The Foreign Service Journal, November 2005

66 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 5 Lessons Yet Unlearned The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century Richard T. Arndt, Potomac Books, 2005, $45.00, hardcover, 556 pages. R EVIEWED BY C YNTHIA P. S CHNEIDER Ri chard B. Arndt’s The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century , the product of more than a decade’s work, could not be more timely. Had its lessons on “best practices” (and worst) in cultural diplomacy only been heeded, we might well have averted failures in our recent public diplomacy initiatives, documented in so many recent studies. Instead, U.S. policy-makers have repeatedly committed many of the mistakes Arndt catalogs here: con- fusing diplomacy with advertising, appealing only to one sector of the targeted population (i.e., youth), and ignoring the intelligentsia and opin- ion leaders. These are not new problems by any means, but they have undermined our intense efforts since 9/11 to attain the “respect and praise” of the world, to use Thomas Jefferson’s words. As he skillfully chronicles the ups and downs of cultural diplomacy over the past century, Arndt leaves no doubt that he views its overall course as a decline. He weaves into his narrative thoughtful discussions of key themes, including the tension between long-term and short-term goals and results; Americans’ historic ambivalence about the role of the intelligentsia; and the perpetual debate within the government about where the institutional responsibility for cultural diplomacy belongs. Consider the distinction between propaganda and cultural diplomacy. Arndt reminds us that, as Charles Thompson commented in the 1940s, “The technique of propaganda is generally similar to advertising; it seeks to impress, to ‘press in.’ The technique of cultural relations is that of education … to ‘lead out’ … [Its] goal is something deeper and more lasting, the creation of a state of mind properly called ‘understand- ing.’” Arndt concedes that many Ameri- cans doubt the utility of cultural engagement because of the difficul- ty of assessing its “value.” But how do you measure the impact of expe- riencing Louis Armstrong jamming, seeing Twyla Tharp dancing, or studying in a U.S. university? In fact, America stands alone in seeking quantifiable results from such endeavors; other countries, notably postwar France and Germany, have taken for granted the critical role of cultural expression and relations, both in communicating about them- selves and in understanding others. Arndt, a retired USIA officer, is refreshingly blunt about the disdain with which the Foreign Service community traditionally has regard- ed cultural diplomacy. I experi- enced this attitude first-hand in 1998 as ambassador to the Nether- lands, when my public affairs officer proudly told me, “We don’t do cul- ture; we do policy.” (This was in line with the prevailing USIA orthodoxy of the 1990s that “policy,” with sup- posedly more measurable results, had more value than cultural affairs.) She looked utterly baffled when I explained that with everyone else in the embassy doing policy, I wanted some people working on culture, too! One of the most bittersweet as- pects of Arndt’s narrative is the con- trast between the almost miraculous success of so many cultural diploma- cy initiatives, carried out by dedicat- ed cultural affairs officers on a shoe- string budget, and the gradual dis- B OOKS Arndt, a retired USIA officer, is refreshingly blunt about the disdain with which the Foreign Service community traditionally has regarded cultural diplomacy. u