Response to Nye at HuffingtonPost

Joseph Nye added another Hard/Soft Power article here.

I responded with this...

Yes, we should be as good as we say we are. Reputation counts. But I would like to add that Dr. Nye's hard/soft dichotomy strikes me as an overly simplistic approach to power. It makes for a nice sound byte, and may help underscore the importance of reputation, but it obscures what I deem to be a critical link between power and interest.

It is the duty of the President to calculate and advance the national interest. All nation-states, like all people, share three distinct forms of meta-interest... standing, security, and wealth (the pedigree for that formulation traces from Thucydides through Hobbes, and up to Onuf).

The challenge for a smart person, as for a smart President, is to act in ways and structure the circumstances so that the meta-interests of all can be advanced simultaneously. That is, to act so that more signs of respect for freedom on my part leads to more signs of respect for freedom among others. So that more security for my neighbor means more for me. So that a rising tide really does lift all boats, etc.

In correlation with those meta-interests, we may act as guides, gatekeepers, or peers.

Gatekeeping generally corresponds to Nye's idea of classic hard power, but it also accounts for the deployment of economic resources and the kinds of actions that bring about immediate changes in physical reality or the official social status of other agents.

Acting as a guide generally lines up with Nye's concept of soft power, except that Nye often talks about soft-power as if it can be nearly cost free (especially in relation to hard power). In fact, a reputation can be very costly to maintain since the agent becomes obliged to act in congruence with that reputation.

Finally, to act as peer means recognizing that we are not alone, that we act within a world of intersubjective agents, and that we need to collaborate with allies if we hope to get ahead. That introduces other costs, such as sticking to contracts, compromising, and putting some effort into understanding to the needs and wants of others.

The virtue of Nye’s argument is to point out that what he calls “hard power” will not always get us very far, and that excessive reliance on it can be counterproductive. But his celebration of “soft power” fuzzes over how much effort we need to spend on making our values intelligible to others (and even to ourselves), presuming we honestly intend to offer some kind of authentic guidance and moral leadership in the world.

This was added later that day...


@MBadragan

To flesh out what I mean about the powers of gatekeepers in distinction from hard and soft power, consider Nye's proposal that Obama initiate greater US investment in global public goods.

When the US government (or any agent) invests monetary resources and provides technical assistance to those in great need, it demonstrates its gatekeeping power to deploy those resources. The effect of the spending might consequently increase the US reputation (akin to "soft power") among observers, but the act of investment would not count as a use of that reputation. But in Nye's view, the typical aid package (or investment in say, an environmental regime infrastructure) wouldn't count as hard power either. For this reason I think his categories are too fuzzy to serve as robust analytical tools.

Of course, the metaphor of "soft power" serves a purpose. Suppose you think, as I do, that providing aid to needy nations and building up public goods are sensible policies when designed to move us toward the more humane kind of world in which we want to live. Unfortunately, there are many greedy selfish people (including lots of power mad brutes and quite a few Republicans) who don't want to spend money that way. But if we pose the investment in the context of power (as a fuzzy way of both acquiring it and displaying it), perhaps they'll find the idea far more attractive.

So the rhetoric of soft power is itself an example of soft power.

More I/P chatter

I'vew been weighing on a (so far) quite civilized I/P diary at Daily Kos. Two of my comments:

Put it this way

Both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist, but also an obligation to co-exist.

And

Yes, states are a useful fiction

The Westphalian-era sovereign state provides the foundation for legal jurisdiction. All kinds of modern conventions stem from that. The "existence" of such a state ultimately depends by recognition of other such states. International "law" is a corresponding useful fiction produced by the community of people who claim authority as agents of those sovereign states.

Fiction? Yes. Useful? Very.

Question for PBS's News Hour Insider Forum.

Here's a question I posted at PBS's News Hour Insider Forum. The topic was Obama's Foreign Policy Challenges.

What did candidate Obama say about what the US government could or should do to block further expansion and thickening of settlements by Israelis in the occupied West Bank? To what extent does he agree with those who argue that continued settlement activity only exacerbates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? How likely is it that an Obama Administration will act decisively on the settlement question?

