If the narrative of the transatlantic community were a play, this would surely be the moment of final suspense. We just don’t quite know yet whether it is going to be a tragedy or a comedy.
Both the domestic and foreign politics of the United States have received an unusual amount of attention in the German media during the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency. While the reason is hardly mysterious, it is difficult to point to the exact mechanism of such a cluster of coverage. The tone, however, has been quite clear to anyone listening. A recent Harvard study claims for example, that the coverage by the German TV station ARD has featured negative judgments of Donald Trump in 98 percent of their opinion pieces. While this study has been heavily criticized for its methodology, this message is apparent elsewhere, too. According to the research facility Foschungsgruppe Wahlen in June 2017, an overwhelming 69 percent of Germans interpret the relations between Germany and the US in a primarily negative way, in contrast to 14 percent in October 2016. Many of the thriving institutions of transatlantic coverage have been questioned not only by the German public. The suspension of the Paris Climate Accord and the critique towards other NATO members uttered by the US have clearly led to a change in tone on international parquet.
So how do we start a narrative from a point of newly found distrust and disrupted continuity of the historical transatlantic relationship? The answer could be found in the function of a narrative itself – to structure new experiences and to predict future moves. If governments don’t provide that structure of trust, other institutions might be able to do so. However much this sounds like a cry for more Global Governance, turning a blind eye on the current rise of national-centrism might be ignoring the problem altogether. The defunding of United Nations institutions like the UN Women’s Health Services and UN Population Fund alone is a setback for the enterprise of Global Governance as a political directory. In terms of narrative structure, this is also not to be underestimated. The steady rise of structures of Global Governance was not only an academic hypothesis, it was also a promise – one that has left many disappointed, now that cooperation has seemingly taken a hit.
However, the concept of Global Government leaves us with something else: academic scholarship on legitimacy. The reaction of German citizens and the German media might indicate a delegitimization of the transatlantic partnership and its narrative in stock at the moment. If legitimacy from governmental cooperation is drowned, new forms have to replace them to sustain the Atlantic partnership. The basis is already in place: German solidarity protests for the Women’s March have shown the close connection German political movements share with their US American counterparts, equally so the protests under the banner of the March for Science. The US cities that pledged to stand by the Paris Climate Agreement are another example, international yet another. If we think of output legitimacy in this setting, we would think of accomplishments achieved by non-governmental Atlantic partnerships in areas of common values, as embodied by the protests in the Woman’s March. If we consider of participatory legitimacy, the participation in values relevant to the partnership are of interest.
To change the focus of discourse from negotiations between governments to values held by citizens would be part of constructing this new narrative. Establishing this power of legitimacy as a part of the liberal democracy, where citizens directly and in contact with each other determine the values of partnership, either along or even in spite of allegiances between countries. To view the Atlantic enterprise as a project in the hands of citizens would also dispose the sense of elitism and embrace the reality of Atlantic cooperation not as a set of fixed norms, but as the reality of interchanging projects. It would be the story of shared values and of shared initiatives, its legitimacy established in bottom-up fashion. It would embrace a stable partnership less tightly connected to governments, better equipped to long-term resolutions. Picking up the new form of legitimacy implies continuing with the promises of Global Governance. It is not a new concept, but an indispensable one in times like these. The moment of final suspense holds new conflict, and sometimes, new orientation. Only time will tell if the last act will be watched in tears or laughter.
Pauline, such an excellent article! One remark: It is so hard to change the narrative, as “only bad news are good news.” That is why Trump got all that free CNN (and others) coverage when he was campaigning, becuase he brought them high(er) ratings. But I agree that a progressive transatlantic agenda should have a strong, citizen-based media strategy. Maybe you already have some ideas how to implement this?
Hi Thomas, why is it so hard to change the narrative? Of course media often focusses on “bad news”, but aren’t there other ways than proclaiming through media? I guess that the theoretical adjusting of the narrative itself may not be so hard, realizing it into actions may be remarkably harder but should still be possible if everybody invlolved is truly serious about it. The final spreading of the actions via media is another thing; yet I believe that in serious media there’s no output without an equivalent input, so a good way to counter negative reports would be giving less reason for it and more for positive reports through actions.
