The West Is Losing Its Soft Power by Patrick Armstrong!
(2021-02-05 at 04:29:44 )

The West Is Losing Its Soft Power by Patrick Armstrong!

"Soft power" is a useful concept whose invention is attributed to Joseph Nye in the 1980s. "Hard power" is easy enough to understand: it is the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay or Marshal Zhukov in Berlin. But soft power is more subtle: in Nyes words: "many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive." There are two commonly used ranking lists: Portland - Soft Power 30 - and Brand - Global Soft Power Index. Portlands top ten in 2019 were France, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, USA, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia and Netherlands. Brands in 2020 were USA, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, China, France, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden and Russia. The first rating is very Eurocentric, the other includes Russia and China. Another difference is the position of the United States, but that does not really make much difference to the point of my essay which is about soft power then, now and in the near future.

The Second World War brought the true flowering of the USAs soft power; from the cargo cults of Melanesia to the cargo cults of Europe, GIs brought the dream to everyone. The USA won the war in a way that no other power did - it emerged immensely stronger and richer into a world in which its natural competitors had been impoverished. At Bretton Woods and San Francisco it shaped the new world to a degree that no other power could. And, understandably, it shaped it to its own benefit, quite convinced that it had every right to do so as the victor and exemplar of the better future. Only the USSR and its sphere grumpily disagreed.

These were the glory times of United States of American soft power. I often think of the movie Roman Holiday in which the American reporter is civilised, polite, does not take advantage of her but gives her confined life a moment of fun and freedom. The best kind of propaganda. (And, interestingly, one of the screenwriters had been blacklisted. Which gives another layer to this intensely pro-American movie, does it not?)

To a friend who grew up in England before and during the Second World War, everything about the USA was exciting. That was soft power in action: bright new future. I would argue that American soft power stood on four pillars: the attractiveness and excitement of its popular culture, its reputation for efficiency, rule of law and the "American Dream". Every American could expect that his children would be better off - better off in every respect: healthier, longer-lived, better educated, happier, richer - than he was. Some of this was image and propaganda but enough of it was true to make people believe. The wrappings of freedom, wealth and excitement made the package almost irresistible.

The USA owed a great deal of its pre-eminence to sheer luck. Sitting on immense natural resources far from enemies, almost all of its wars were wars of choice and usually wars against greatly inferior forces. But, as Stephen Walt argues, its long run of luck may be ending. "The result was a brief unipolar moment when the United States faced no serious rivals and both politicians and pundits convinced themselves that the United States of America had found the magic formula for success in an increasingly globalized world".

Walt is also dispirited about the American reputation for competence which he believes to have been severely damaged by COVID-19. One mans opinion, to be sure, but he is not alone. COVID-19 has greatly injured the USAs and the Wests reputation for efficiency: no better illustration can be given than comparing the confident expectation of October 2019 that the USA and the United Kingdom could best handle a pandemic with what actually happened. A big blow to the soft power assumption that the USA and the West were the places where things functioned properly.

One of the biggest casualties has been the promise of the "American Dream". One graph alone blows this pillar to bits.

Until about 1972 wages and productivity were linked - everybody was getting richer together. Since then, the curves have diverged: productivity keeps rising, wages are flat. That is not what was supposed to happen: the rising tide was supposed to float all boats, not just a few super yachts. The richest one percent owned six times as much as the bottom fifty percent in 1989, now it is 15 times as much.

More significantly, the 50%-90% have seen their share drop seven and a half percentage points. No, your children will not be better off than you are; and probably not healthier or longer-lived either.

James DeLong discusses the erosion of another soft power pillar with his analysis of Amazons decision to deplatform Parler. His conclusion is:

a friend in the investment community likes to remind me that the United States of America has a big competitive advantage in the form of the rule of law, or "the insiders are not allowed to rob you blind!". Amazon has decided to prove him wrong.

In the United States, and the West in general, you are supposed to know where you are - you are not subject to the ephemeral whims of a tyrant, as in less lawful regimes: transactions are grounded in law and transparent procedure. Perhaps DeLong is making too much out of something small here, but I do not think he is.

