Soft Power Without Hard Power Is No Power.

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, he warned the United States to strive for continuous balance so that the power of the military and industrial complex would not harm the democratic process. The goal was to maintain agreement and compromise on issues existing in the current moment, as well as the solutions that would help to shape the nation in the coming future. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment (Eisenhower, II).

Copeland, M.A. (1970). The Game of Nations: The Amoraility of Power Politics. New York: Simon And Schuster.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Power is a theme found in the world and in this story “The Crucible”. Just one example of the theme power in “The Crucible” is Abigail. Abigail is Parris’ niece and is having an affair with John Proctor. In order to get rid of his wife accuses her of Witchcraft. She uses the power of persuasion and has the other girls pretend to see spirits to convince the Judge that Mrs. Proctor is a Witch.

Luke’s one-dimensional view of power is centred on this concept and in order to develop understanding as to how power is achieved and maintained within society, an analyses of decision-making in the public arena must be made. It also contests that the group that holds and maintains power can be determined by looking at who succeeds when there is political conflict. (Lukes, 1974:12) It emphasises the importance of the observed behaviour of those in power and analyses the effects on the wider community when making decisions (Lukes 1974:25) Lukes spends a lot of time discussing Dahl’s theory of power through his own theory. The power held by a specific group may be either, ‘overt’ or ‘covert’ but the triumph of power is at the point is during the decision-making process and when these decision have been made, especially, those of the controversial nature of ones centred around the most conflict (Lukes, 1974:13) The one dimensional view of power proposed by Lukes is the most straightforward of the three dimensions. In a way, it is also the easiest to observe, as the power structure through decision-making is more translucent and has a lot of clear definable features.

A key word in these definitions is power and I believe power is a major factor in both of the approaches to comparative politics this paper will cover. Power as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. The Eurocentric approach to the study of comparative politics which Robert Marks attempts to contest in his book The Origins of the Modern World is one that favors European nations as the central powers in the formation of modern world as we know it today. On the other hand, James C. Scott’s approach to the study of comparative politics is state centric and it focuses more on the development of the state as the central and dominant aspect of society today.

In regards to international relations, power is influence and control one state has over another. Often times, state power is an indication of economic and military strength. According to Joseph Nye, the concept of using economic and military forces to coerce other political bodies is known as hard power. In contrast,

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

Power is a fundamental concept in any conflict. The nature of that power can depend

The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community. However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state’s self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32).

In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

Power and truth play different but equal roles in maintaining control in a nation. Modern societies create regimes of truth that are enforced by power structures such as government, discipline and laws. When it comes to power, the government, queen or dictator is in charge. They tell their citizens what the main expectations are and how to abide by them. Nevertheless, the government should uphold fairness and not abuse its power unless it is necessary. Power is something that is earned; it is not something that is granted by default. The proper qualities, such as integrity, assertiveness and truth, in government or person can benefit its leadership skill set. Sometimes truth can be manipulated by the government to influence its people so

Joseph Nye offers an alternative theory for the construct of State power. He created a system in which State power is broken into two parts; “hard power” and “soft power.” “Hard power” consists of the traditional, tangible aspects of power namely, military and economic power. “Soft power” is the key distinguishing dynamic of Nye’s work from other theories. “Soft power” consists of all other facets of power, such as ideology, foreign policy, culture, stability, prosperity, and membership in international organizations (Bound to Lead 130 and Paradox xi, 8). The modern world is becoming more interconnected and interdependent with one another, hence depending less on “sticks and carrots” and more on “soft power.” The missing link within perceived State power is the role morality plays in actual power. This study will show that “soft power” is implicitly, and at rare times explicitly, founded in moral values.