The Powers That Be, Essay Example

Joseph Nye wrote that “You cannot lead if you do not have power”, but power is an intangible entity (Nye, 2009). There are three main types of power that Nye identifies: hard, soft, and smart. The best way to identify the method(s) of power is to analyze the skills which are utilized to meet goals. Coercion, enticement, bribery, promotion, and persuasion through threatening are all actions which signify hard power; attraction and persuasion through co-opting are actions which signify soft power. Leadership is a process. In order to lead, a person’s power and authority have to be recognized. There are a variety of ways through which the powers are effectively used. Hard powers require “organizational capacity”, the ability to navigate through many complex channels, and “political skill”, the ability to size a person up and intimidate them (Nye, 2008).

Literature Review

Former President George W. Bush utilized hard power through his exploitation of the public fears of terrorism and nuclear warfare (Nye, 2006). In true Texan fashion he did. In Powers to Lead, Bush’s assumption of hard power is made clear: “I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best,” he said (Nye, 2008). Proponents of hard power often feel a responsibility and entitlement to act. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” legislation was more of an ultimatum than an appeal for better education for all. He also reversed agreements limiting gas emissions (Bush, 2010). Bush is often criticized as well for his foreign policy- or lack thereof. Diplomacy was in no part of George W. Bush’s plan; during his first administration, with Donald Rumsfield’s notorious anti-soft power stance supporting him, the former president’s aggressive use of hard power and single-mindedness alienated much of the world (Nye, 2008). The decisive action of hard power is often mistaken for certainty and a thorough acquaintance with the issue. This misconception came into the public spotlight as the search for “weapons of mass destruction” became a joke.

In his farewell address, Bush expressed the belief that- though he drew heavily on hard power in his foreign and terrorism polices and left the office with plummeting popularity- America would look back kindly on his accomplishments.  Clearly he embraced the Macchiavellian tenet, which often informs the heart of such decisively unpopular policies- that is better to be feared than loved (Nye, 2009). It was not his only approach. He viewed himself as “a transformational leader”, a sub-group of leadership that greats like Churchill and Truman belonged to- who were accepted after the full scope of their accomplishments was achieved. Such belief in a nostalgic appreciation is part of Bush’s appeal to smart power (Nye, 2008).

Smart power requires “contextual intelligence”, the ability to read the needs and adjust accordingly; soft powers require “vision”, the ability to diagnose and offer an inspirational plan to remedy the situation, “emotional intelligence”, the ability to master self and maintain an air of “personal magnetism”, and “communication”, the ability to use rhetoric to convey a symbolic meaning in their words and actions. (Nye, 2006).

President Barack Obama has all of the attributes needed for successful utilization of smart and soft power: contextual intelligence, vision, emotional intelligence, and communication. In the climate of permeating hatred toward the United States he has established an intention to move toward peace. What is more, he has initiated contact with governmental leaders of the Philippines and Indonesia, who are also on the front lines of the global Christian-Muslim conflict (Simons, 2008). Even in his high school years as a student athlete, one of his teammates described him as “smooth and silky in the way he walked and talked”. Another early acquaintance recalled that he was “well-groomed and skinny”; it is clear that from a young age he understood the importance of perception. Throughout his presidential campaign his rhetorical giftedness continued to be praised, especially following the “Bushisms” of his predecessor (Smith, 2008). He benefited greatly from his oratory prowess, especially in the recent years’ reluctant persuasion of America to move toward acceptance of the Middle East (Nye, 2008). It’s a hard sell, especially after September eleventh. Barack Obama’s campaign slogan was “Time for a Change” and evoked images of true equality. That slogan also implies a keen emotional intelligence through the identification of a need for change and the steps made in resolve soon thereafter.

However, smart power is balancing the hard and the soft, so President Obama would be remiss if he appeared unable to stand. His stance toward Afghanistan and Pakistan and his deployment of more over twenty thousand more troops to fight there emphasize the resolve that was shared by his predecessor, George W. Bush (Smith, 2005) This perseverance in one’s own goals is emotional intelligence and is one characteristic that both presidents share (Nye, 2008).

Every changing of the guard starts with a need for something more. Presidents Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama have taken very different approaches to public and world relations- one using elbows and laid-back charm to pull through and the other using considerable cultural and oratory knowledge- but they both have navigated the political maze and employed smart powers at different points. Mahatma Gandhi said that intrapersonal communication is more important than rhetoric (Nye, 2006).

While Bush, Jr. can attest to the limited success of such tactics, the continuing recognition of the phrase “I have a dream” would beg to differ. After all, the Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, was also charismatic, but behind closed doors he attempted to exterminate select groups within his country. In all things there must be moderation… even in smart power, which in and of itself is defined as an effective application of skills (Nye, 2008).  Bush inherited a terrified nation; Obama inherited an impoverished one. History will look kindly on him that did the best given the situation; that is the embodiment of smart power.

References

Crooks, R., & Baur, K. (2008). Our Sexuality, 10th ed.. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc..

Faulkner, R. (2008). Joseph nye on leadership. The New York Sun, Retrieved from http://www.nysun.com/arts/joseph-nye-on-leadership/75496/

George W. Bush. (2010). Biography.com. Retrieved 12:06, May 12 2010 from http://www.biography.com/articles/George-W.-Bush-9232768

Nye, J. (2006, October 27). Soft power, hard power and leadership. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/talks/docs/11_06_06_seminar_Nye_HP_SP_Leadership.pdf

Nye, Joseph. (2008). The Powers to lead. Oxford University Press, USA.

Nye, J. (2009). The Powers to lead. International Leadership Association, Retrieved from http://www.ila-net.org/Members/PublicationFeatures/View_Publication_Feature.asp?DBID=51

Simons, L. (2008). Obama’s ‘smart power’ play. Retrieved from    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-12/obamas-smart-power-play/

Smith, D. (2008, March 28). The Ascent of barack obama, mr. charisma. The Sunday Times,  Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3582291.ece