In fairness to the powers that be...in the one of the FEW circumstances I will come to their defense (in particular, towards the current holder of the title of US President)

Diplomacy is about protocol, diplomacy is always about the schmooze. Lack of hospitality can cause you problems and unintended consequences (it has been argued that not getting two men together to have a drink together in the same room has changed the course of history--i.e., Charles Evans Hughes and Hiram Johnson in 1916, but I digress).

Having said that, I agree the public (and private) actions a leader, or group of leaders takes, both in deed as well as in ceremony has tremendous symbolism. It does appear as utter action in lack of integrity, re: the 18-course dinner. I am reminded from the last official recession in the United States (at least before now ) when First Lady Nancy Reagan insisted on new White House china while whole industries and cities crumbled economically in the early 1980s.

It's kind of damning, isn't it, now?

Context is everything too.

Having said that, Mrs. Reagan certainly understood the importance of schmooze, compensating for the austerity of the Carter White House.

While I have more fondness for Mr. Carter than I do for the memory of Mr. Reagan, it can clearly be settled by students that Mr. Reagan was far more successful a president in getting what he wanted accomplished.

Obviously just because someone throws a better party doesn't guarantee that person is a better leader, but it certainly helps in terms of diplomacy, and being that better prepared in attempting to persuade others toward esteem and the persuader's point of view in a positive manner.

Caveman