That’s an awfully nice straw man you’ve fashioned for yourself. 🙄
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
No it isn’t…but I’ve seen that poster as well.
Setting aside the relative merits of our foreign aid programs, I think that what most people object to is the abrupt and chaotic manner in which it is being done. Maybe that's the point, maybe it's merely incompetence, but the proper, constitutional way to address this issue is through the budgeting process. Federal spending is a policy choice, and Congress gets a say. This administration seems intent on bypassing both Congress and the Constitution, which is troubling.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Ehhhh...
The Constitution says that bills for raising revenue have to arise from the House to fund the executive functions of the government. I'm kind of with Nixon on this one that the framers never intended Congress to force the President to spend money on its pet projects. The President is supposed to ask for money to fund the government and Congress is supposed to approve (via legislation) or not. In other words, the President can ask for funding to operate 9 aircraft carriers. Congress can decide whether or not to fund it, but they shouldn't be able to force him to operate 11.
We didn't even have a federal income tax when the country started. Our federal government is very, very far from what was created 243 years ago.
What the President is doing is ignoring / challenging case law vis a vis a SCOTUS ruling. Judicial review is never explicitly stated in the Constitution, and was controversial when first used. I'm a fan of judicial review, but you can't point to anywhere in the Constitution where the President is operating contrary to by ignoring SCOTUS decisions.
You know who else challenged SCOTUS rulings? FDR.
I think the President should have the ability to unilaterally eliminate executive organizations, but I would be a fan of legislation that defined a phase out timeline.
Last edited:
Are you able to respond at all without another personal attack?
As I've stated before, I have never, and will never attack an individual here.
I don't get what your beef is.
I will repeat again, that for me, and maybe for me only, I do not find this thread satisfying.
So I've attempted to move on.
And for that I get maligned and trolled.
Please, just respond to the thread TOPIC.
I’ll try this in long form. In my defense this form lends itself to hip-shot returns to short comments and I apologize to those who want more meat on the bone. So, on to business…
In the closing days of WWII FDR made the ultimate realpolitik move when he froze Churchill out at the Yalta talks believing that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were all that was needed to bring peace to the world. Churchill was the old world, the Western Europe of colonialism and greed. So, the globe was divided and peace was to rule the land. FDR saw the end of the war as the moment the globe would shift from Realism to Liberalism Of course, FDR died and Stalin was already planning on skipping any deals made there. The next shoe fell when the world let the nuclear monster out of the box. The concept of mutual defense combined with the idea of mutually assured destruction meant that Neoliberalism (the diplomatic actions of liberalism) was born a terrified child.
Neoliberalism identifies the one main problem in international politics as war. To solve this, it proposes three solutions. The first is democracy: True liberals argue that democratic states are more peaceful with all other states and never go to war against other democracies. This is the argument of Democratic Peace Theory. The main reason for this is that states’ leaders are accountable and they fear that they may not be re-elected if they go to war. The second solution is economic interdependence. Liberals note that international trade binds states together, and the interests of a state become those of other states. Thus, war appears too costly for states and they prefer to cooperate. The third legislator the creation of international institutions to enhance cooperation between states and therefore make war less likely. Neoliberal Institutionalism particularly leans on this solution: it argues that international institutions promote cooperation and limit the effects of anarchy. These three legs are the supporting structure of soft power theory - but they don’t explain why it doesn’t work that well in the modern world.
I think all here would agree that power is simply the ability to get others to do what you want, and that requires a set of tools - kind of like the “guns and butter” concept. Some of these are tools of coercion or payment, or hard power, and some are tools of attraction, or soft power. For individuals, charisma, vision, and communication are key soft-power skills; for nations, soft power should be embodied in their culture, values, and legitimate policies…but in truth it isn’t, at least for the West. The best recent example is what happened in Afghanistan. First, Bill Clinton tried a soft power approach by asking the Taliban to boot Bin Laden and his bad kids out of Afghanistan - it didn’t work because what we mistakenly call “liberalism” here isn’t actual liberalism - all Clinton could offer was some cash and that wasn’t enough for the Taliban to change. So, 9/11 happens and we try the hard power approach. It worked for a bit but the West needed to have Afghanistan join the peace loving global community, so we return to soft power. So, why didn’t it work? Simple…liberalism no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Western “guilt” requires that old world liberalism (a critical concept) be cast aside with neoliberal ideas that eschew the very freedom we were supposed to bring. Why didn’t we simply establish an Afghan government and hand them a Constitution (adapted to their culture)? Because that is what “colonizers” do…besides…what do we know? We must atone for our evil past! And so it goes, eternal “small wars” and billions spent on vanity projects when we should be using our soft power to advance genuine, traditional, liberal ideas, like democracy. That is Smart Power.
