields, issues or questions (like industry 4.0, urban planning, migration and integration etc.). It’s also a question of who offers these programs besides schools, universities, and exchange organizations. Philanthropy is already quite active in this area (at least in Germany), but the private sector could do more. In my opinion, it doesn’t always have to be a formal exchange program. It can also be something like Johanna described in her comment: Staff from the Goethe Institute traveling across the country to talk about current transatlantic issues.
The virtual interaction could be something like the online platform that I described in Andrew’s comment above. I think if it’s not a broad marketing campaign, meaningful virtual exchange has to be regulated in some way and it doesn’t work for every target group. Creating an exclusive, invitation-only platform could be one option. Again, I think the platform has to be organized around a specific topic in order for it to work and to be substantial. People will only be willing to contribute, if it’s an issue they have a stake in or feel passionate about – especially if they’re not from the group of “usual transatlantic suspects.” Do you have other suggestions for virtual exchanges and do you agree with my point on regulation? All the best, Carolin
Hi Carolin, loved reading your passionate hymn to the transatlantic relation. Point 4, finding strong partners, seems a crucial point to me. Targeting big corporates could be beneficial for both sides and might also help to give the narrative a more practical hands-on appraoch instead of an conservative purely policitcal-elite related field. Let’s brainstorm the “partners”: What kind of partners were you initially thinking of besides governments and the usual suspects? Best, Felicitas
Thanks, Felicitas! I appreciate it.
I think the choice of partner depends on the message you want to get across and the target group you want to reach. To me, a partner can either be someone who provides funding/resources or someone who facilitates the exchange by bringing people to the table.
– The private sector should definitely be added to the list of partners – also via public-private partnerships. Adding a professional development component could do the trick of motivating people to go abroad/companies to send their employees abroad in the first place. It also works well for vocational training programs.
– Then there’s the “usual suspects” of transatlantic non-profits and think tanks who have wide networks of partners and alumni in Germany/Europe and the U.S. but also other civil society organizations.
– Universities and schools are good partners to reach young people (e.g. also debate teams, clubs etc.).
– journalists and people working in the media
– local and regional governments, city officials, mayors
…
Can you think of other important partners that I left out? I’d love to brainstorm with you.
Best, Carolin
Hi Carolin! That sounds like an exhaustive list to me. I only have two more propositions: 1. Think-tanks and NGO’s that do not have a German/US perspective could (and probably should be added in the long-run) to the list. This can help to make sure that the transatlantic relationship doesn’t “brew their own soup” without considering the taste of our global partners ;-). 2. Social media personas or other personas of public influence (e.g. famous youtube-stars or (political) comedians such as Oliver Welke from the German “heute-show” or Jimmy Fallon from the US).
For me, the next step is now to prioritize those partners according to up to three factors so that we can find out where to start 🙂 Maybe we can just work with the two factors you mentioned already: 1. partners bringing resources to the project; 2. Partners raising broader interest/bringing more people to the table and get them involved…. We are getting quite into this!
Hi Felicitas, Thanks for your additional suggestions. Agreed!
Maybe we could put social influencers and celebrities in a more general category of influential communicators?! Social media stars work for young people, but it would have to be someone else for an older demographic and it doesn’t necessarily have to be someone famous. What do you think?
I think the choice of partners depends on your message and the target group you want to reach. I don’t think a “one-size fits-all approach” works here. What’s your suggestion for prioritizing the partners?
Hi Carolin,
thanks for this really interesting speech. I want to take your comment at the end about stepping outside your bubble and look further into that. I have mostly read about this in context of Facebook and how many people get the majority of their news there, so I am wondering: Do you think it would be more important to deal with looking beyond your bubble online or offline?
Best regards,
Max
Hi Max, Thanks for your feedback and your question. Constantly reaffirming our own assumptions works both online and offline and you can certainly apply my concept to both spheres. When I wrote the speech, I was thinking about face-to-face, non-mediated interactions though. I think we have to come to terms with the fact that not everybody shares our view that transatlantic relations is worth fostering or that close (economic, political, cultural) ties between countries have their benefits.
Personally, my bubble is that of college-educated, internationally-minded folks, who share my own liberal values. Stepping outside my bubble allows me to see different perspectives and beliefs. I might not agree with all of them and it might not always be comfortable, but at least I gain a better understanding of the underlying reasons for certain opinions, remarks or even voting behavior. I also think that we need to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in transatlantic exchanges/debates, if we want to revitalize transatlantic relations in the long term. You won’t achieve that when staying in your bubble and surrounding yourself with like-minded peers. What’s your take on this? Best, Carolin
Hi Carolin,
thank you for the interesting input. I certainly agree with you that it is beneficial to step outside one’s bubble and that the more diversity the better. I think we should not forget the online bubble when it comes to understanding opinions. Research on this might even be more easily accessible than on the offline one, e.g. by looking at news outlets, Twitter or public Facebook accounts and online discussions on other platforms.
Best regards,
Max
Hi Max, Thanks for your comment. Online is definitely very important, too. To clarify, would you just look at ‘online bubbles’ for data or also to start an online campaign that brings people together /bursts their bubbles – at least to certain extent? Best, Carolin