Our Much Abused State Department

MOST Americans who write of American foreign policy denounce their Government. They take it as axiomatic that the Department of State is selfish and materialistic, that to differ proves their own beautiful idealism. They, of course, do not construct policy. They have the easier and more congenial task of pulling it to pieces. An Englishman or a Frenchman or a German seldom condemns his government in advance, especially in international dealings. His tendency is rather to support his government as long as he conscientiously can. I see no reason why Americans should be less patriotic.

Policy is based on ascertained facts and the man of average intelligence must realize that the Department of State has more facts at its disposal than has the reader of the newspapers, the versatile producer of newspaper articles, or even the professor in his study. When the Department, therefore, takes a position I try to suspend judgment until I have learned the facts on which the decision was based. Mr. Kellogg is a man of intelligence and breadth of vision. He has been a great lawyer and is, therefore, able to weigh evidence. The President has much to do with foreign policy. He is a man of high ideals, a clear and patriotic thinker, without his Secretary's knowledge of international matters but quick to grasp the essential facts on which foreign policy must be based and ready to act fearlessly when that policy is decided. I am unwilling to surrender my independent judgment to these men or to any others, but I am willing to start with the assumption that the policy they are trying to carry on is honest and that it is an intelligent attempt to interpret facts for the good of the United States.

On one point I am willing severely to criticize the Department of State. I believe that its reticence in the publication of facts gives destructive criticism the opportunity to influence public opinion before the Government states its own case and that this is one of the main reasons why that destructive criticism is so effective. What we read first remains in our memory, no matter how much goodwill we may have. I am convinced that this paucity of reliable information is the reason why I can myself make a less effective defense of American foreign policy and must often explain it from the point of view of tradition and common sense...

This is a premium article

You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.