We have already seen the boasted principle of innocent until proven guilty disappear the moment Mr. Navalniy decides to accuse Mr. Putin of something; in the revenge of the present United States Administration we will see more arbitrary tyranny justified by exaggerated exigencies. If 6 January was a new Pearl Harbor, extraordinary reactions will be said to be justified. But this is becoming the Western norm: where exactly is the rule of law with Meng in Canada, Sacoulis and Assange in the United Kingdom, or Butina in the USA? Will more lawfare against Donald Trump strengthen the image of stability and rule of law?

Neither will the 2020 United States election and its consequences advance the American reputation of democratic leadership. Some cheerleaders of "American leadership" like Richard N Haass are quite despondent:

No one in the world is likely to see, respect, fear, or depend on us in the same way again. If the post-American era has a start date, it is almost certainly today [6 January].

Consider the image that Joe Bidens inauguration sent.

Rather than using the COVID excuse to plan a modest ceremony, the full panoply was undertaken. But with no supporters and with soldiers everywhere: note the motorcade pompously passing only people paid to or ordered to attend. It looked like the enthronement of a dictator after a coup. Especially now that the opposition is being censored (deplatformed, as they call it); re-labelled as "domestic terrorists", possibly under the direction of the arch-enemy Mr. Putin; "extremists" must be removed from the United States military; the Enemy is already inside Congress. Fence-in the Capitol. The soft power claim of the USA to be the citadel of freedom has taken a hit and will take more.

American movies were one of the vehicles of soft power. Consider, for example, 1939s Mr Smith Goes to Washington in which a straightforward American, James Stewart, successfully overcomes a corrupt Washington with decency and determination. Many Americans, especially Senators, did not get it and railed against the movie - but Spain, Italy, Germany and the USSR understood that it was a powerfully pro-American movie and banned it.

Its message was that, even corrupt, the USA is better. Frank Capra made a number of movies about ordinary Americans prevailing with their Everyman decency. A very important part of soft power broadcasting decency and freedom against a background of, to much of the rest of the world, an inconceivable prosperity enjoyed by the ordinary citizen. But in todays Hollywoods movies there are no more decent Americans showing the way, just comic book automatons blowing each other up. No message there and no soft power either: If, as this piece wonders, China is Hollywoods future - it is already the largest market - then why would you need Hollywood at all? There is no American soft power in Godzilla vs Kong.

Popular culture, competence, justice and values and the dream of betterment may have been the pillars on which the USAs soft power was based, but the ground upon which those stood was success. Success made the others attractive; success is the most powerful attraction. The West is losing its aura of success - endless wars, divisive politics, COVID failure, financial crises, debt. And ever more desperate attempts to hold power against ever bolder dissent. It is just beginning. And not just the USA, the West does not present well any more: protests in Amsterdam, London, Berlin; a year of gillets jaunes in France. The world is watching. Not efficient, not attractive, not law-based. Not successful.

As for success, I recommend this enumeration of Chinas achievements. One after another of first or second in numerous categories. And it is all happened in the last two or three decades. What will we see in the next two or three? That is success.

That is what used to happen in the USA. But it does not any more. According to numbers provided by the World Bank, the levels of extreme poverty declined significantly in the world (2000-2017), quite dramatically in China (2010-2016), significantly in Russia (2000-2010) but actually increased in the USA from 2000-2016. "Deaths of despair" are not success. Soft power will inevitable follow as other countries - probably not the West, it is true - try to imitate Chinas stunning success. To a large extent, the West is living on its capital while China is increasing its.

In retrospect, the recent Davos Forum may turn out to be an inflection moment: Mr. Putins speech was a blunt statement that what he foresaw at Munich in 2007 has come to pass - the patent failure of the "Washington Consensus" and unilateralism. Xi Jinping echoed it. Even Ms Merkel promised neutrality between China and the USA.

Soft power is packing up and getting ready to move house: success attracts, failure repels.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.