Obama Hopes Soft Power Will Restore U.S.
Published in Sina
(China) on 22 January 2009
by Bai Shuo (link to original)
This is not just a careful design to show the soft power of the U.S. For Obama, only a revelation of the good side of the U.S. can get it supports and helps from the world, so the current financial crisis that is wrecking havoc and the economic recession that has effects on his political future will weather through.
Obama’s efforts to furbish up the U.S. image with soft power can be seen in his inauguration that is thick in a cultural tone. In a time when history and reality gathered together, with priest praying freedom, singer eulogizing patriotism, poet chanting equality, and musician playing optimism, people temporarily forgot about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, forgot about missiles and fighter jets, forgot about the financial crisis that is making damage when they were seeing another face of American culture-- hard work, honesty, courage and tolerance.
This is not just a careful design to show the soft power of the U.S. For Obama, only a revelation of the good side of the U.S. can get it support and helps from the world, so the current financial crisis that is wrecking havoc and the economic recession that has effects on his political future will weather through. Obama shows this thought in his inaugural address, as he hopes to “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”, he tries to use America’s values, which is the soft power, to “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.” The address itself is a great effort to magnify the soft power of the U.S.
Through the inaugural address, the core of Obama’s domestic and diplomatic mind can be seen. He tries to unite as many people as possible by borrowing the spirit of sacrifice and the will of fortitude from the forbears of the U.S.A, to work together and deal with the grave economic slump. In his address, “people,” “common,” “nation” and “responsibility” are frequently used, which hints that he is not a president of minorities and Democratic Party, but a president of the America, and also these words without a tint of a social group are easy to be used to unite the American people.
Domestically, it is clear that he would like to take a middle path for domestic economic policies. What he wants is neither a “big government” of nationalism nor a “small government” of liberalism, but a practical government that helps American families find decent wage. He emphasized that the biggest responsibility for officials is to spend money wisely and get trust from people. For the market system, he would not shake it as a basic economic system or swerve away from it like some critics said he would, but put “a watchful eye” when respecting the market force. For the assessment of economic success, Obama government will not only pay attention on GDP, but more on “the reach of our prosperity” and “opportunity to every willing heart”, in other words, it will focus more on social fairness and equal opportunity.
Diplomatically, Obama expressed that the U.S. will try to cooperate with every country to “work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet” and safeguard peace. And the U.S. will “extend a hand” to “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent” if they improve a bit and “unclench your fist,” which is different from Bush’s mindset of inflicting American values onto the whole world.
In terms of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama said clearly that “We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan,” which means the U.S. army will retreat from Iraq but stay in Afghanistan. This is also a demonstration that the U.S. has ability to manipulate the Iraq government while the situation in Afghanistan is not stable yet. In fact, the U.S. and its allies in Europe have reached a consensus about the station of troops in Afghanistan, which has a direct effect on their strategy for central Asia and west Asia.
The difference between the administrative concepts of Bush and Obama lay perhaps in the fact that Bush used hard power to guarantee and expand America’s interests, which turned the U.S. lose its credit standing, and Obama tries to use soft power to rescue the U.S. from stagnancy and renew America’s international image. The common things they share are that both of them want to lead the world, and both want to make the American spirit shine forever. But after the jolly time, the test Obama must stand up to is --- can such a display of soft power really keep the America interests in safety?
Bai Shuo is a scholar in Guangdong province
Obama’s efforts to furbish up the U.S. image with soft power can be seen in his inauguration that is thick in a cultural tone. In a time when history and reality gathered together, with priest praying freedom, singer eulogizing patriotism, poet chanting equality, and musician playing optimism, people temporarily forgot about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, forgot about missiles and fighter jets, forgot about the financial crisis that is making damage when they were seeing another face of American culture-- hard work, honesty, courage and tolerance.
This is not just a careful design to show the soft power of the U.S. For Obama, only a revelation of the good side of the U.S. can get it support and helps from the world, so the current financial crisis that is wrecking havoc and the economic recession that has effects on his political future will weather through. Obama shows this thought in his inaugural address, as he hopes to “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”, he tries to use America’s values, which is the soft power, to “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.” The address itself is a great effort to magnify the soft power of the U.S.
Through the inaugural address, the core of Obama’s domestic and diplomatic mind can be seen. He tries to unite as many people as possible by borrowing the spirit of sacrifice and the will of fortitude from the forbears of the U.S.A, to work together and deal with the grave economic slump. In his address, “people,” “common,” “nation” and “responsibility” are frequently used, which hints that he is not a president of minorities and Democratic Party, but a president of the America, and also these words without a tint of a social group are easy to be used to unite the American people.
Domestically, it is clear that he would like to take a middle path for domestic economic policies. What he wants is neither a “big government” of nationalism nor a “small government” of liberalism, but a practical government that helps American families find decent wage. He emphasized that the biggest responsibility for officials is to spend money wisely and get trust from people. For the market system, he would not shake it as a basic economic system or swerve away from it like some critics said he would, but put “a watchful eye” when respecting the market force. For the assessment of economic success, Obama government will not only pay attention on GDP, but more on “the reach of our prosperity” and “opportunity to every willing heart”, in other words, it will focus more on social fairness and equal opportunity.
Diplomatically, Obama expressed that the U.S. will try to cooperate with every country to “work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet” and safeguard peace. And the U.S. will “extend a hand” to “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent” if they improve a bit and “unclench your fist,” which is different from Bush’s mindset of inflicting American values onto the whole world.
In terms of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama said clearly that “We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan,” which means the U.S. army will retreat from Iraq but stay in Afghanistan. This is also a demonstration that the U.S. has ability to manipulate the Iraq government while the situation in Afghanistan is not stable yet. In fact, the U.S. and its allies in Europe have reached a consensus about the station of troops in Afghanistan, which has a direct effect on their strategy for central Asia and west Asia.
The difference between the administrative concepts of Bush and Obama lay perhaps in the fact that Bush used hard power to guarantee and expand America’s interests, which turned the U.S. lose its credit standing, and Obama tries to use soft power to rescue the U.S. from stagnancy and renew America’s international image. The common things they share are that both of them want to lead the world, and both want to make the American spirit shine forever. But after the jolly time, the test Obama must stand up to is --- can such a display of soft power really keep the America interests in safety?
Bai Shuo is a scholar in Guangdong province