Hi Thomas and Konrad,
Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I have found that the main differences between American and German news media lie in what they choose to report, with the German media directly reporting on issues of interest to their readers/viewers and the US news, driven by this notion of “what bleeds, leads,” picking sensational, “bad news” stories to report on. Sadly, I have realized that stories out of Germany which I think Americans would find interesting and informative (and in all seriousness, SHOULD be paying attention to) get little or no attention in the American news landscape. The same cannot be said for German-language newspapers and TV stations, which tend to report about all things American, from politics to celebrities.
While the narrative is able to change, it will not be an easy task, at least as long as Germans can inform themselves quite adequately about events in the US just by reading or watching German-language media sources, but Americans cannot do the same via their national media sources. This difference certainly contributes to an information gap between Germans and Americans, hindering the production of a legitimate narrative.
Hi Johanna,
you hit the nail on the head when stating that this information gap hinders “the production of a legitimate narrative.” News coverage is always one of my pet peeves whenever I am in the States, especially due to the 24/7 broadcasting, which forces exaggerations, unverified statements and speculations. Having been in the States during the attack on the Berlin Christmasmarket, I constantly hit refresh on my Tagesschau-App (German newscast) to get objective, low-key and non-speculative reporting as CNN was crying “terrorism” within 10 seconds. That being said, this information gap not only pertains to news coverage on international themes, but also reporting on domestical issues, which is why alternative news sources like “The Young Turks”, “Democracy Now” or even “Last Week Tonight” have garnerd more and more attention – and include foreign political and economic themes into their reporting.
Thank you Thomas, Konrad, Johanna and Christin for your comments and the thoughtful discussion.
On the issue of narrative through media I agree with Johanna – the US American media landscape is a very unique one and might not be most equipped to solving this problem of coverage quickly. That being said, I am lacking data on the coverage and perception of and can therefore not say if some media might handle this differently. The same might be said of the German Media landscape, as the focus is both on the ‘scandalous’ elements of US politics as well as our dependency on this relationship.While change in perspective on a transatlantic cooperation in the media is worth pursuing, it is not the way to a new narrative, in my opinion.
This narrative has to form out of connections between citizens. Asking what narrative should build the foundation of a relationship is asking what the relationship itself should look like. A new transatlantic relationship should include bonds forged by ordinary citizens, and so the narrative must be build on such bonds as well, otherwise they cannot be upheld. While the examples I named are mostly of initiatives that were started in the US and continued in Germany by well-educated members of the population, they are examples. The quesion is, rightly so, if they can easily be generalized or stand inherently for the socio-economic class of the particitpanty. When I composed the article, I was thinking for example of the relations that were build between Germany and France after the second world war. While this comparison lags behind in many aspects, it too relied on the bonds of ordinary citizens across countries.
Hi Johanna, I agree with you that there’s an imbalance in international reporting and a more inward-looking American media system that – at least for the bigger networks – is an endless stream of “breaking news”. Some of the major German media outlets are also moving in that direction though. Economic pressure is high – so is interest in Trump’s latest actions. I think there’s a very fine line between accurate reporting on Trump’s policies and a moralizing, ridiculing, sometimes even arrogant tone. Is that something you’d agree with?
Pauline, thank you for your article! I agree that the transatlantic narrative is currently at a crossroads and I share your opinion on the importance of civic involvement. But as Thomas already pointed out, changing the narrative is not an easy task. It seems that the term “bottom-up” is pretty fashionable right now and I fear that it might become an empty buzzword. I like your examples of the Women’s March and the March for Science – but who is actually participating? Mostly well-educated people who are better off financially? How can we get socially disadvantaged groups involved?
Hello Claudia, thank you very much for your comment. I agree, ‘Bottom-Up’ is a fashionable and often misused phrase – so what do I mean? Examples like the Woman’s March point out the shared values.
It is noteworthy, however, where citizens don’t value cooperation. The march against TTIP was one of the largest protests in quite some time and people far outside of the spectrum described above took notice and made their voice heard. So the interest in shaping the transatlantic relationship is there, the question would be the structures in which these voices take relevance.
