- Share via
Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”) or attraction (“honey”). The first two methods are forms of hard power; attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country’s culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone.
When a nation is attractive, it can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see the United States as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and to following our lead. If they see us as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: The American side was “an empire by invitation” rather than coercion. The Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956, and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has voluntarily increased its membership.
President Trump claims ‘everybody is saying’ his second term had the best start in presidential history. No, they’re not.
Nations need both hard and soft power. Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both.
Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself, and because its effects take longer to realize, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power is an unnecessarily high-cost proposition. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in communism and were drawn to Western values.
After World War II, the United States was by far the most powerful country because of its hard and soft power. It attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as the liberal international order — a soft power framework made up of the United Nations, economic and trade institutions, and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the U.S. did not always live up to its liberal values, and Cold War bipolarity limited the order it led to only half the world’s people.
Donald Trump is the first American president to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office were withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that global warming and pandemics pose.
Americans are famously tolerant of other people’s suffering, but they have an extremely low tolerance for their own. And more and more Americans are feeling the pain.
The effects of the Trump administration’s surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Trying to coerce democratic allies such as Denmark or Canada weakens trust in the U.S. among all our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the U.S. Agency for International Development — created by President Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on.
China, which Trump defines as America’s great challenge, itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao told the Chinese Communist Party that the country needed to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbors. Second, the communists insist on maintaining tight control over civil society. When public opinion polls ask people around the world which countries they find attractive, China doesn’t shine. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power.
Of course American soft power has had its ups and downs. The U.S. was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country’s society and culture as well as from government actions. When crowds marched through streets around the world in freedom protests, they sang the American civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.” An open society that allows protest can be a soft-power asset.
But will America’s cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government’s soft power over the next four years?
Judges aren’t supposed to check the executive branch on most issues. That’s Congress’s job. As if.
American democracy is likely to survive the next four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and the Constitution encourages checks and balances, whatever their weaknesses. In 2026, there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives. Moreover, American civil society remains strong, and the courts independent. Many organizations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump’s actions, and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with his economic policies.
American soft power recovered after low points during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as during Trump’s first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had. Right now, China is striving to fill any soft power gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West.
If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from U.N. agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly.
Joseph S. Nye Jr. was dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and a U.S. assistant secretary of Defense. His memoir “A Life in the American Century” was published last year. Nye died earlier this month.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author argues that American soft power, rooted in culture, political values, and foreign policies, has historically been a critical asset for long-term global influence, exemplified by initiatives like the Marshall Plan and the voluntary expansion of NATO as an “empire by invitation”[5][1].
- They emphasize that trust in U.S. leadership is eroded by actions such as withdrawing from international agreements (e.g., the Paris climate accord and WHO), imposing tariffs on allies, and undermining institutions like USAID and Voice of America, which weakens alliances and revives fears of imperialism[5][3].
- While acknowledging past recoveries of U.S. soft power after setbacks like the Vietnam and Iraq wars, the author warns that restoring trust after deliberate dismantling will be costly, citing Russia’s loss of soft power post-Ukraine invasion as a cautionary tale[5].
- The resilience of American democracy—supported by checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and civil society—is highlighted as a foundation for potential recovery, though challenges from China’s soft power investments and territorial disputes complicate the landscape[5][4].
Different views on the topic
- Critics argue that hard power remains more immediately effective than soft power, as coercion and economic incentives often yield faster results in international relations, a stance implicitly supported by political leaders prioritizing short-term gains over long-term trust-building[5][2].
- Some contend that U.S. cultural influence (e.g., media, education, and civil society) remains robust despite government policies, with global admiration for American innovation and democratic ideals persisting through periods of political turmoil[4][2].
- China’s concerted soft power efforts, including infrastructure investments and cultural diplomacy, are seen as increasingly effective in filling gaps left by U.S. retreats, particularly in regions seeking alternatives to Western-led institutions[4][5].
- Skeptics question whether multilateral frameworks like the UN or NATO can adapt to a multipolar world, suggesting that declining U.S. soft power may reflect broader shifts in global dynamics rather than specific policy failures[5][3].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
A series of small-town dog killings was a prelude to the violence committed by one of California’s deadliest serial killers.
The stories behind the most compelling cases from the people who know them best.
German broadcaster DW explores the idea of 15-minute cities — and why the climate-friendly concept is drawing backlash.
