Response to Joseph Nye

Nye argues in this article that a country's "soft power," rather than its hard military might, can be the most effective in influencing on the global stage. He defines soft power as the ability to get other countries to desire the same end that you as a country desire. To accomplish this, one must feed on the attractions and inducement of other countries by tapping into its cultural and political values, and its foreign policies and using them like mataphorical weapons.

Nye also makes a case against the "neoconservative" approach, saying that enthusiasm for the spread of democracy may be in theory beneficial, it may also not necessarily be shared by the parties involved. Therefore the soft power is not actually gained as believed and this "unilateral" policy fails to deliver. He appears to take a rather skeptical view upon politicians and the political process, especially with regards to more conservative thought, saying that they shift the blame to inevitable conditions rather to themselves.

Ultimately, Nye traces our losses in soft power back to the recent events of the Iraq war (foreign policy) and the power of public image as portrayed to the masses. Our attraction worsened, and as result our soft power decreased, with many people viewing America as an imperialist type machine. He makes a very solid argument about multilateral policy making: if soft power is about attraction through shared values, the others must have a say in the policies as they should know their own values more than us. By achieving this level of coordination, American soft power would inevitably increase throughout the world.

Despite his skeptical demeanor, he ends the essay on a high note, believing in the ablility of the United States to regain its balance of soft and hard power in foreign policy just as we have done in the past.