Soft Power Without Hard Power Is No Power.

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

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.

First, before I forget, I have to state how power can be powerful. Power could be used for many acronyms. Power could stand for leadership, power could stand for a higher standard over another person, whether they like it or not. Certain people have power, whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not. In a group of people there has to be a leader, and a

On September 11, 2001 the United States of America was forever changed. A series of attacks lead by a man named Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the organization called Al-Qaeda, would bring America into a new war, the War on Terror. This war would not be like the wars of before, nation against nation, but would rather be a much more global conflict (“War”). The war would also not merely involve the United States, but also every western country. The reason behind this war is one word, Jihad. The definition of jihad is “a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their belief” (“Jihad”). The United States of America has changed the way it

To be successful the government should only use hard power when it has to and use more soft power. (Smart power) so that more people will think the US is doing good things. Smart power means only using hard power when you have no other choice. Otherwise you should use soft power. Soft power makes people want to do things that you want them to do. Using soft power they don’t get angry and sometimes they feel good to do what you want. Soft power doesn’t use harsh ways like fighting to make people do things and soft power works by negotiating and convincing people that it’s

President Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man 's character, give him power” (1). Power can be used to fight for civil liberties, but the abuse of it can lead to holocausts. Throughout history, power has often been put into the wrong hands, which has resulted in genocides, holocausts, and massacres. The responsibility associated with power is unfathomable. The United States of America has fought against power and has successfully maintained it. As the most influential power in the world, the US has to use its authority to maintain peace and spread capitalism.

When comparing politics and power, it seems like we are talking about the same thing. The similarity between politics and power is that both can be noticed when people see it. Regarding Power, however, is the ability someone has to obtain the results they want by exercising their influence over other people. In the case of Jim McGee, he prided himself on his ability to motivate and his ability to resolve complex problems. Nevertheless, Jim’s power style is considered to be an expert power because of the knowledge he has about quality control. When it comes to politics, is all about getting the best result, which sometimes required face obstacles and differences of opinion internally. George Phalen, on the other hand, has a coercive power which

Millions of people globally supported the ‘war on terror’ at one time, largely because the discourse around it was successful in divisively framing the identities involved and attributing a ‘truthful’ nature to that framing. Governments, with the Bush administration seemingly as the lead, created ‘the other’ to be ‘the terrorist’, and those ‘terrorists’ were probably Muslim or Arab. The fear was then created by the comparison of this ‘other’ to the self; or ‘them vs. us’.

The United States, it seems, serves as the unofficial international police. We attempt to impose our views on the world and then correct anyone that strays from our “status quo”. Through our diplomatic actions, America tries to preserve our national beliefs in exchange for the deterioration of another country’s. We were formed by the “global forces” who were attempting to create a global empire, but once we became our own nation, we became one of those forces (197).

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

First, Nye (2011) states, "When values are widely shared, they can provide a basis for soft power that works in multiple directions" (p.87). States and individuals have to be patient with the party they intent to attract or persuade. It is one thing to want to control, but to force your agenda on someone can shift soft power.

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).

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

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.