Tensions were running high on Friday as Congress was still in a stalemate and the hours drew nearer to the deadline that would result in a government shutdown. Domestically the shutdown would have been a terrible experience, which would have resulted in, for example, national parks and the Smithsonian’s closing. Though there was a silver lining in that restaurants were advertising discounts or Z-Burger said they would be offering free burgers to all government employees. That aside the government shutdown would have reached beyond our borders. It would have meant that embassies and consulates were closed and all programs and events that were planned would not be allowed to go on, which would have been awful PD for the United States. What example would we have been setting for the rest of the world? When we try to export democracy and try to be the shining city upon the hill, it is contradictory when we cannot even pass our own budget. It would have been detrimental to our PD efforts if everything would have had to been stopped, no programs or embassy services, American centers closed, it would have looked very bad.
Congress pulled through at the eleventh hour with a proposed compromise and passed a continuing resolution that would keep our government funded for a little bit longer. If there was a shutdown, I think this would have hurt the credibility of our PD because we are promoting ideals and trying to portray a stable image of our country to the world, but then in the case of the shutdown, it would have contradicted all of these things. It would have hurt our image as a nation and negatively impacted our PD efforts, but also our image to foreign visitors who would not have been able to visit the Smithsonian’s or would have been shut out from seeing something like the Grand Canyon. Luckily, this did not occur, but it is interesting that something that seems it would only cause problems domestically actually has a much farther reaching impact zone.
I think your comment about a shutdown affecting the image of the US as stable is very valid. I'm not so sure that its effect on foreign visitors' perceptions of the US, as most visitors tend to visit attractions that are usually not effected by a government shutdown. I think this is something to keep in mind when we go into the debate on raising the debt ceiling. Although it may not affect international visitors, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would most definitely hurt America's image within the global business community not to mention other governments. I wonder if the PD implications of a failure to raise the debt ceiling will be mentioned during the forthcoming debate.
ReplyDeleteYou guys raise some interesting PD questions around the almost government shutdown, thanks for all of those thoughts. I have been thinking about it from the Edward Murrow standpoint of being in on the takeoffs and wondering if more public and persuasive messaging by the administration both to members of Congress and also the American public could've helped in not bringing the situation to such a crisis point?
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time drawing the line neatly with what's "internal" (national debate) and what's "external" (projected out to the rest of the world) as our class discussion progesses about it being a 2.0 world--whatever Obama says will eventually get out anyway, even if it's part of our internal national debate, so it doesn't much matter.
What was so worrisome to me was that so many Americans didn't understand what was at stake in this decision-making process, so (goes without saying) how could external audiences possibly know why this was such a big deal, and understand that there are huge philosophical differences between our two political parties? More persuasive talk, including good basic information around the issues, including what's at stake for Americans would've helped the administration define the debate and then defend their budget priorities.
But I think they were caught off guard last week when the republicans threw in the unexpected bits about planned parenthood, and the funding of abortions in DC, for example. It's actually my hope that they were caught off guard and didn't have time to use effective PD to let people know what was going on. I know President Obama is going on TV tonight, but it seems a little late (again in a 2.0 world)--why is he waiting? DC officials from the mayor on down have already been super vocal and have said how much they dislike the provision to cut abortion funding for low-income women in the district in an effort to try to get it repealed before it becomes the law--they have been on NPR, in the paper, everywhere getting out that message. Where is the administration, and why are they waiting so long to talk about what the Gang of Six is proposing? It just seems like a passive approach rather than using proactive PD from the getgo to really frame the debate and set the stage for all of these discussions.