Several people responded to my earlier blog about Obama by asking what I meant by soft power. There is an entire chapter (and references) in my book The Powers to Lead for those who want to pursue it further, but put simply, soft power is the ability to obtain what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment. We all experience it every day. The better we are able to attract others, the less we have to spend on carrots and sticks. That is important, and it is a lesson that we have to re-learn as a nation after the past eight years.
Some people pointed out that soft power makes a poor slogan in Amercan electioneering. That may be true, but soft power is an analytical term, not a slogan. It refers to an important dimension of power. I invented the term in 1990 when I was writing a book about why I disagreed with the then conventional wisdom that the United States was in decline. After summing up American military and economic power, I realized that something was missing -- our ability to attract others through our culture (where it has appeal), our values (when we apply them without hypocrisy) and our policies (when they are regarded as inclusive and legitimate in the eyes of others). Of course, hard power is also very important, and the ability to combine hard and soft power effectively is what I have called "smart power." That comes closer to being a useful slogan in American politics. It is ironic that China's President Hu Jintao last year proclaimed China's objective of increasing its soft power while Americans are unable to talk seriously about this dimension of power. ( A notable exception was Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plea for more investment in soft power tools last November.) So long as we have a truncated political discourse that ignores part of the tools in our toolbox, we will wind up with policies like those of past eight years. My belief is that Obama, because of his background and emotional intelligence, will be better able to understand the role of soft power and better able to provide effective leadership.
P.S. You're joking, right?
Google ApolloSpeaks go to my webpage and you'll see that I'm no joke.
Another term that comes to mind is "setting a good example". In another thread here, someone mentioned the Golden Rule, which sums up the whole idea very well.
The word "soft" enrages the Rambo types, so call it "strong, silent power".
My father quietly worked through all my formative years as a union laborer, first a longshoreman then a warehouseman. Heavy lifting was not a metaphor but the actual definition of his job. He complained sure, but didn't quit until his retirement, working until sixty-three years old. Built like an ox. He and my mother divorced, causing great bitterness which he buried with drink. But only one time did he ever strike me physically and I distinctly remember deserving the rather light and minimal swat he gave. He had so much heart and love, it definitely hurt him more than me as that old expression goes. He managed to straighten out my course in life and teach me without abusing me. You might describe my father's character as soft power. I would call it integrity, true strength and love.
In the political sense, I don't call those who abuse others powerful. I describe them as fascist. And they are only temporarily fearsome, the treasonous tyrants like Bush who deceive, always out for the quick and transient gain while those with integrity such as Obama exhibit the strength that is eternal.
The irony meter peaked in '06 when President Hu presented a copy of Sun Tzu's the Art of War to mr bush. Too bad he can't read.
I believe "others" have already been "shock and awed" sufficiently about our culture, our values and our policies. Damage control to regaining some credibility seems more like the place to begin now.
Almost 50% of voters elected GWB to a 2nd term.
Only 54% of the population eligible to vote do so. We rank 35th in voter turnout out of the world's prominent democracies.
Only 20% of americans have a Passport
Estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns.
57% of all Americans read a book in 2002. Fewer Than Half of American Adults Now Read Literature.
In education a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from five different international education studies, the researchers ranked the United States No. 18 out of 24. Other studies ranked the US 48 out of 100.
The US represents less that 5% of the worlds population, but consume 31% of the world's resources. In 2005 we spent $276 Billion in advertising mostly to create an ethos of infantilization aimed to sustain "consumer capitalism".
Culture. Our biggest blockbusters are comic book characters (Hulk, Spiderman, shrek...); Icons: Paris Hilton, Britney Spears; Entertainment: XBox, American Idol
We spend as much in the military and weapons as the rest of the world combined. And less you forget history, our recent military aggression are not limited to Iraq. ViteNam, Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama..
Perhaps you could explain that in another post.
I guess we'll just have to hope that Obama chooses his running mate wisely and then Senator Biden can explain all about the merits of soft power and about other related matters...at length and often...especially under the national spotlight of the vice-presidential debates.
Once again, I am baffled as to what the author sees in Obama's "background and emotional intelligence" that leads him to these conclusions.
What does being a community leader and state senator have to do with international statesmanship? Nothing. Or did he mean the 'broken home' aspect of his background that his campaign tries to exploit for sympathy.
Emotional intelligence? What? As evidenced by what exactly? His crying to reporters if they ask him too many hard questions, or follow him on vacation? His threats of voilence against people who don't agree with him?
Senator Biden is the undisputed leader among Democrats - and Republicans, for that matter - on all issues related to foreign policy, national security, constitutional matters (Biden STILL teaches constitutional law, if you catch my drift)...and soft power...with credentials in these realms that were wholly unmatched by ANY of his presidential rivals, in either party...by a LONG shot!
Senator Obama would do well to remember this when choosing his VP...unless he has completely relegated that authority over to his 'vetters' on the 'VP search team'...gimme a break!