Testing Obama

I submitted this to Politico, in response to this "Arena challenge: Explain Joe Biden's "not gonna be apparent that we're right" comment."

Let's cut to the chase: Big tests are coming. American power -- our reputation, our alliances, our military capacities, our economic leverage -- have declined precipitously during the Bush years. Regardless of who is President, now that we are strained and overspent, a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and numerous other challengers are all going to be looking to take advantage.

Consider how Clinton and Bush both pursued rapid NATO expansion during the Yeltsin and early Putin years, running the table on the Russians even while we had rather friendly personal views of their leadership. Now the tables are turned. To the extent they're playing a long-term zero-sum chess game, our opponents have more important factors to consider beyond whether or not they personally like or dislike the individual who's pushing the pieces for the US.

We are worrying to much about the distinctions among game players, when what we really need is a game changer. Does anyone have the temperament and skill to move the players in the political theater beyond the zero sum thinking that got us where we are today? It's clear enough to me that Obama is far more likely to have those abilities than the hawkish McCain. With Biden, it seems to be a matter of which side of the bed he got up from on any given day.

My afternoon at Redstate

Dana Pico wrote an article, "Why our liberal friends simply don't understand the Islamists" recounting a statement from a liberal friend of hers about the need to address the root causes of hatred. Her reply was, "one defends oneself against his enemies by killing them."

I jumped in, as a polite liberal, with some pointed responses.

His biggest mistake may still be ahead

Bush’s speech crowded its way into the prime time schedule last night, but the mainstream media’s ogling of sports heroism, celebrity feuds, and electronic toys soon returned to normal. Beckham! Rosie! iPhone!

Still, the chattering classes were very busy this morning, back in their own corners of the noosphere, arguing about which way the new way might go.

Leading up to the speech, leaks and briefings foreshadowed a more vigorous game of whack-a-mole with extra players in Baghdad... a muscular new mask for the same old dim-wittedness. But now we see that the new way goes way beyond a simple escalation of American boots, blood, and body count.

Patriot missiles are being deployed. For what? To reassure our regional allies against IED attacks? There’s news of a US raid against the Iranian consulate in Kurdish Iraq, coordinated, perhaps, with belligerent rhetoric by Bush and Rice, and the movement of another carrier group to the Gulf. It all amounts to another brush off of the Iraq Study Groups’s own premises for "The Way Forward" in Iraq... constructive diplomacy with Iran and Syria.

Then there’s that "green light" that will now be shining over the war. Bush doesn’t like having to fight his battles (that is, having other people chase down his demons) with hands tied. This is a President who cherishes freedom, and he wants the freedom to kick ass.

The circumstances are quite unfortunate for the American servicemen and servicewomen who must bear the burden of this folly. It's been terribly unfortunate for the Iraqi people who must suffer the direct consequences, and could be even worse for innocent victims inhabiting whatever target he decides to pop off after next.

The green light and the supernatural voice that Bush claims to hear in his head say "Go," while the voices of American voters and countless experts go unheeded.

No wonder that most people are so easily seduced back to the happy babble of the MSM. It looks like that show they call democracy jumped the shark a long time ago.

Roberts Bussard discussing Fusion at Google

I wonder what would be a better long term investment for Google... YouTube, or Dr. Robert Brussard's next few iterations of an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion reactor? See the video.

Dawkins Makes the Rounds

Richard Dawkins has a new book out, The God Delusion. Here he is on Hufpost , BBC, and Colbert.


I'm someone who thinks Jesus is Santa Claus for adults, and I'm very intrigued by how easily people reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution in favor of superstitious faith. At the same time, it's intriguing to me that folks like Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins are so up in arms about religion. They think everyone in the world should be as rational as they are.

Extinguishing the idea of God is as likely as extinguishing the idea of red. Like Voltaire said, "If we didn't have God, we would have to invent him."

Humans are hardwired to expect that animate agents are behind the actions of the world. We need to be alert to danger. Just as it's easy for us to see faces and animals in clouds, it's easy for us to anthropomorphize predators and prey, as well as objects like cars, and rocks, and the Universe as a whole. Dawkins even anthropomorphizes genes. He says they're "selfish."

