I came to this piece after reading your two posts on Mamdani and Third Worldism. Based on this article, it would seem that Third Worldism has a point, that these countries are, if not colonies, then at least supplicants to Empire.
I don’t know if I’m sold that hard-nosed Realpolitik is appreciated by other nations while soft power is reviled, but I do think respecting that other nations have goals different from ours is important. At the same time, internally nations need to tell themselves stories in order to live, which Trump is gleefully dismantling. So maybe “Trump in the streets, Obama in the sheets” is a puckish description of a better balance of how the U.S. should carry itself.
Soft power certainly has its virtues and its uses. It can serve to enhance or persuade, but it can never effectively oppose the barrel of a gun. So, when soft power directly opposes raw power, as we saw with Tiananmen Square or with the peaceful protests of the Iranian people against the mullahs, the tyrants with the guns and tanks win the day. The Roman fable of the wolf and the lamb shared this understanding more than two thousand years ago.
If the death grip of the mullahs is to be broken this time around, it will be because they recognize that with Israel's assault and the public's rage, they are now confronting a power greater than their own. And they will run for their lives.
The problem with A soft power is that their influence , comes only from money. People who are with you just because of money , generally are not a people who are well respected in their own country. Little hatred of USA in an eastern country is because they support a people who are of a dubious nature. In long term these dubious people hurt their own country . As people see their money comes from USA , they started to see the USA in a negative way. In long term soft power is actually hurting the USA.
As as a researcher and 'defender' of soft power, allow me a few points:
- "The assumption is always the same: that American leadership depends not on force or leverage, but on image, narrative, and goodwill." > Not exactly, nobody said the US' power is only (nor mainly) soft, but it has provided considerable appreciation and yep, attraction in the past decades, leading to hegemonic stability (for the ones who complied). Some call it, the American dream.
- "It allows Washington to feel powerful without having to act powerfully." > Isn't this great? Better to avoid / prevent wars and clashes, and you can do that with admiration and diplomacy, while threats and coercion lead to resentment, such as aligning with others whenever the opportunity arises, which is basically what most of the world is (regrettably and suddenly) trying to do now because the US has abandoned their soft power
- "Necessity, not sentiment, is what shapes foreign policy choices" > You are considering only times / occasions of conflicts. As mentioned above, soft power ensures admiration and stability while lowering the chances of opposition. Many countries were and still are skeptical of China till the US became the disruptor (abandoning soft power), and although it is too early to say, more and more countries are gravitating towards China, because of a mix of soft-economic power, certainly not threats.
- "the tools of soft power are rarely perceived as neutral" > Your claims are quite limiting; how many even if it was considered hegemonic perceived American culture and the American dream as a threat? Perhaps Iran, North Korea and a few others. Instead, most countries emulated the attempt to create a compelling narrative while nurturing their cultural resources. Although there may be some win-lose occasions, most countries are pursuing their soft power strategies leading to reputational and economic benefits (like in the Middle East or South Korea), not at the expenses of the US, but along with. Soft power can be competitive but win-win. Also, there is the consideration of charming power and charmed, and the competitor(s) of the charming one, like China-US, but that's why we call it power, it's a form of influence, softer, via attraction, to obtain certain (long-term) goals. Also, culture in general is much less controversial than foreign policy and certainly political values (that's why China is not exporting Communism).
The core of my argument is that soft power fosters stability (through admiration and appreciation) which is arguably more desirable than the forced / imposed stability through threats and coercion. US relinquished its soft power, and we're all experiencing the chaos that ensued.
And I do have more points but I'll let it be for the time being.
Soft power is deserving of criticism, but they should be based on more solid and researched points, not sweeping and superficial generalizations based for the most part on the actions of major powers, like the US. Soft power dynamics are extremely complex, and they need complex and nuanced analysis, not simplistic dismissal.
I agree with the last bit, but American soft power failed for the 2012 ua, and it lost a lot of credibility with the weird cultural things which were specifically campaigned against in other countries. It also lost a lot of credibility with the Afghanistan bit. The pull-out wasn't too bad, but the full takeover in less than a month was really bad instead of making usa look like the one powerful military, they looked like failed nation builders. Resentment grew then. The world hasn't suddenly become resentful.
Another example is Taiwan voted against gay marriage but their congress enacted it. This was done to shore up security. I'm not sure how that can't backfire and lead to resentment. If it can, then there's definitely more to be said about it.
1. was the soft power world “imagined in the 90s” a world where soft power really worked? if it wasn’t, doesn’t it seem a bit incoherent to claim that the *world* is different now (rather than what people think about the world)? was soft power real and effective then but no longer is? or was it always an illusion?
2. can you provide an example where a country was confused or disillusioned by the opacity of US soft-power diplomacy? (Obama era?) it doesn’t seem obvious that Trump’s brand of diplomacy is any more straightforward or appreciated by other countries, given its unpredictability, and in contrast to so-called soft-power approaches
I reckon that President Trump and many Americans had concluded that USAID is no more a tool of influence and populism campaign. President Trump is convinced that one should pay to access something in order to value it.
Thanks very much for your article. Thought provoking.
Some things only matter when other things have been addressed. Power is hard; narratives are soft. Power is first, anything else is second.
