Barack Obama and Soft Power

I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe where Barack Obama could be elected in a landslide. I suspect that this fascination with Obama is true in many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to think of any single act that would do more to restore America's soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency.

Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.)

Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters greatly whether the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration policies.

Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January 20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a "listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols and policies for the days immediately after the election.

Comments

[Tommygun264]

The election of Barack Obama is perhaps our nation's ONLY chance for redemption. If the GOP is allowed to steal yet another election, I fear the United States will become a fascist dictatorship, doomed to international irrelevance and inevitable collapse.

[DrCahill]

You are absolutely spot on Tommygun264! The greatest danger now for the U.S. is another Republican administration hot on the heels of the failed one of George Bush. This is one danger we must all ensure never sees the light of day!

[bryansmith]

Trying to explain soft power to Republicans is like teaching fish to read brail. I've been working on my neo-con father for about two years now, and only now is it beginning to come into focus for him. I think that maybe Bush caused enough cognitive disonance that he might finally come around... interestingly, it may have been Obama's hawkish speech about Israel that got his attention, and made him see there are a variety of strategies on foreign policy - not all of which involve either apeasement or total destruction.

maybe there is hope after all

[ohmercy]

There will be much for Obama and his team to take care of... and as you said he can't afford to drop the ball on any of it.
You enumerated foreign policy (did you mention china?) but there is also much to be dealt with on the home front.
The economy- we need to green it and very quickly.
Corporate greed.
infrastructure which I think greening of the economy would help with.
Global warming, again see greening of the economy.
Education
health care.
I just saw a very good Bill Moyers Journal tonight forget the names of the guests (of course) One was somebody Sklar. (I remembere3d her because of Rachel Sklar.) She wrote a book called raising the floor about the gap between the rich and poor, the owner and the worker and how little we are really making right now.
Thn there was another author on the same subject who was brilliant.
go to the website to look them up.

Anyway, I believe the biggest issue Obama would/should deal with domestically is holding the current administration accountable.
This would certainly help us to regain credibility in the world.
I don't want to guess on the likelihood. I'm not too optimistic.It would be seen as partisan and the Republicans would allow nothing to be done.
But then again I'm not to optimistic about that anyway given what I've been learning about their obstruction during the clionton administration.
UGH.

[nonconformist2]

Could this be the REAL "Coalition of the Willing" in the making? ; - 0

[tesaract]

One of the most tragic legacies of the current administration is the loss of good will we had with most of the world after the attacks of 9/11. In Afganistan, they backed us, and rightly so. Not so much anymore.

I believe that Barak Obama is just the person we need to begin the process of mending those o too many fences we’ve broken with this senseless and pointless war….

[leftLibertarian]

Mr Nye:

There are two things America needs to do.

1 - Impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.

2 - Learn to mind its own business. It can begin by withdrawing all US troops from the illegal occupation of Iraq and dismantling the US Empire by shutting down all US military bases from Japan to The Netherlands.

[Trinidad707]

soft power, more like...no big deal. Corporate press spins that McCain has little chance of winning all the while he is anihilating Obama in the straw polls Obama only leads slightly in 14 states....While McCain has wide margin leads in important states. I am not a McCain fan nor am I for the republicans....but I hope Obama loses big time...and it looks like he will....Those that finagled him into the nomination by way of wierd delegation apportioning, are gonna be asking themselves where's Hillary we should have nominated her. Obama doesn't have a prayer of winning without Hillary as VP, and I dearly hope she DOES NOT want that position. She should run independent and screw all that screwed her...I have had it with the democratic party....We shoudl have a three party system or more

[bryansmith]

funny how you are more concerned about identity politics than the fate of your country. If you ever truly supported a thing that clinton proposed, then you would give every spare dime to Obama and help get him elected. I hope you don't spread this sort of sore-loser ethic to your children, get over it!

Oh, and as far as delegate counts go, Obama is well over the 270 mark, actually he just crossed the 310 mark, with about 24 delegates locked in a tie. AND THATS GIVING MCCAIN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.

I'm sure you know, given your obvious expertise, that this is approaching landslide territory.