One can argue that soft power is preferable to hard because it gives more freedom to the person who is its object, but keep in mind that soft power is not good per se; it has to be put to good purpose., not party agendas. Remember, the ability to attract others has been possessed by some evil people: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and BinLaden to name a few. Teddy Roosevelt was the epitome of smart power: the combination of soft and hard power in the right mix in the appropriate context. The problems facing America and the world today are going to need lots of smart power, and leaders who want to understand it could do worse than to study Teddy Roosevelt. He was acutely alert to the use of hard power—look at his fondness for the military. But he was also aware of the importance of soft power. Roosevelt’s chief motivation in negotiating crucial treaties such as the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905, which ended the war between Russia and Japan, was to make the United States more appealing. When he sent the Great White Fleet, the new American navy, on a tour around the world, he wanted both to display the country’s new military power and to advertise America as a force for good (sounds like a recruiting commercial, yes?) In effect, he used a hard-power tool—the navy—as a soft-power symbol. We lack this skill today because we have entered a period where we can’t express the absolute superiority of our ideas because of a long distant past and the neoliberal idea that any expression of power must atone for what was done.
Last point, I do not believe that Trump is the “father of new smart power,” probably the opposite. He is clearly a hard power, realpolitik guy, but maybe we need that mess and breakage to reset to a better way. Most of the above is drawn from my reading of Robert Nye (and he wouldn’t agree some of it!).
In the closing days of WWII FDR made the ultimate realpolitik move when he froze Churchill out at the Yalta talks believing that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were all that was needed to bring peace to the world. Churchill was the old world, the Western Europe of colonialism and greed. So, the globe was divided and peace was to rule the land. FDR saw the end of the war as the moment the globe would shift from Realism to Liberalism Of course, FDR died and Stalin was already planning on skipping any deals made there. The next shoe fell when the world let the nuclear monster out of the box. The concept of mutual defense combined with the idea of mutually assured destruction meant that Neoliberalism (the diplomatic actions of liberalism) was born a terrified child.
Neoliberalism identifies the one main problem in international politics as war. To solve this, it proposes three solutions. The first is democracy: True liberals argue that democratic states are more peaceful with all other states and never go to war against other democracies. This is the argument of Democratic Peace Theory. The main reason for this is that states’ leaders are accountable and they fear that they may not be re-elected if they go to war. The second solution is economic interdependence. Liberals note that international trade binds states together, and the interests of a state become those of other states. Thus, war appears too costly for states and they prefer to cooperate. The third legislator the creation of international institutions to enhance cooperation between states and therefore make war less likely. Neoliberal Institutionalism particularly leans on this solution: it argues that international institutions promote cooperation and limit the effects of anarchy. These three legs are the supporting structure of soft power theory - but they don’t explain why it doesn’t work that well in the modern world.
I think all here would agree that power is simply the ability to get others to do what you want, and that requires a set of tools - kind of like the “guns and butter” concept. Some of these are tools of coercion or payment, or hard power, and some are tools of attraction, or soft power. For individuals, charisma, vision, and communication are key soft-power skills; for nations, soft power should be embodied in their culture, values, and legitimate policies…but in truth it isn’t, at least for the West. The best recent example is what happened in Afghanistan. First, Bill Clinton tried a soft power approach by asking the Taliban to boot Bin Laden and his bad kids out of Afghanistan - it didn’t work because what we mistakenly call “liberalism” here isn’t actual liberalism - all Clinton could offer was some cash and that wasn’t enough for the Taliban to change. So, 9/11 happens and we try the hard power approach. It worked for a bit but the West needed to have Afghanistan join the peace loving global community, so we return to soft power. So, why didn’t it work? Simple…liberalism no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Western “guilt” requires that old world liberalism (a critical concept) be cast aside with neoliberal ideas that eschew the very freedom we were supposed to bring. Why didn’t we simply establish an Afghan government and hand them a Constitution (adapted to their culture)? Because that is what “colonizers” do…besides…what do we know? We must atone for our evil past! And so it goes, eternal “small wars” and billions spent on vanity projects when we should be using our soft power to advance genuine, traditional, liberal ideas, like democracy. That is Smart Power.
One can argue that soft power is preferable to hard because it gives more freedom to the person who is its object, but keep in mind that soft power is not good per se; it has to be put to good purpose., not party agendas. Remember, the ability to attract others has been possessed by some evil people: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and BinLaden to name a few. Teddy Roosevelt was the epitome of smart power: the combination of soft and hard power in the right mix in the appropriate context. The problems facing America and the world today are going to need lots of smart power, and leaders who want to understand it could do worse than to study Teddy Roosevelt. He was acutely alert to the use of hard power—look at his fondness for the military. But he was also aware of the importance of soft power. Roosevelt’s chief motivation in negotiating crucial treaties such as the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905, which ended the war between Russia and Japan, was to make the United States more appealing. When he sent the Great White Fleet, the new American navy, on a tour around the world, he wanted both to display the country’s new military power and to advertise America as a force for good (sounds like a recruiting commercial, yes?) In effect, he used a hard-power tool—the navy—as a soft-power symbol. We lack this skill today because we have entered a period where we can’t express the absolute superiority of our ideas because of a long distant past and the neoliberal idea that any expression of power must atone for what was done.