Soft power as the last refuge of the impotent? Could be-those NGOs will not write their own obituaries.
I came to this piece after reading your two posts on Mamdani and Third Worldism. Based on this article, it would seem that Third Worldism has a point, that these countries are, if not colonies, then at least supplicants to Empire.
I don’t know if I’m sold that hard-nosed Realpolitik is appreciated by other nations while soft power is reviled, but I do think respecting that other nations have goals different from ours is important. At the same time, internally nations need to tell themselves stories in order to live, which Trump is gleefully dismantling. So maybe “Trump in the streets, Obama in the sheets” is a puckish description of a better balance of how the U.S. should carry itself.
Soft power certainly has its virtues and its uses. It can serve to enhance or persuade, but it can never effectively oppose the barrel of a gun. So, when soft power directly opposes raw power, as we saw with Tiananmen Square or with the peaceful protests of the Iranian people against the mullahs, the tyrants with the guns and tanks win the day. The Roman fable of the wolf and the lamb shared this understanding more than two thousand years ago.
If the death grip of the mullahs is to be broken this time around, it will be because they recognize that with Israel's assault and the public's rage, they are now confronting a power greater than their own. And they will run for their lives.
The problem with A soft power is that their influence , comes only from money. People who are with you just because of money , generally are not a people who are well respected in their own country. Little hatred of USA in an eastern country is because they support a people who are of a dubious nature. In long term these dubious people hurt their own country . As people see their money comes from USA , they started to see the USA in a negative way. In long term soft power is actually hurting the USA.
As as a researcher and 'defender' of soft power, allow me a few points:
- "The assumption is always the same: that American leadership depends not on force or leverage, but on image, narrative, and goodwill." > Not exactly, nobody said the US' power is only (nor mainly) soft, but it has provided considerable appreciation and yep, attraction in the past decades, leading to hegemonic stability (for the ones who complied). Some call it, the American dream.
- "It allows Washington to feel powerful without having to act powerfully." > Isn't this great? Better to avoid / prevent wars and clashes, and you can do that with admiration and diplomacy, while threats and coercion lead to resentment, such as aligning with others whenever the opportunity arises, which is basically what most of the world is (regrettably and suddenly) trying to do now because the US has abandoned their soft power
- "Necessity, not sentiment, is what shapes foreign policy choices" > You are considering only times / occasions of conflicts. As mentioned above, soft power ensures admiration and stability while lowering the chances of opposition. Many countries were and still are skeptical of China till the US became the disruptor (abandoning soft power), and although it is too early to say, more and more countries are gravitating towards China, because of a mix of soft-economic power, certainly not threats.
- "the tools of soft power are rarely perceived as neutral" > Your claims are quite limiting; how many even if it was considered hegemonic perceived American culture and the American dream as a threat? Perhaps Iran, North Korea and a few others. Instead, most countries emulated the attempt to create a compelling narrative while nurturing their cultural resources. Although there may be some win-lose occasions, most countries are pursuing their soft power strategies leading to reputational and economic benefits (like in the Middle East or South Korea), not at the expenses of the US, but along with. Soft power can be competitive but win-win. Also, there is the consideration of charming power and charmed, and the competitor(s) of the charming one, like China-US, but that's why we call it power, it's a form of influence, softer, via attraction, to obtain certain (long-term) goals. Also, culture in general is much less controversial than foreign policy and certainly political values (that's why China is not exporting Communism).
The core of my argument is that soft power fosters stability (through admiration and appreciation) which is arguably more desirable than the forced / imposed stability through threats and coercion. US relinquished its soft power, and we're all experiencing the chaos that ensued.
And I do have more points but I'll let it be for the time being.
Soft power is deserving of criticism, but they should be based on more solid and researched points, not sweeping and superficial generalizations based for the most part on the actions of major powers, like the US. Soft power dynamics are extremely complex, and they need complex and nuanced analysis, not simplistic dismissal.
I agree with the last bit, but American soft power failed for the 2012 ua, and it lost a lot of credibility with the weird cultural things which were specifically campaigned against in other countries. It also lost a lot of credibility with the Afghanistan bit. The pull-out wasn't too bad, but the full takeover in less than a month was really bad instead of making usa look like the one powerful military, they looked like failed nation builders. Resentment grew then. The world hasn't suddenly become resentful.
Another example is Taiwan voted against gay marriage but their congress enacted it. This was done to shore up security. I'm not sure how that can't backfire and lead to resentment. If it can, then there's definitely more to be said about it.
1. was the soft power world “imagined in the 90s” a world where soft power really worked? if it wasn’t, doesn’t it seem a bit incoherent to claim that the *world* is different now (rather than what people think about the world)? was soft power real and effective then but no longer is? or was it always an illusion?
2. can you provide an example where a country was confused or disillusioned by the opacity of US soft-power diplomacy? (Obama era?) it doesn’t seem obvious that Trump’s brand of diplomacy is any more straightforward or appreciated by other countries, given its unpredictability, and in contrast to so-called soft-power approaches
I reckon that President Trump and many Americans had concluded that USAID is no more a tool of influence and populism campaign. President Trump is convinced that one should pay to access something in order to value it.
Thanks very much for your article. Thought provoking.