One of the most important challenges posed by Dawkins is to question how the world would be different if God existed. Consider the question, “Does life have a purpose?” For the religious person, the answer is “yes” if there is a God, “no” if not.

I can’t speak for Dawkins or the others, but as a scientifically-oriented person I concur with the religious person’s answer. That’s how I know I’m free. I make my own purpose. I form my own intention. We as humans can do the same collectively. We’re not sheep who need a shepherd just to find our way to shelter.

Constructive Victory, Part 1: Defining US Interests

History will provide ample time to investigate what this Administration has done wrong, and why. Fixing the problem is more important than fixing the blame. That means being prepared to put things right when power changes hands, starting with a clear definition of overarching American interests.

***

Americans who are committed to a sober analysis of discernable reality understand quite well that the current Administration has created intolerable hardships for US military personnel and their families, and also for countless innocent people in Iraq. A war of dubious pretext has become a calamity of historic proportion.


Though US forces delivered many battlefield successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq early on, the Administration failed to convert those achievements into anything resembling a decisive victory. Given this Administration's persistent legacy of hubris, groupthink, belligerent temperament, and myopic disregard for expert advice, American war fatalities may reach five thousand before the next Presidential inauguration. Iraqi losses could well surpass one million.


"Staying the course" in Iraq is equivalent to driving down a dead-end rut. Yet, two years remain before the current Administration is obliged to relinquish authority. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the new team which takes power in 2009 will have the skill or inclination to seek a political outcome consistent with enduring American interests.


War, wrote Clausewitz, is the pursuit of politics by other means. The source of the Iraq disaster is an incoherent assessment of American political interests. The current Administration’s woefully confused outlook has produced destructive, self-defeating polices. Americans are not about to withdraw from the world stage, of course. We need a strategic doctrine that opens a reliable path to constructive, durable victories as we continue to participate in the global arena.


Toward that end, I offer a proposal in three parts: 1) A general statement of US interests and policy objectives; 2) An outline for a strategic doctrine and policy agenda that is in full accord with those interests and objectives; 3) Suggestions for solutions to the situation in Iraq.


Part 1: What are the overarching interests of the American people?


American interests are those which are properly common to all nations: Standing, security, and wealth, pursued in a manner that respects the rightful interests of others. The United States government, as the constitutional voice of the American people, should seek allies in pursuit of those proper interests, and thereby foster circumstances in which all people of the world can enjoy the benefits of peace, prosperity, human rights, and participatory government.


To advance American standing, the US government must work to establish a solid reputation - through word and deed - that America is not an aggressor state, but a great culture dedicated to the worldwide advance of harmonious peace, rising prosperity, human rights, and democratic freedoms. To advance those norms - the foundations of a normal life - the American people must lead by successful example. We must also consider ourselves obliged to speak out honestly and to act consistently in response to evidence of human suffering anywhere in the world.


To advance American security, the US government must combine able diplomacy with a vigilant surveillance system and an imposing deterrent of armed forces. When called upon, our armed forces must be prepared to fight with lethal precision. To guarantee their professionalism, effectiveness, and high morale, members of our armed forces must be provided with ample material, state-of-the-art training, and generous social support. The volunteers who serve under US command have a right to expect that they are serving the best interests of the American people, and in a way that respects the honor of the United States Constitution, the humanity of innocents, and the lawfully accepted conventions of war.


To stifle suicidal opponents who are beyond deterrence, we must undertake the measures necessary to interdict their movements, and to deny their access to material agents of mass destruction. For the long term, Americans and their allies must fortify a life-respecting global culture, thereby precluding a threatening opponents' access to safe haven, material support, and any sense of ideological endorsement within the human community.


To advance American wealth, the US government must promote a thriving, sustainable economy that offers all Americans the chance to enjoy a rich quality of life. Generations of immigrants and their descendants have benefitted from the natural abundance of the American land, and from the American preference for a dynamic culture that allows personal freedom and technological innovation to flourish. American-style capitalism enhances one's private capacity to choose where to work, where to live, and what to buy. That underlying commitment to freedom and property rights encourages an ethic of industriousness that augments the wealth of the entire society.