The only hope for the GOP is to wag the dog...

[undecidee]

What straw poll? Where was this site that you went to and how many people took this poll?

Are they all Hillary's supporters who only supported her because she was a woman and so they decided to do a straw poll to show that they will not vote for Obama? lol

Those people are not true Americans who love their country. They are bitter people who just want to see Hillary in the WH. They don't care about policies or anything.

Real polls are showing that Obama is winning the electoral college in big numbers.

[qdog112]

Good article, but it's not about soft power - it's about APPROPRIATE POWER. Hard power and soft power are only tools to used as required. Bush only had the former. He saw things in the most rudimentary terms and he lacked the ability to deal with complex issues - only black and white.

Barack will use whatever is needed in a given situation - hard power or soft.

[ManyColored]

George Bush and his administration have done irreparable damage to this country. It remains to be seen what the extent of the damage is, but it is very severe. We never were an honest broker in the Middle East, and the rest of the world is now very suspicious of the United States. There may be some euphoria when Obama is elected, but that may pass quickly if the United States doesn't get more even handed on Israel. As for the rest of the world, they may wait and see how things play out in the Middle East before they begin to change their attitude towards us. Only in the countries with more conservative governments - France, Germany, Austria, and others will we get a warm reception. I thing England has been burned by our relationship with us and will not fully embrace our policies until they feel they have more input. In short, Israel is the lynchpin and there is no doubt very little will be done by congress to rectify the balance. So we may stay well behind the eightball for some years to come.

[AkiraBergman]

The world will not forget the US atrocities that easily. It is all on the net now. The war mongers only became unpopular locally when they failed to secure Iraq. Obviously the war mongering elite and the middle class were all captured into the blood lust..
USA has to do a lot of good before they are forgiven. Personally I will never forgive them. Down with the corrupt nation state, and long live the global democracy.

[qdog112]

Most of the world is way more politically sophisticated than we are. They will view Barack's presidency as a clear signal as to the CHANGE in our domestic and foreign policy intent.

[Organotic]

I agree with you whole heartedly, Mr. Nye. In fact, the thesis I have recently written taps into finding the balance between soft and hard power--when to use coercion or force and how do so legitimately as opposed to consistently relying on those strategies as a cornerstone to US foreign policy. I believe that Obama will not only transform America's image very quickly, but will also make it much easier for us to negotiate with our allies and get them to adopt our agenda more easily than Bush has in order to gain leverage in many international crises that exist throughout the world. Added to this, I am attracted to the idea of getting back to diplomacy with rogue states; particularly with respect to Iran who's foreign policy style is essentially a old school real politik blended with a new school proxy / sphere of influence formation. They are a paranoid regime who's past has largely dictated present policies. Yet, I sense that they are seeking the respect, that at this point in time (given the geopolitical situation in the Middle East) they frankly deserve. The US, in my view, will never get out of Iraq without their help nor will the Israeli-Palestinian crises ever be solved without the Iranian's on board either. All in all they are a necessary quantity that needs to be dealt with properly; and I think the only way it can be accomplished is through bilateral diplomacy which Obama is suggesting.

[Agent420]

"...negotiate with our allies and get then to adopt our agenda..."

You still don't have it right. The purpose of negotiation is not to get them to follow us, but to find a course of action that is acceptable to all parties.

[Organotic]

Power politics is the reality of the game. The problem is when the US implements its military for most of the crises that occur then abandons active diplomacy and supplements it with coercion. Not every country is going to agree with US foreign policy, but if there is a general consensus, the negative outcomes of using force when/if necessary will be far less severe.

The purpose of diplomacy is to get others to do what they would normally not. It is not a matter of finding a course of action that is acceptable to all, nor is it finding a course of action that is acceptable to few. It is bolstering legitimacy through effort. As stands, the US is looked at with skepticism by most--credibility and prestige matter. And the more legitimate, the better. If you have both, others will generally not question the American agenda but will do what is necessary to bolster it lest they damage their own. It may not be the puropse as you see it, but it is the reality of international relations as stands--countries do what they can to gain more power and get others to accept their agenda. The key is finding the balance between hard and soft power given the situation, and how much heavy lifting is necessary to deal with it. The less the better.

