Then and Now: Navigating Washington in the New World Order

This year marks the 25^th anniversary of President George H.W. Bush’s State of the Union Speech to Congress at the start of the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq where he invoked the now famous vision of a new world order in the final months of the Cold War: “What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind—peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future.” While the sentiment was not completely new, the timing of the statement was important as the United States assumed its position as the sole global superpower. The speech sought to define a new and positive vision of the world and of U.S. power and it previewed many of the issues that occupy the world’s attention in 2016. There are references to the need for international action against aggression, a free Europe with Germany at the center, the central importance of the Soviet Union and related concerns about freedom in the Baltic States, the value of trade agreements, the pursuit of peace in the Persian Gulf, and the role of American leadership. Despite the continuity of the global agenda, much has changed. The question today is: What has changed and how does it impact decision making in Washington? Without doubt, 2016 is an unsettled period of social, economic, and technological change, driving public attitudes in positive and negative directions.  There is legitimate anxiety, anger, unease, and dissatisfaction caused by a number of factors conspiring at once. Global trade, technology, and the new internet economy have created more competition, threatening privacy and security and exacerbating the gap between the haves and have-nots. The evolution of a multi-polar world and new ideologies, an increase in terrorist networks and attacks, and a variety of regional disputes, wars and revolutions has created a new sense of anxiety among populations. Finally, the failure (real and perceived) of leaders and institutions to adequately confront these challenges has led to anger and disillusionment, particularly in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis. What this means for navigating Washington, DC is that the factors influencing decision makers and the traditional ways of engaging them are evolving.  It also means that doing business in Washington has changed in some important ways. Decision makers do not necessarily lack substance compared to a generation ago, but are increasingly distracted and disengaged as multiple priorities compete for their time and attention. Partisanship has increased, but has also changed as factional and individual interests ascend at the expense of national or party unity. The role of external actors in policy development is greater and more important, as decision makers have more forces arrayed against them and less time to develop policy and make decisions.   Finally, decision makers have grown more risk-averse and skeptical; yet seek media attention, political benefit, fundraising support, and voter attention perhaps more than ever. Regardless of who becomes the next U.S. President, there are new realities that frame how Washington works.

• Relationships Still Matter – While social media has expanded and democratized political involvement, it still pays to pursue a strategy that invests in consistent, fully engaged and mutually beneficial relationships because such relationships produce the best results.
• Solutions Not Problems – Decision makers lack the capacity and resources they once had as budget constraints in the public and private sectors drive political calculations as much as ever, suggesting that advocates need to anticipate problems and define solutions before engaging leaders.
• Protecting Reputation – In the era of social media where even minor controversy can lead to major negative attention, advocates should define and mitigate any potential risks for the decision makers with whom they collaborate while maximizing policy, political, media and societal benefits.
• Prove Your Case – Despite the seemingly transient, fast-paced and less substantive nature of policy debate in Washington, the advent of technology and big data, combined with fewer resources and greater skepticism about government, means that more than ever, arguments and positions should be backed by credible, clear, and convincing information.
• Empathize and Support – In an increasingly combative, partisan, and competitive political atmosphere, it is important to fully understand and embrace the positions and points of view of the decision makers with who advocates collaborate to show solidarity and commitment.
• Inside Out – As a result of the rebalance of political power and advocacy away from political parties and lobbyists, and towards grassroots practitioners, community leaders, local activists, social media experts, big data specialists and fundraisers, advocates must often engage these partners and use a broader set of complementary tools to achieve policy outcomes

Fundamentally, U.S. policy making has not changed, however, it has evolved in significant ways that require different and more nuanced approaches. This is particularly true for international audiences who are not necessarily known entities, understood, or fully appreciated at first—and who don’t have obvious and traditional political and policy benefits to offer. The dynamics that define the current world order continue to have an impact in Washington and could not have been fully anticipated a generation ago. Today’s environment requires advocates to adapt how they think, how they operate and ultimately how they succeed.   About the author: Jonathan Gregory is a government affairs consultant in Washington, D.C.