Just as the elimination of restrictions on the flow of goods, capital, and labor between American states has underpinned our country's wealth and unity, liberal economic policies have advanced peace and prosperity throughout the world. Americans welcome the challenge of competition in a globalizing economy, but we also recognize that the benefits of open international trade incur the vulnerabilities of interdependence. To mitigate the consequent effects, we agree that citizens of every nation may rightfully expect: a fair return for their labors; proper conduct in the negotiation and performance of contracts; respect for private property, and; diligent care for our shared natural environment. To fulfill those expectations, the US government must seek collaboration with other governments. Building constructive, trustworthy partnerships will advance the common goal of a thriving, sustainable global economy.

***

In summary, standing, security, and wealth are legitimate pursuits of all sovereign peoples, and it is desirable to construct a global political environment in which sovereign peoples agree to pursue those interests with mutual respect. Attention to core values - including human rights, peaceful stability, and ethical business practices - offers a solid foundation for this new approach. Each nation's victory along this course would be shared by the others.


The American people can lead this victory. It is in their interest to reframe their doctrines of national power accordingly, in word and in deed.

***

Note. I'll be done with Part 2 in a week or so, which proposes a doctrine I call normalization.


Also, for those who are interested, the idea of standing, security and wealth is derived from Nicholas G. Onuf's World of Our Making. Onuf's three-part system aligns in interesting ways with approaches described by some well-known political theorists.

Political Conceptions of Motivations and Interests
Author	Category
Thucydides/Pericles	Immediate Motivator	Disgrace	Fear / phobos	Disgrace
Thucydides	Positive Motivator	Honor / doxa	Safety / asphelia	Profit / kerdos
Machiavelli	Groups/Humours	People/Peace	Army/Cruelty	Nobles/Greed
Hobbes	Causes of Quarrel	Glory	Diffidence	Competition
Hobbes	Motives of War	Reputation	Safety	Gain
Morgenthau	Sources of Power	Alliances	Military	Wealth
Osgood	National Self-Interest	Prestige	Survival	Self-sufficiency
Laswell	Ends	Deference	Safety	Income
Onuf	Domain Heading	Existence	Material Control	Discretionary Endeavor
Onuf	Immediate Ends (Interests)	Standing	Security	Wealth

Rectification of Names

Just read a truly thoughtful article by Tom Engelhardt, about the obfuscating manipulation of language by members of the Bush Administration.

His mention of an old Chinese practice called the "rectification of names" intrigued me. The point is that the start of a new regime is a wise time to restore harmony between language and reality.

It seems to me that the concept can have a wider application... Anyone who ties their spirituality to textual dogma might do well to undertake a silent rectification of their own.

Are We Disgusted Yet?

Remember how Clinton’s popularity ratings actually went up after his sexual encounters with Lewinsky came out? That scandal put the public in a good mood. The Foley mess, however, is turning everyone’s stomach.

As we all know, sex makes people a little stupid. Reading the salacious details about hot-blooded stupidity between consenting adults tends to put most people in the mood for some of their own. It’s a fair guess that even members of the Piety Party who tut tutted about a married man having sex with a subordinate found the Starr Report’s reality porn quite stimulating. I’d bet a dollar that there was a little baby boomlet nine months after it came out.

But Foley’s IM transcripts go way beyond foolishness, and we can feel the ick factor rise in our guts with each new disclosure. Most Republican’s feel it, too. The whole thing is a major turn-off. Yes, there are a few true-believing “blame the democratic secular humanist liberal media culture” spinmeisters like Rush Limbaugh, but most people will simply agree, “Foley was bad.” A few might even go as far as saying “Something must be done.” Hopefully, the story of Foley’s predation won’t get any worse than what’s been heard so far.

Unfortunately, we don’t experience the same collective sense of upchucking ick on cue each time Bush’s war of choice in Iraq claims another innocent victim. We tend to be far more curious about the behavior of pedophiles or the backstory of prurience than the proper conduct of foreign policy. But that’s the point. Sex makes us stupid.