[eden4barack08]

I disagree. In soft power 'adopting our agenda' is not the same as 'get them to follow us'.

Example: US agenda is no nuclear proliferation, and that's an agenda supported by a vast majority worldwide.
If Iran wants to build nukes, there's no course of action that could include that and be acceptable to both parties.
But soft power, through diplomacy and general consensus means to make Iran stop doing what it wants to do. In other words 'adopt our agenda' of non-proliferation!

On the other hand in 'hard power' , 'following our agenda', takes the more bullish tone of 'do as I say or else'.

Which, unfortunately is where we've been for the past 8 years!

[Shake-A-Spear]

As for the new Obama administration: BRING IT ON.

[Okieborn]

Bring it on !! Ya Hoo !!
I want to see Sen. Obama push Mccains Mad Buttons !
He has a super bad temper and can't control the steam build up LOL !!!
Obama just needs to let Mccain talk his way out of the race !!!

[omahkohkiaayo]

Soft power is a construct designed to hide the reality of "hard power" guiding and back it up. The U.S. has never tolerated free, open, fair and principled competition between contending ideologies or systems--neither internally nor globally. That is what "manufactured consent", "social systems engineering", "public diplomacy" are all about. The neocons noted, a long time ago, that World War IV is a supposed "war" against terrorism; and Wold War III, underway for a long time, is about a "war" for hearts and minds--between systems and ideologies.

How to "market" capitalism over socialism and capitalist ideology over socialist ideology? The same way all marketing of anything under capitalism is done: hype and exaggerate purported positives and costs while hiding and understating actual or likely negatives and costs--like the drug ads that show the purported benefits of a drug while quickly passing over the possible side-effects.

But to make sure the case and sale is made, what is also done is to put the opposition or competitior (through sanctions, covert ops, threats of annihilation, litigation, psyops etc) under such constraints that the supposed "superiority" of one system or ideology over another, and the asserted backwardness and barbarism of the oppsing system or ideology seems "proved" by the engineered performances of one over its opposition.

What if this missive had been written in Blackfoot language, a test was given on what was written and anyone not passing the test (in Blackfoot) was deemed stupid, backward and worse?

[Giordano Bruno]

Bravo. An interesting take on the leadership style of Mr. Obama. There are other examples of leaders who inspire periods of creativity and economic expansion. I think most of these leaders are eloquent and visionary. Examples include JFK and Bill Clinton. It doesn't hurt to have fertile economic conditions for the oratory to bring about significant strides.

Just returned from Italy. Most of the Italians I spoke with are very excited about the campaign and are for Mr. Obama. They worry that America is too racist. I told them we were not, and hope that was an accurate depiction. While in Rome, I visited the monument dedicated to my namesake, in the Campo dei Fiori. I made the sign of the cross as I looked up in admiration. A street vendor said, "Bravo, Signore."

I cannot believe that American wants Bush Redux, when we have the possibility of being led by such an eloquent and visionary young man, with integity to boot. I was for Mr. Edwards until the spring, but I find myself enthusiastically in Mr. Obama's corner, despite my previous stated reservations. Sometimes the kids are right.

Giordy

[Wozzeck]

"Why The Gulf War Served The National Interest", by Joseph Nye
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/91jul/nye.htm

Do the words 'depleted uranium' ever pass through your mind?

"As of May 2002, 206,861 veterans had filed claims for benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses caused by Gulf War combat related duties. Department of Veterans Affairs officials have processed 183,249 claims for medical care, compensation, and pension, determining that for 159,238 veterans their injuries and illnesses are service connected, caused by Gulf War exposures and injuries. Consequently they have been awarded lifetime medical care, compensation, and pensions based on the extent of their medical problems. "

http://www.grassrootspeace.org/gulfcasualties.html

[HamletsMill]

War is incredibly expensive as a way to "solve" problems. It will bankrupt us unless there is a Cosmic sea change in the thinking of the voters of the United States.