Hi Pauline:
I agree it is an intriguing strategy to have ordinary citizens bypass national governments in order to reframe a legitimacy narrative of transatlantic relations, and the examples you provided illuminate that there are such initiatives with transatlantic bonding. On the other hand, I believe that Trump will always have an allegiant voter base that is willing to follow and even condone his policy proposals. Likewise, anti-Americanism is inherently vibrant in parts of the German society. For example, skepticism has risen ever since the Snowden revelations. These divided views within American and German society, respectively, seem to exactly represent the party division at governmental levels. Thus, I wonder if partnership-adoring citizens can effectively reframe the transatlantic legitimacy narrative without having to corner those who are skeptical or unconvinced?
Hello Florian and thank you for your comment. I am interested in your views on Anti-Americanism in Germany. As I understand it, it is a very particular brand of anti-americanism. While US culture and politics have a very broad influence both in the media landscape as well as in German politics, it is sonservatives or the Republican Party who have been critisized. This is not a new trend – one can think back to the visits of President Obama and how popular these were. Which is exactly what you describe in your second point of your comment. I, too, am worried that the points of civic engagement I described in my article have an intrinsic bias torwards a specific segment of the population, especially in the US. While I don’t have an answer, I think buying into the strong party division lines in respect to the transatlantic community is not sensible.
Hi Pauline:
Thanks for clarifying! Some groups that I believe epitomize anti-Americanism in Germany include opponents of military interventions abroad and the deployment of military personnel or equipment in Germany, opponents of free trade, and opponents of espionage or promoters of privacy rights. I suppose it is likelier to find such groups within the left-wing political spectrum.
Dear Pauline,
I really enjoyed reading your article and think you really make an important point with focusing on the transatlantic narrative. I think it is very important to count on legitimacy for the partnership by the societies themselves – not only governments. I am wondering what tools or ways would work to promote such a narrative. It might be the media, social media or non-governmental actors as individual influencers. One thing I am worried about, however, is that such an approach focusing on shared values might be very issue-centered (Woman’s rights or climate change ect.) and issues that do not currently receive such broad interest and support might be left out from discussion/be strongly influenced by the view of invidual interest-groups. Interested to hear your take on this! Thanks for your interesting piece!
Katharina
Dear Katharina,
thank you very much for your comment and your thoughts! I would expect that if a basis of shared values is established, that a cooperation is sustainable above the tides of popularism. However, your point still holds true. In a relationship that is always negotiated by civic actors, minority topics might not recieve much attention. I liked Carolin’s take on “interest-based” exchange. Do you think that might solve not only party line bias, but also the issue popularism?
Best wishes,
Pauline
Hi Pauline, I agree with you that the transatlantic partnership is something we should never take for granted and I also think that any effort to preserve it needs to address different parts of society. One point I’d like to add to your “value-based” exchange is an “interest-based” exchange (e.g. vocational training, urban planning). Common values and norms like the protection of civil rights should remain at the core of our alliance, but I agree with Claudia that discussions on these values tend to attract a certain demographic. I’m sure the examples you mentioned find broad support in Germany (also because they have a strong anti-Trump message), but they are highly polarized issues in the U.S. An interest-based approach would counter that because some of these interests (e.g. job creation) are shared beyond party lines. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts. All the best, Carolin
Hello Carolin – thank you for your thoughtful comment. As I have commented above as well, I, too, am worried that the cooperations I mentioned are easily divided by US political party lines.
The question is, if a coherent and broad narrative is possible in this regard at all. When we talk of both shared values or interests we either have to refer to basic democratic values as the ‘common denominator’ or will exclude a certain segment of either population (in important shared project such as the Paris Climate Accord). Better, it must include the sentiment that cooperation is a given advantage. I agree, however, that the narrative should not run so easily along one party line and value your idea of interest orientated projects.
Thanks, Pauline! I agree. I also really like what you said above about the “bonds between ordinary” citizens.
Good evening, I welcome many views in your article. I agree with Katharina that it’s good to start the thought-process at its beginning: defining a narrative. Shortly afterwards you point out the current missing trust in governments and say that other institutions may compensate. I’d rather say that most institutions are in their way linked to the government, threfore restoring basic trust in governments should be at the center of attention in my opinion. How to? You give some (not new but) good approaches, above all the bottom-up one, which should be self-evident defining democratic governments. A question to think about may be: What is there really at the bottom of the individual? Getting holistic answers here may also resolve the problems stated by Florian and Claudia (preventing it from becoming an empty buzzword)…
Hello Konrad and thank you very much for your comment!