Bin Laden's Strategy

Today Al Jezeera broadcast the latest public message from Osama Bin Laden. Two of his claims deserve attention: 1) The West's refusal to continue funding the Palestinian Authority after the Hamas election victory "confirmed that [the West is fighting] a Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims." 2) Britain and the US are responsible for the strife in Sudan and any supporters of Bin Laden must be prepared to to oppose any further Western actions there.

A BBC commentator, Gordon Corera, argues that the main purpose of Bin Laden's message is to "remind" the public that he "is still at large and still claims to be relevant."

More likely, Bin Laden would like to see the US further tied down and spread thin by an escalation of violence in Palestine, and the commtiment of forces in Sudan. There are good reasons to withhold funds from Hamas at this time, and to intervene against genocide in Sudan. Both policies should be pursued on their individual merits, however, not because Bin Laden has put a chip on his shoulder.

Intelligent Designs

In most modern countries young people in school learn about science, testable predictions, falsifiable hypotheses, and how to construct valid observations from available evidence. In the United States, we increasingly plague our children with the kinds of myth and wild conjecture that characterize the belief systems of pre-modern societies.

Nevertheless, those (including President Bush) who want to “teach the controversy” about evolution have an obligation to explain that there are at least three distinguishable flavors of Intelligent Design.

The first is associated with Bible stories such as Adam’s Rib and Noah’s Ark, as well as predictions of Rapture and Armageddon. Considered the author of Young Earth Creationism, the proper label for this Intervening Deity is ID-JC.

The second Intervening Deity is claimed by people of diverse faiths, suggesting a politically correct, non-denominational supernaturalism. ID-PC is said to have overseen the development of life over eons, performing miracles as needed, especially at the Beginning. Its method of Old Earth Creationism predicts no further miracles, but reserves for its adherents the right to pray for more.

Finally there is the naturalistic Interstellar Depositer, a galaxy-hopping Johnny Gene-seed, better known as ID-ET. Believers predict it is only a matter of time before the government’s cover-up is exposed.

Craig Simon
Dania Beach, Florida

Clash or Civilization?

Not long ago I joined an online discussion forum hosted by Foreign Policy Magazine and added to a thread regarding Samuel Huntington's conjectures about the "Clash of Civilizations." One of the other participants blogs at "WorldPolitiks."

March 9, 2006

Vernacular

If you're rich you can afford to be stupid, but you won't be rich for long.

February 24, 2006

First Principles

It is the responsibility of the American President to advance the US national interest. To do so, it is necessary to know how interests are calculated.

Interests are sets of demands and expectations. To be valid, they must first of all be plausibly attainable. For states, as with individuals, satisfaction of one's own needs should have priority over satisfaction of one's own wants. Honest, sober discernment between the two is a sign of wisdom and maturity.

The natural, legitimate, proper interest of any individual or social group is first of all the satisfaction of persistent, urgent needs. The possibilities for peaceful and productive social collaboration among individuals and social groups depends on mutual recognition of proper interests. This is how human society evolves and advances. The organized expression of demands constitutes methods for their recognition and satisfaction, establishing rights. Rights are more likely to endure when they stem from proper interests. This is because they will reflect the most deeply valued interests of the greatest number of people.

Humans are biologically endowed with mental and physical capacities that enable self help, free thought, sovereign intention, moral responsibility, and reflective culture. Thus empowered, humans constitute polities through which they are obliged to defend and advance their proper interests. Human deeds establish human creeds, just as creeds inform deeds. Moral order is founded upon intentional action, and could not exist without it.

Free choice depends on knowing oneself. Many people do not. Instead, they live by their excuses, denying responsibility for their choices, as if they could surrender their freedom to nature, nurture, fate, or supernatural beings.

And there are many (and increasingly many more) who choose their excuses freely, as projects and as interests. During the act of fulfilment they disclose themselves, their calculations, and the moral interests they seek to advance.


February 23, 2006

2006.02.22 - Welcome

The NormLog will also be hosted at nlog.us.

The purpose of this writing is normative. I wish to comment on US Foreign Policy, offering diagnoses and prescriptions... analyses and suggestions.

22 February, 2006