Global Leadership and U.S. Decline

In our discussion of threats facing the United States, a lot of focus was placed on acute threats to power. Global warming, global extremists, cyber terrorism, and government shutdowns, etc., were expressed in terms of dire physical and economic consequences. The debate in many ways devolved to Live Free and Die Hard versus the Day After Tomorrow versus Olympus Has Fallen/"24", each expressing alarmist worse case scenarios for U.S. power. Rather than siding with any of the more acute scenarios provided in class, I will offer a more rational vision of the future:

There is reason to believe that the U.S. soft power is in decline, as a result of failing to achieve military objectives, political and moral failings in foreign policy, failure to foster peace and diplomatic understanding, political infighting, the spread of global governance and international norms, globalization, etc.  Mahatma Ghandi explained that “leadership at one time meant muscles, but today it means getting along with people.”[1] Soft Power is the “ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and values.”[2] Soft power exists because the rest of the world recognizes it exists. The United States is the “leader of the free world” because other countries follow us, and our global leadership is in decline and threatened.

The U.S. frequently sides with its perceived “interests” in the “ideas versus interests” paradox, abandoning international norms (think CIA Black Sites, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture reports, Drone Strikes, support for Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.) U.S. leadership failures are not a new development or a product of the war on terror- Kissinger’s foreign policy was morally atrocious, and he defended himself by declaring that “A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.”[3]

Globalization and the spread of democratic norms means that the importance of soft power is growing, and U.S. excesses and failures in leadership are increasingly harming U.S image. The European Union and International Organizations are increasingly offering an ideological alternative to the U.S. for like-minded western powers. Kay King, vice president of the Council of Foreign Relations states that the U.S. “inability to tackle tough problems, both domestic and international, has serious national security consequences, in part because it leads the world to question U.S. global leadership.”[4] Kristin Lord analyzes this trend for Foreign Policy, wondering “how much damage must the United States suffer before it learns to take soft power more seriously and, finally, learn to use it more proactively?”[5] How do we go from winning the Nobel Peace Prize to earning widespread condemnation on human rights from the likes of Human Rights Watch, China, and ISIS?

The greatest threat to U.S. power is our failure to lead.

---

[1] Vineet Nayar, “Leadership Redefined,” Harvard Business Review, September 23, 2008 https://hbr.org/2008/09/leadership-redefined/

[2] Joseph S. Nye Jr., “The Decline of America's Soft Power,” Foreign Affairs, June 2004

[3] Wawrytko, Sandra Ann, ed. The Problem of Evil: An Intercultural Exploration. Vol. 90. Rodopi, 2000.

[4] Kenneth R. Bazinet, “CFR: Gridlock in Congress Threatens National Security,” New York Daily News, 22 February 2013

[5] Kristin Lord, “Soft Power Outage,” Foreign Policy¸ December 23, 2014 http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/23/soft-power-outage/