The Sea Services need to connect with the American people, to create a public push for adequate funding. In 1916, 13-year old Marjorie Sterrett's letter to the New York Tribune - which included a dime to help the United States build a battleship - started a nationwide campaign. That kind of grassroots support is critical today.
During a recent meeting of foreign policy fellows at Oxford University, I attended a lecture by a Royal Air Force officer who recently had returned from a tour managing the allied air war over Syria. He explained the difficulties associated with executing a modern air war against the Islamic State. The proposed solution to many of the issues he faced included increasing investments in artificial intelligence to streamline engagement timelines and decrease the likelihood of civilian casualties. He feared, though, that the biggest impediment to introducing this new technology would be building enough public support to compel the government to act.
Could a serious public discussion about something like the need for investment in military artificial intelligence occur in the United States? These conversations do not often take place directly with the public, but rather though their elected officials in Congress, who, in turn, decide which programs to authorize and how much funding to appropriate.
Unfortunately, it seems this engagement strategy is not working. For the better part of the past 15 years, countless Defense Department officials and an endless parade of admirals have warned Congress of the ever-increasing risk of underfunded requirements, budgetary instability, and the resulting “do more with less” mentality. Despite impassioned pleas for resources and the promise of increased funding, nothing really changes.
Congress has been pursuing a 355-ship Navy for more than 15 years, and even with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises, nothing has come to fruition. The U.S. Coast Guard is not doing any better. And the U.S.-flagged Merchant Marine has been on a downward trajectory for decades.
If you believe as I do that our country lacks a coherent maritime strategy that justifies fully funding the Department of the Navy, supports a stronger Coast Guard, and a maintains a vibrant and healthy U.S-flag Merchant Marine, then you need to ask why.
Some basic root cause analysis shows the reason probably is that we have misidentified the true cause of the problem. It isn’t the Sea Services’ ability to communicate with Congress or the White House. It is their inability to connect with the American people. Without that connection, the Sea Services will fail to create the critical mass of public support needed to justify an adequate investment strategy.
A CHANGE IN ENGAGEMENT
For many years, the focus of all efforts to adequately fund U.S. maritime ambitions has been directed toward Congress. However, in a representative democracy, elected officials respond to pressure from the people.
Where is the public call to fund the Navy and Coast Guard? Budget shortfalls are a real problem, but they rarely make mainstream news in a way designed to inform the public. So, it would appear that if the Sea Services want action from Congress, they will need some sort of grassroots campaign—a critical mass of the public to demand a solution.
Is it unrealistic to assume the American public would demand a 355-ship Navy, a strong Coast Guard, and a strong Merchant Marine? History says no.
In 1916, schoolchildren from across the nation sent 200,000 dimes to the Navy to build a new battleship prior to the U.S. entry into the war in Europe, and in 1936, Congress came together to enact sweeping reforms for the U.S. Merchant Marine based on public outcry after a maritime disaster claimed the lives of 137 Americans.
How could it be that the American public was more informed, with a better grasp of world events, 80 to 100 years ago than they are now?
To answer that question, compare how the public consumed information then versus today. In 1916, the news was delivered almost exclusively in print reporting from a handful of major newspapers and magazines. By 1930, radio had entered the market, but news distribution still was controlled primarily by a handful of major media organizations. Consumers had far fewer choices, and news focused on a smaller number of major events. In short, the news was a lot less varied and a lot less complicated. In contrast, most Americans today form their opinions based on a wider array of news sources—papers, magazines, television, and increasingly the internet and social media.
TRADITIONAL MEDIA IS NOT THE ANSWER
According to the BBC and Reuters, 51 percent of media consumers received more of their news from social media than from television or traditional print in 2016, and that number has been on the rise. The problem is social media users are more likely to engage with people and media sources that already share their interests, political beliefs, and ideologies, rendering most social media feeds nothing more than an echo chamber.
All is not doom and gloom, however. The Sea Services simply need to adjust their method of delivery to the way the public now consumes media to take advantage of the growing niche market developing at the crossroads of explanatory journalism and digital media.
Explanatory journalism is a form of reporting that attempts to present detailed news stories in an accessible format in about five minutes or less and, when married with modern digital media techniques on social media, often includes animation and data visualization.
Many complex newsworthy topics with a direct impact on Americans, such as the Chinese island-building campaign in the South China Sea, develop over the course of years—far too slowly for most American attention spans. A traditional news story covering the latest development often is of little interest to consumers who haven’t been following the issue. Explanatory journalism as it has evolved on social media challenges the traditional cable TV news model by providing consumers with context and background in a short presentation that can be viewed over and over and, perhaps more important, can be shared. It offers something between the 40-second breaking news story and a traditional hour-long documentary.
Sam Ellis’s work for the internet content provider Vox titled “Why China Is Building Islands in the South China Sea” is a great example.1 His video has been viewed on Facebook more than 2.4 million times (and that does not include other sites). Launched in 2014, Vox labels itself as a service designed to “explain the news” in a world where consumers are exposed to too much information and not enough context. Vox journalists guide audiences through complex political and policy subjects in short videos on Facebook, YouTube, email, iTunes, Snapchat, and Instagram.
Fivethirtyeight is another website that focuses on the creation of short videos based on “statistical analysis and hard numbers to tell compelling stories about elections, politics, sports, science, economics and lifestyle.” The conservative content provider Prager University says its mission is to provide the “best ideas from the best minds and distill them into five, focused minutes,” and according to its own research claims, its videos have been viewed more than a billion times.
Contrast the current methods used to tell Americans about the U.S. maritime strategy. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard all have their own websites, as does the U.S. Maritime Administration for the Merchant Marine. Each offers links to statistics, papers, reports, and photos. This detailed information is useful, but it is not in a format that is going to inspire a grassroots campaign to garner the support needed to pressure Congress into action. The Marine Corps does have some good videos on its site, but they are focused on current events and not the continued strategic need for a Marine Corps. The Navy League operates a website with links to in-depth papers and reports, but nothing that is likely to inspire the public at large.
WHAT IF?
What if Vox or the Navy League provided a seven-minute video that gave an unbiased look at the Jones Act, where viewers could gain an appreciation for the link between cabotage protections, trade, and strategic sealift? What if Prager University or Fivethirtyeight did a five-minute video based on how 13-year-old Marjorie Sterrett turned the allowances of schoolchildren into a nationwide campaign to build a battleship prior to World War I?
The challenges facing the United States today are great. With the rise of China in the Pacific and the resurgence of Russia in the Atlantic, many are arguing that we have moved beyond the postwar years into the pre-war years. Military readiness, particularly naval readiness, is at an all-time low, and it is doubtful the U.S. Navy will ever get to 355 ships without the support of the people. The 2018 presidential budget attempted to cut more than a billion dollars from the Coast Guard’s budget as it tries to modernize its aging fleet. Likewise, the U.S. Merchant Marine is under attack. President Trump lifted the Jones Act—which requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships built, owned, and operated by U.S. citizens or permanent residents—in the wake of hurricanes in the Caribbean and the U.S. Gulf Coast, opening the door for calls for its permanent repeal.
If we want a comprehensive maritime strategy, a 355-ship naval fleet, a well-resourced Coast Guard, and a strong U.S. Merchant Marine, the Sea Services need to have a discussion directly with the American people, providing a coherent message on their terms, in a format they consume.
1. First released on 17 February 2017. See it here.
Commander Harts is the U.S. Navy’s Hudson Fellow at the University of Oxford. A graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, he previously commanded the USS Benfold (DDG-65) in the western Pacific.