By (Washington Post Op-Ed,
…Public attitudes toward democracy, we show, have soured over time. Citizens, especially millennials, have less faith in the democratic system. They are more likely to express hostile views of democracy. And they vote for anti-establishment parties and candidates that disregard long-standing democratic norms in ever greater numbers…
Click here for information on the FDR Foundation’s “In Defense of Democracy” Program.
Seventy-five years ago this morning, the United States was firmly isolationist. Widely disillusioned by the aftermath of the “War to End All Wars,” the American public turned its attention inward after WWI, first preoccupied with the financial glitter and gains of the Roaring 20s, then plunged into social introspection and cross-examination by the Great Depression. In 1941, America was deeply divided as to whether to rescue Europe again, however dire the situation there. Only the huge shock of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 — “a date which will live in infamy” — jolted the nation from its isolationist stance.
Since that fateful day, the international landscape has been entirely reshaped, largely as a result of the hard-fought efforts by Roosevelt to create a new post-war world order: one that would link the world in an interconnected web of economic, political and social cooperation and prevent us from slipping back into the slumbers of isolationism. From FDR’s Fourth Inaugural Address:
“Today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons – at a fearful cost – and we shall profit by them. We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other Nations, far away… We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community. We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that, ‘The only way to have a friend is to be one.’”
And, in fact, the world we live in today is largely that of Roosevelt’s vision. But as of today, the 75th anniversary of the trigger for the North Atlantic Alliance, cracks have appeared and deepened in the shining façade. Public mistrust of trade agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — on both sides of the Atlantic — threaten to derail economic cooperation. Reluctance among some Americans to maintain NATO in light of sometimes lackadaisical European allies portends trouble for the military alliance, illiberal ideologies and anti-immigration populism are on the rise, and the related resurgence of isolationism in the United States menaces U.S. foreign relations.
Does America, and the West broadly, have the will to to maintain the post war order over the next 75 years? Or will something new, or old, replace it?
COMPARING INEQUALITY IN CANADA AND THE US
Tonight, Monday, November 21, 5-7 p.m in the Upper Common Room
Join Canadian students from across Harvard as we hear from Professor Krishna Pendakur, Harvard’s William Lyon Mackenzie King Visiting Professor at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Professor Pendakur, who is visiting from Simon Fraser University, specializes in inequality economics. He will provide attendees with a comparative analysis of inequality in the United States and Canada, followed by reception to meet fellow Canadians and our friends across Harvard University. Wine and cheese will be served.
Talk and Reception hosted by the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Canada Program and Canadian Students’ Associations of Harvard University
The event is public and open for all. Please RSVP on Facebook:
http://programs.wcfia.harvard.edu/canada_program/event/canada-program-special-event-1?delta=0
Philippe Le Corre has been a Visiting Fellow in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution since 2014. He is also a Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and Sciences Po Paris and is the co-author of a recent book, China’s Offensive in Europe (Brookings Institution Press, 2016). His background includes a stint as a senior adviser to France’s defense minister and as deputy mayor of a small coastal town in France, in addition to 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia and Europe. He was a 2003-2004 Fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard, and chaired the Harvard Club of France from 2010 to 2012.
Hosted by Canadian student organizations at Harvard University (invitation only)
—–
Disinformation is dangerous. In the United States we’ve seen disinformation campaigns denying the dangers of smoking and the existence of climate change. We’ve seen popular, utterly false narratives circulate about the measles vaccine causing autism and the federal government establishing “Obamacare” “death panels.” There are real consequences to disinformation: it can affect policy decisions, distract or disgruntle the electorate, even alter the outcome of elections.
Generally, “disinformation” refers to distributing information that one knows is false. “Propaganda” is an older term that used to mean “propagation of the truth” but lost positive connotations, especially after WWII. Disinformation could be part of a propaganda or “public diplomacy” campaign but is generally a more specific term.
Globally, the past couple of years have seen an increase in systematic disinformation campaigns worldwide. Finns, along with citizens of many if not most countries, are targets of disinformation campaigns. That’s why, in January 2016, the Finnish government partnered with the FDR Foundation to educate more than 100 officials from 20+ ministries and departments in responding to foreign “Information & Influence.”