You’re absolutely right, this approach is not news. The news might be that we now need it more than ever. From a legitimacy stand-point, the trust in institutions of international governance wok quite different from national ones. The chain of legitimacy is quite long in the former and also structurally different. Trying to restore trust in governments is important to functioning democracies, no doubt. However, maybe not the best tactic to restore the transatlantic relations. Which is why the focus on bottom-up approaches in international matters is not per se self-evident in democracies – if they should hold legitimacy in their own right, independent from governments, they have to enjoy the participation and approval of citizens. I am not quite sure what you imply by your question, but one answer might be, that interests and values of citizens could be communicated directly, instead of representation by governments . I am looking forward to further discussion!
Hi Pauline, I’m personally not so sure about the difference between trust in national vs. international institutions.. for that I believe there are the same basics that lead to trust, like e.g. transparency and above all the way of acting; if these actions are based on the interest of the people, trust will go hand in hand with them. And there we are: ” What is there really at the bottom of the individual?” –> what is their actual interest, their actual need; our actual interest? What is there at the bottom of the need for security and wealth (which in today’s world are both usually lived in a way that limits the security and wealth of others)? You mention the way of communicating the people’s interests and I think that direct communication is definitely to be involved, but that was not where I hinted at with my question. Just wanted to think about the underlying needs that are there at the very bottom of each of us. There is not (yet) one correct answer to that question, which may also be a reason why direct democracy can be involved but shouldn’t be everything, because most people are not yet aware of the needs at their bottom.
Pauline, I really enjoyed reading your article and I think you described the current situation quite well: “To change the focus of discourse from negotiations between governments to values held by citizens would be part of constructing this new narrative”. That sentence puts in a nutshell, what needs to be done. And it is out of question that we share a lot of values. But what we can also take advantage of, is that we also share the same problems, worries and challenges in our communities. If people understand that a family somewhere in the U.S. faces the same challenges as families do in Germany, there can also be a cooperation when solving the problems and looking for solutions. This should be done on a community level, with the right communication and an equivalent exchange – to make it a bottom up process.
Thank you Simon for your comment and your thoughts! I would agree with you, for a goal orientated perspective would greatly improve the chances of cooperaton. However, for a common narrative, a focus on shared values and already shared projects might be nessesary. I draw my perspective from the establishment of the European Union and its development from a economic union to, at least aspects of, a shared identity.
Could you elaborate on the community aspect? I am very interested in this perspective, but struggle to imagine what the concrete projects might imply.
Hi Simon, That’s an excellent point! I would add one aspect that you touched upon: being specific / focusing on specific topics. Just as you’re saying, shared challenges and problems are a good starting point. I’ve been wondering about the “communications aspect” myself. Do you have examples in mind?
Hi Pauline,
thanks you for the interesting article about further alternatives on increasing the involvement of citizens in the legislative and decision-making processes. To integrate many different participants as possible in a negotiation process I think it must follow an informal way. If the constitutionally established authorities vested with democratic legitimacy lose their mandate to negotiate – what they received from the voters – you get a constitutional problem. Maybe the gap between the lawfulness of the state’s institutions and their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens will increase further. Another question maybe the possibility to assign responsibilities for actions or decisions made by these new stakeholders. Greetings Tim
Hey Tim – thank you for your comment and your thoughts. What exactly do you mean by the informal way? I am interested in finding new alternatives to governmental structures as decision-makers. I actually don’t see the constitutional problem, can you elaborate on that as well?
I am looking forward to your response.
Dear Pauline, I really enjoyed reading your article! It brings something to the fore that is too often overlooked, however of great importance: the question of legitimacy. Are you familiar with the auhtors of the political Left in political theory? The distinction between politics and the political, which is today common sense of critical political theory, was popularized in the late seventies by Claude Lefort. In his theory, “the political” is the collective power that questions authority, i.e. “politics”. In democracy, he states, power is always dependend on legitimacy which creates an “empty place of power”. Theorists of “the political” (Schmitt, Foucault, Lacoue-Labarthe, Nancy, Mouffe, Rancière, Badiou) have in common that they question the classical, state-oriented conception of politics and propose the concept of “the political” as it counterpole. I really like this perspective because it puts the citizen in the center of the political. So, if you are interested in a theoretical approach to the concept it’s worth reading them! 🙂