PROPAGANDA AGAINST PROPAGANDA: DECONSTRUCTING THE DOMINANT NARRATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION A Thesis by CHRISTOPHER ERIC HOWARD Submitted to the Graduate School at Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2014 Department of History PROPAGANDA AGAINST PROPAGANDA: DECONSTRUCTING THE DOMINANT NARRATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION A Thesis by CHRISTOPHER ERIC HOWARD May 2014 APPROVED BY: Judkin J. Browning Chairperson, Thesis Committee Michael L. Krenn Member, Thesis Committee Lynne M. Getz Member, Thesis Committee Lucinda M. McCray Chairperson, Department of History Edelma D. Huntley, Ph.D. Dean, Cratis Williams Graduate School Copyright by Christopher Eric Howard 2014 All Rights Reserved Abstract PROPAGANDA AGAINST PROPAGANDA: DECONSTRUCTING THE DOMINANT NARRATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION Christopher Eric Howard B.S., Appalachian State University M.A., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Judkin Browning This thesis examines how the World War I-era Committee on Public Information, created by President Woodrow Wilson and chaired by George Creel, has been presented as a case study in the dangers of government propaganda. A thorough examination of the secondary literature on World War I propaganda, an extensive survey of United States History textbooks, and a gleaning of relevant websites confirms that a dominant narrative of the Committee exist. This narrative relies on common persuasive techniques to cast the Committee, and by extension propaganda, in a negative light. The dominant narrative’s claims are substantially disproven through a careful study of the wartime correspondence between Wilson and Creel and through the application of current Department of Defense methodology for determining the effectiveness of Psychological Operations. By deconstructing this dominant narrative, this thesis argues in favor of a value-neutral interpretation of the Committee on Public Information. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. Judkin Browning, for his patience and expert guidance, as well as Drs. Michael Krenn and Lynne Getz for graciously agreeing to serve on my thesis committee. I would also like to thank those who have read my work and offered comment, to include Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) D.J. Weatherford and my fellow graduate students Nathan Widener and Dylan James. Finally, I could not have done this without the love, prayers, and unwavering support of my parents, Terry and Cheryl Howard, and of Mary. v Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................11 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................44 Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................73 Chapter 4 ..........................................................................................................................104 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................139 Appendices .......................................................................................................................146 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................161 Vita ...................................................................................................................................172 vi INTRODUCTION We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of facts. George Creel How We Advertised America, 1920 Anyone consulting the Wikipedia article on the “Committee on Public Information” will find, as the article’s foremost image, a striking example of World War I propaganda. This image is a World War I-era propaganda poster portraying a mustachioed gorilla, mouth agape, fangs exposed, bearing a club labeled “Kultur” in one hand and a helpless, bare- breasted damsel in the other. The gorilla, crowned with a spiked helmet (pickelhaube) bearing the word “militarism,” is standing on a shore that is labeled “America.” Above the gorilla are the words “Destroy This Mad Brute.” Below this image, the poster reads “Enlist,” with “U.S. Army” superimposed over it. It is a stunningly vivid example of propaganda. It seems likely that this particular poster has proven to be such an enduring symbol of World War I propaganda because it is so overt. Its symbols are as clear as they are offensive to most modern eyes. Its message is so clear that it does not need interpretation—and yet there is so much going on. It takes some time to process all of the elements intellectually and yet its meaning is conveyed instantaneously. It is an image that has become synonymous with propaganda and, through a variety of both scholarly and non-scholarly sources, with the Committee on Public Information (CPI), America’s “propaganda ministry” during World War I.1 The problem is that “Destroy This Mad Brute” was not the work of the CPI. 1. “Committee on Public Information,” Wikipedia, last modified November 23, 2013, accessed November 23, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information. 1 Errors such as the misattribution of “Destroy This Mad Brute” to the CPI are not uncommon. In the century since the CPI’s brief existence (1917-1919), it has been the subject of misinterpretation as much as interpretation. Successive generations of schoolchildren have learned about the CPI through textbooks that use “Destroy This Mad Brute,” among other evidence, to convey the excessiveness of the CPI. Scholars seeking to prove the charge that the CPI resorted increasingly to appeals to hate and fear as the war progressed produce “Destroy This Mad Brute” as evidence. They also present the CPI Chairman George Creel as a one-man show, a tactless bumbler, a petty tyrant or, worse yet, a villain who almost single-handedly suspended civil liberties in the name of wartime necessity. Generations of scholars have also highlighted the CPI’s alleged excessiveness to make a broader point about the dangers of propaganda in a democratic society. Over time, a dominant narrative of the CPI coalesced around these key tenets. It feeds off of negative impressions of propaganda, exemplified by the CPI, and embraces the cautionary message that the CPI must be studied lest it, or something worse, be inflicted on the American people in the name of patriotism. This thesis argues that a dominant narrative of the CPI, as described above, exists and that it is not substantiated by the available evidence. The cautionary aspect of the dominant narrative hinges on assumptions of the CPI’s effectiveness that wither under scrutiny. Additionally, the singular focus on George Creel overlooks the working relationship between Creel and President Woodrow Wilson, meanwhile ignoring the role of the thousands of Americans who volunteered their often considerable talents to the work of the CPI. Finally, the dominant narrative excludes evidence of the CPI’s moderation because such evidence would undermine the cautionary message. Scholars should reject this narrative in favor of a 2 historical interpretation of the CPI that recognizes that it was a vast cooperative, progressive, and largely voluntary enterprise that was relatively moderate when compared with many of the other forces vying for the American mind during World War I. Methodology Chapter one traces the development of the three competing historiographical interpretations of the CPI that emerged during the 1920s and 1930s as part of a broader struggle over the usefulness, meaning, and moral implications of propaganda. The celebratory interpretation of the CPI was furthered mainly by those who had been directly involved in the work of the committee and is exemplified by the works of George Creel and Edward Bernays. The instructive interpretation emerged out of a desire to study propaganda, and later the CPI, from a value-neutral perspective. It is most thoroughly articulated in the works of James Mock and Cedric Larson, Stephen Vaughn, and David Kennedy. Finally, the cautionary interpretation resulted from the nascent revisionist movement of the 1920s and can be observed in the work of Charles H. Hamlin and Harry Elmer Barnes. More recently, this interpretation has been furthered by Stewart Halsey Ross and Thomas Fleming. Although the cautionary interpretation provides the cornerstone of the dominant narrative of the CPI, it is but one aspect of this narrative. Chapter one provides evidence of the dominant narrative’s other components, drawing heavily from the recent secondary literature. After establishing the characteristics of the dominant narrative