Solved by Expert Tutors
From Crusader to Exemplar: Bush, Obama and the Reinvigoration of America's Soft Power Ellen Hallams (2011) 'To all the other peoples and governments...
Solved by Expert Tutors
Question

1) What is political science? What other cross-disciplines does political

science encompass? What are the sub-disciplines of political science? 
 
2) Read the PDF From Crusader to Exemplar: Bush, Obama and the Reinvigoration of America's Soft Power Ellen Hallams (2011) The article discusses the difference between SOFT POWER AND HARD POWER
What is the difference between soft power and hard power and can you provide examples of each? According to the article, how did Obama position himself more as a 'soft power president' and has he been successful in doing so? 
 
3) Do you think that the US should engage in more Hard power or Soft Power techniques in maintaining its role as a major player in world politics? If so, what are some ways it could do so? (This is an open-ended question, so there is no right or wrong answer). 
 
4) According to the posts, "How Scientific is Political Science" from the Guardian and "How Relevant is Political Science" from the New York Times, what is the problem or some of the issues with mainstream political science that the authors try to point out? 

Source URL: http://ejas.revues.org/9157 Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/POLSC101#1.2.1 Attributed to: Ellen Hallams www.saylor.org Page 1 of 29 From Crusader to Exemplar: Bush, Obama and the Reinvigoration of America’s Soft Power Ellen Hallams (2011) “To all the other peoples and governments who are watching today know that we are ready to lead once more.” Barack Obama 1 The election of Barack Obama in November 2008 appeared to signal a rejuvenation of soft power ideas first articulated in the early 1990s by former Clinton official Joseph Nye. Obama rejected his predecessors crusading tone and style, seeking instead to reposition America firmly back into the exemplary tradition of US exceptionalism. He projected an image of the United States as a country that seeks to lead by example, viewing America as one nation amongst many, aware of the limitations to US power and pledging to reinvigorate America’s soft power. This paper seeks to examine the rhetorical revitalization of this concept in the Obama Administration’s early foreign policy and asks whether the debate over hard and soft power has now become outdated, given the Obama administration’s emerging emphasis on “smart power” and the challenges of providing national security in a dangerous and unstable world. Despite promising a sharp break from the Bush Administration, Obama has found himself constrained by the realities of the international system; a deeply ingrained mistrust of the United States, resistance to US power, and the rise of emerging power centres have all served to expose the challenges of translating rhetoric into reality. The paper concludes by arguing that Obama’s idealism and soft power instincts often conflict with the pragmatism that is at the heart of the President’s approach to foreign policy, and what is often perceived as the malevolent nature of America’s global power, but that he should be credited for putting soft power at the centre of US foreign policy, and demonstrating a genuine – if sometimes imperfect – commitment to leading by example. I. Soft Power: Anatomy of an Idea In 1990, Joseph S. Nye Jr, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in which he argued that with the end of the Cold War concepts of power in world politics were changing with less emphasis on military power, and more on technology, education and economic growth. The critical problem facing the US at the end of the Cold War, Nye argued, was not how to control resources - a traditional barometer of global power - but how to control the political environment by influencing others. Nye identified five principal trends in world politics at the end of the Cold War: economic interdependence; a growth in transnational actors; nationalism in weak states; the spread of technology; and changing political issues. Such trends meant that the reliance on traditional concepts of power were no longer relevant and that a more attractive option for the United States would be to set the agenda in world politics by getting other nations to want to follow the United States, in contrast to ordering other states to do what the US wanted it to do. 2 Implicit in Nye’s argument, however, was the assumption that US power was, by its
Background image of page 01
Source URL: http://ejas.revues.org/9157 Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/POLSC101#1.2.1 Attributed to: Ellen Hallams www.saylor.org Page 2 of 29 nature, inherently benign, that other nations would want to ‘follow’ the US because of the sheer attractiveness of its values, culture and beliefs. This co-optive or “soft” power, as Nye coined the term, was further explored in Nye’s later study, The Paradox of American Power, which located it firmly in the wider framework of the “Information Age.” Nye argued that although soft, or co-optive, power was not new – the US having harnessed it during the Cold War through its role in creating international institutions, fostering cultural and academic exchanges, and public diplomacy – the changes in world politics with the end of the Cold War had made it more important. 3 As Nye noted, the leveraging of America’s soft power during the Cold War had been overshadowed by its continuing reliance on hard power; by the end of the Cold War President Eisenhower’s warnings about the pervasive influence of the Military-Industrial Complex had become a reality. Even as the Cold War ended, expectations of a “peace divided” proved unfounded with the 1991 Gulf War demonstrating to America’s friends and foes alike its overwhelming conventional military superiority, while crises in Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans resulted in the deployment of US military forces. Indeed, between 1989-1999 the US undertook 48 open military interventions, compared to just 16 during the Cold War. 4 By the end of the 20th century America had seemingly fallen in love with military power, with what C. Wright Mills termed a ‘military metaphysics,’ a tendency to view all international problems through a military lens. For Andrew Bacevich, the respected US political scientist and Vietnam veteran, the very idea of America has become inextricably interwoven with notions of militarism, what he defines as a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsized expectations regarding the efficacy of military force.Bacevich argues that since WWII the United States has become a nation of “Wilsonians under arms,” committed to exporting American values of liberty and democracy by military means, thereby corrupting the benign ideals of Wilson for whom war was simply a temporary measure, and not a permanent expression of the nation’s character. 5 Wilson is a figure who casts a long shadow over US foreign policy but as John Thompson points out, Wilsonianism is itself a contested concept. 6 Seen by some as the torchbearer of a benign liberal order, others see in Wilson one of the earliest advocates of a Pax Americana, someone who saw the East as a region ‘to be opened and transformed whether we will it or not; the standards of the West are to be imposed on it 7 The debate over the nature of Wilsonianism will surely continue, but it is important because it lies at the heart of claims made by Nye and others of the benign nature of US power. For Nye, the universal values espoused by Wilson are the heartbeat of America’s soft power, a powerful and compelling magnet pulling other countries into its orbit. Nye, like Bacevich, saw US Cold War policies as driven by hard power, but unlike Bacevich, Nye believed that an increasingly chaotic and unstable post-Cold War environment was characterized by two forces that would diminish the utility of hard power: globalization and interdependence. What Nye successfully captured in 1990 was the changing context within which US policymakers had to operate and the challenges
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Step-by-step answer

sum dolor sit amet, consectetur a

pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar

Political science.docx
ipiscing elit. Nam lacin acinia pulvinar tor et, acinia pulvinar tortor a , dictum vitae od or or nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a mole ec facilis

Subscribe to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Let our 24/7 Government tutors help you get unstuck! Ask your first question.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes