Soft Power
| Wed Dec. 3, 2008 10:41 AM PST
SOFT POWER....Matt Yglesias talks framing:
Can we retire the term "soft power" already? I always feel that it's been popularized not so much by Professor Nye as by deranged warmongers who like the idea of terming every alternative to militarism as somehow "soft," fluffy, and weak. Soft Power is a good book, but it's a bad coinage for an era in which national security issues have returned as a partisan political topic, and I don't think it's an especially great label for what Nye's talking about.
I agree, but what do we replace it with? "Cultural power" is no good, since it evokes thoughts of cultural imperialism. "Economic power" sounds scary too, and none too apropos anyway considering the economic devastation we're currently wreaking on the world. Anyway, soft power encompasses lots of things, so any individual term won't be enough.
I've heard "smart power" bandied about, but I doubt that will catch on. Too jargony. "Non-military power" gets to the nub of things, but doesn't roll off the tongue very well. So what's a good alternative word that basically means "mostly non-military"? Anybody care to chime in?
UPDATE: In comments, Jon and Matt suggest "civil power." Dan Drezner suggests "social power." Matt Yglesias thinks the problem is with "power," not "soft." On the other hand, plenty of people in comments think "soft power" is just fine as is.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Nazgul35 (not verified) on Wed Dec. 3, 2008 10:42 AM PST.
Alternative Power?
Asymmetric Power?
Actually, I really like the term "soft power." I think it has all the right connotations. How about a survey to see how people really react to it, instead of the typical LIBERALS WORRYING ABOUT BEING PERCEIVED AS SOFT, which is, you know, wimpy.
Submitted by Yellow Dog (not verified) on Wed Dec. 3, 2008 10:46 AM PST.
How is "smart power" more jargony than the other suggestions?
I like it a lot.
You know Kevin, it is the objectively stupid worry of liberals desperately trying to find the right way of "framing" their policy positions in order to disguise them from the public that justifies the GOP charge that you all are a bunch of pussies when it comes to foreign policy and national security issues. To wit, take the following sentence:
"Cultural power" is no good, since it evokes thoughts of cultural imperialism. "Economic power" sounds scary too, and none too apropos anyway considering the economic devastation we're currently wreaking on the world.
It is hard to believe that was written by a man who claims to be a serious commentator on political issues. Such a sentence would more likely be written by a women study major at an Ivy League university who is trying to find the perfect PC way of describing her "world view" without offending anybody.
The term "soft power" is that simply because it does not involve the "hard power" of direct military force. If the term makes you feels uncomfortable because it happens to describe your positions on national security issues, well then, that may be your problem that has nothing to do with the "framing" such issues or the language used by your political opponents.
Economic power is considered one of the "hard powers". You are either ignorant or lying, again.
And stop calling the use of military power "militarism". It is a lame attempt to vaguely smear people you don't like as fascist and it is a complete misuse of the term.
Yeah, but Chico, howcum the military gets to be 'hard' power instead of 'military' power?
Question your assumptions dude. And in case you haven't noticed, women power and non-white power are taking over. It ain't a white man's world anymore.
If you doubt that take a look at the latest James Bond flick or even the latest programming standards, which are not becoming feminine but *are* becoming Asian.
If you can't beat em join em.
clarence,
Did it ever occur to Kevin that Matt Yglesias is just a whiny 20-something who thinks more of his Harvard philosophy degree than perhaps he ought to?
I doubt it but even so, Matt Yglesias is the future.
I mean I'm bummed about losing my hope of a technological Utopia and losing my top dog status too, but complaining about it only gets you so far.
Submitted by Jaango (not verified) on Wed Dec. 3, 2008 11:33 AM PST.
I much prefer "improving lives." And it's a coinage authored by the late labor leader, Cesar Chavez.
As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert and a Vietnam War Vet, I grew up as a migrant worker, and thus, my familiarity with labor politics. And given my prediliction for most thingys that fall under the ruberic of national security, the notional of "improving lives" fits quite nicely for both the Domestic and Foreign Policy agenda.
Jaango
My understanding of the distinction between hard and soft power was that hard power was not just military power, but diplomacy and economic power as well, whereas soft power referred to intangible things like how well-liked we are in the world.
With that in mind, and especially because of the confusion the terms engender, I think a name change is appropriate. And I like the word "influence"; it captures the dichotomy well. "Hard Power", henceforth, "Power" refers to a country's ability to make other countries do things, whether they want to or not. "Soft Power", henceforth "Influence" refers to the ability to get other countries to actually want to help us.
In domestic political terms, I would compare it to Dave Obey vs. Bill Clinton. Dave Obey, as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has quite a bit of power, but not much influence. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has no power to speak of, but a great deal of influence. But at the end of the day, both men have a substantial ability to make their ideas into reality.
How about real power. Real power does not necessarily fall from hard power or military action. Real power accounts for all sorts of power, a holistic approach if you will.
And if we use the term holistic to define real power the wingnuts will get confused and think we are talking religion.
How about the word "engagement," which has both military ("engage the enemy") and non-military ("engage with our allies") connotations?
"Strategic engagement"
"Comprehensive engagement"
"Comprehensive strategic engagement (CSE)"
"Multi-modal engagement" or MME (for people who like fancy sounding terms).
Obama is talking about a balanced strategy in which one uses all levers of power.
It seems to me that dividing things up into this kind of power and that kind of power plays into that set of mind that finds one kind of power preferable to another. That's the era we hope we are leaving, in which military is the first and sometimes only kind of power that is used.
Nye includes economic power in "hard power." His soft power tends to be the kind of thing you can't necessarily point to.
It seems to me that a rational foreign policy uses the appropriate means for a given situation and doesn't say, let's see, this one needs to be 20% economic power, 35% cultural power, 40% military power, and 5% flat out bribe.
It's negotiating with the other party and using what works.
The preference, however, should be for non-military means first.
Submitted by Cheryl Rofer (not verified) on Wed Dec. 3, 2008 12:14 PM PST.
Huh. Funny system you've got here. 3:113 pm is my post.
Submitted by Cheryl Rofer (not verified) on Wed Dec. 3, 2008 12:15 PM PST.
That's the first 3:13 pm.
I saw JIm above had the same idea; I like "indirect" power. I think the "hard" and "soft" nomenclature is used to differentiate between literal force and instead a powerful influence. "Indirect power" maintains that separation by focusing on the role of good-will cultivation and the intention to AVOID conflict as opposed to win one somehow.
It's not "power" at all. It's "killing people" versus "keeping people alive."
That puts me on the side of "improving people's lives." Cheap, facile slogans that diminish the horror and costs of non-defensive war as national policy have no place AT ALL in our discourse.