Last point, I do not believe that Trump is the “father of new smart power,” probably the opposite. He is clearly a hard power, realpolitik guy, but maybe we need that mess and breakage to reset to a better way. Most of the above is drawn from my reading of Robert Nye (and he wouldn’t agree some of it!).
Last edited:
I wouldn't consider it isolationism considering the focus on Panama and Greenland. There was an article the other day in either the NYT opinion section or the The Atlantic that said the administration is Sovereignist - in other words, a version of Manifest Destiny. The US will move, without constraint, to strengthen its position in great power politics.
The other version is from Walter Russell Mead which in the book Special Providence describes American foreign policy using 4 historical figures: Hamilton, Wilson, Jefferson, Jackson. From WW2 until Trump, most US policy has been a combination of Wilson and Hamilton. Most people on this website are Wilsonian, most of Trump's base is Jacksonian.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Manifest destiny (the idea that we will be the hegemon of the western hemisphere) and isolationism (the idea that we should not militarily involve ourselves in European affairs because those monarchies are always going to war with each other) are not incongruous.
Promised Land, Crusader State is another good synopsis of US foreign policy philosophies.
Is this a failure though or more just the fact that it is very difficult to maintain a wartime industrial production capability if there isn't a war going on? I mean we could make the same argument for ships, aircraft, tanks, etc...to feed a serious war takes a lot of stuff, that is why for major wars the whole economy overall has to be shifted from a peacetime to a wartime state. The other problem is artillery was something our military had viewed as not all that important anyway, and if a type of weapon system isn't viewed as very important, mass production of it won't be prioritized.
I've read there has been talk of creating the ability to quickly scale up production of critical items should the need arise, so during peacetime output would be low, but if needed, output could greatly increase. That still costs money though.
Why is everyone always worried about upsetting the Europeans? Why isn't it viewed that maybe the Europeans should be concerned with what we think of them? As long as they continue to free load and not meet their NATO obligations, we should feel free to insult them IMO. Also, should they decide to not help defend against Russia, well the loss there is much more on them than us.
The prior administration also sought to ignore the Constitution in multiple ways. Not saying that justifies Trump doing it but this is nothing new.
Isn't that kind of what we tried to do? Establishing a government in a country like that though with a constitution is very difficult given the tribalism and corruption. IMO, some actual old-fashioned colonialism would really be the only way to fix that place, but it would probably have to stay in place for a couple of generations and even then might still not work.
Nope. After reading a few books advisors decided it would be less “colonial” to do it the local way and Bush called for (with strong support from Germany) a loya jirga or grand assembly of certain chieftains (kind of like having a Senate but no House). Then we basically told them go forward and do good things….and when they acted like Afghans (low level corruption) we punished them for not holding to western ethics. The thing we actually needed to embrace and roll into a functioning constitution was a place for all tribes, not just the powerful ones by creating a lower house based on what we would consider tribal populations. At the same time we tried to model the Afghan Army after ours (a national force) when we needed to create a series of regional (or tribal) forces kind of like our National Guard bringing then bringing them into periods of national service - in effect creating national pride by developing local pride. One of the great errors of modern liberalism (as opposed to actual liberalism) is to feel that “we” (pick your western nation) are naturally prone to democracy and others aren’t - it took the U.S. nearly 80 years and one civil war to become a genuinely functioning republic. We failed to hand Afghanistan the tools, we failed to use our smart power to compel them to use those tools correctly, and then we failed to give them the time. On a personal level it kind of breaks my heart, I genuinely liked the Afghan people and wanted (still want) the best for them.
Comparing this to your comment about how it took the US 80 years and a civil war, (which I don't dispute): how long would you have been willing to give the effort, and how do you sell that to at least three generations of active voters? What did you see that suggested local tribes, with customs and traditions that predate modern history, were interested in what we were selling? None of this is a criticism of Afghanistan's people, but instead a genuine question. How long would you have been willing to give the effort, and at what cost?
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
It's a failure.
Also, we need to take a lesson from Israel. Putin and his oligarchs, Xi and his party supporters should all be dead via exploding cell phone headshots by now.
When people oppose you, you don't get involved in entrenched warfare. You use your technological superiority to assasinate their leaders and lines of succession.
That's not our doctrine... but it needs to be. Bibi understands things that we don't.
We need to conduct international relations the same way that Pedro Martinez pitched. If you fuck with us, we throw at your head. But every President since Reagan is in love with detente.
Last edited: