5 ms·

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

readthenotes1 2y ago
I'm interested in what you thought of recent Voice of America broadcasts.
- chomp 2y ago
  It sounds like you’re not actually interested, and would like to make a point instead.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    I am sorry it sounds that way to you. To the best of my recollection I have never heard a voice of America broadcast and have no idea what it's doing after the Soviet Union fell. So I was asking someone who is supporting it what hen thought about the recent broadcast. Surely, if you support something, you have some familiarity with it?
    - xist 2y ago
      > Surely, if you support something, you have some familiarity with it? You'd really hope that's the same logic used when someone doesn't support something too. Rarely are people's opinions that well informed unfortunately.
- throwaway89201 2y ago
  Please be better than just stating a low-effort question. Are you familiar with Voice of America? Can you answer your own question? I'm not familiar with it myself, but I'm from the EU. I only know that it played an effort in the cold war propaganda effort with the (then) Munich-based Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    What should I do better than ask a low effort question that should require a low effort but high value response? My supposition is that the person I was responding to has not heard of voice of America broadcast recently--in spite of supporting it-- but I was hoping to be proven wrong. It sounds like you yourself are not someone who values voice of America enough to tune in. I'm not either. I have no idea what sort of "soft power" a radio broadcast yields these days and for whom it yields it. It seems like it is more the cavalry ca. 1950
marban 2y ago
I do some consulting work for PSM in Europe, and there are cost-cutting measures across the board, but nowhere near as earth-shattering as in the US.
grandempire 2y ago
What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?
- cassepipe 2y ago
  Have you ever tried to be nice to people instead of threatening them to get what you want ? That's the idea
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. Hence "soft power" and, if that fails, "bombing for democracy".
    - fn-mote 2y ago
      > Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. There’s a world of difference between “against my interest” and “worth my effort”. Soft power could help in that gap. I’m not actually sure we disagree - this is more of an elaboration.
    - jmye 2y ago
      Soft power is also building roads and hospitals in Africa (see: China) because you want the country to deal with you first (because they’ve you as a friend, even if you both know it’s a transactional relationship) when they go to sell resources they have. It’s not just trying to strong arm people into doing things they don’t want to do. You have a deeply antagonistic view of all of this. Is there a reason? Do you think that the EU doesn’t employ soft power? That China doesn’t? Do you seriously see no difference between, for instance, seeing value in large numbers of people speaking some English and having a positive view of your country, and whatever “bombing for democracy” is supposed to represent?
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?
pjc50 2y ago
VOA is the old world propaganda network. Twitter/Facebook are the new ones. Direct mirror image of TikTok effects.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > VOA is the old world propaganda network. True. But, most of the places VOA projects into are in the "old world". How many people in North Korea do you think login to Facebook? For that matter, how many people in the new world still login to twitter? And while I'm firmly in the new world, I still listen to the radio most days. I suspect the "afternoon drive slot" will belong to radio for a long while yet.
hoseyor 2y ago
What I find the most interesting is that to me at least it seems like there has been some strange inversion over the course of my adult life, where the same people that used to lament things like the COA VOA propaganda, warfare, instigating and stoking and orchestrating coups, subverting democratic elections, etc. are exactly the ones doing and supporting all those things they used to decry. I get the sense that I’ve just remained consistent in my views, but it still does not expiration things like how the same “liberals” who decried the invasion and corruption of Iraq, cheer on and demand limitless warfare and corrupted spending today on the likes of the Ukraine, while the “conservatives” want to stop wars and limit profligate spending and corruption. It’s upside down world, and terrifying to witness how quickly people can be manipulated to take directly contradictory positions.
- krapp 2y ago
  You're confusing "liberal" with "leftist," I suspect intentionally. Liberals supported the Iraq war. And the conservatives don't want to stop wars, they're literally the pro-war, pro military industrial complex party, and nothing they're doing is actually limiting profligate spending or corruption. Nice bit of propaganda and misidrection though. I can tell you worked hard on it.
- symbolicAGI 2y ago
  In the USA, Republicans build the military and Democrats wield it.
- ckemere 2y ago
  I don’t think this in quite fair. Since the time of Reagan, I think that liberals have consistently upheld the possibility of non-military government service being of value in contrast to the Reagan-ite generalization that only military service was generally honorable. (E.g., VOA, diplomatic service, DOJ)
- 01100011 2y ago
  This. I was surprised to see the outrage over USAID, which up until now I had considered an arm of the CIA. Of course you are downvoted, because right now the progressive thing is to support these institutions and not question them. But this attitude used to be the domain of the left and so was seen differently. Now that the right is saying it, we have to downvote you. Edit: Some pre-2025 links: https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other... https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P https://mronline.org/2008/09/23/usaid-key-weapon-in-dirty-war-on-latin-america/ https://mronline.org/2008/09/23/usaid-key-weapon-in-dirty-wa... (from a socialist magazine, so take w/ a grain of salt) https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/coup-connection/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/coup-connection... Please do not be blinded by your well deserved distaste for trump. People calling for the ending of USAID are not all MAGA.
kennysoona 2y ago
> The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake. Given the way they talk about everyone else's media/free speech rules and limitations, I think they're projecting what works for their own domestic support base onto countries that consider the Democrat party to be worryingly right wing.
  - tempodox 2y ago
    It's a common mistake for U.S.-ians to think the rest of the world works exactly like their banana republic.

readthenotes1 2y ago

I'm interested in what you thought of recent Voice of America broadcasts.

chomp 2y ago
It sounds like you’re not actually interested, and would like to make a point instead.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I am sorry it sounds that way to you. To the best of my recollection I have never heard a voice of America broadcast and have no idea what it's doing after the Soviet Union fell. So I was asking someone who is supporting it what hen thought about the recent broadcast. Surely, if you support something, you have some familiarity with it?
  - xist 2y ago
    > Surely, if you support something, you have some familiarity with it? You'd really hope that's the same logic used when someone doesn't support something too. Rarely are people's opinions that well informed unfortunately.
throwaway89201 2y ago
Please be better than just stating a low-effort question. Are you familiar with Voice of America? Can you answer your own question? I'm not familiar with it myself, but I'm from the EU. I only know that it played an effort in the cold war propaganda effort with the (then) Munich-based Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  What should I do better than ask a low effort question that should require a low effort but high value response? My supposition is that the person I was responding to has not heard of voice of America broadcast recently--in spite of supporting it-- but I was hoping to be proven wrong. It sounds like you yourself are not someone who values voice of America enough to tune in. I'm not either. I have no idea what sort of "soft power" a radio broadcast yields these days and for whom it yields it. It seems like it is more the cavalry ca. 1950

marban 2y ago

I do some consulting work for PSM in Europe, and there are cost-cutting measures across the board, but nowhere near as earth-shattering as in the US.

grandempire 2y ago

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

cassepipe 2y ago
Have you ever tried to be nice to people instead of threatening them to get what you want ? That's the idea
- coldtea 2y ago
  Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. Hence "soft power" and, if that fails, "bombing for democracy".
  - fn-mote 2y ago
    > Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. There’s a world of difference between “against my interest” and “worth my effort”. Soft power could help in that gap. I’m not actually sure we disagree - this is more of an elaboration.
  - jmye 2y ago
    Soft power is also building roads and hospitals in Africa (see: China) because you want the country to deal with you first (because they’ve you as a friend, even if you both know it’s a transactional relationship) when they go to sell resources they have. It’s not just trying to strong arm people into doing things they don’t want to do. You have a deeply antagonistic view of all of this. Is there a reason? Do you think that the EU doesn’t employ soft power? That China doesn’t? Do you seriously see no difference between, for instance, seeing value in large numbers of people speaking some English and having a positive view of your country, and whatever “bombing for democracy” is supposed to represent?
reaperducer 2y ago
Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?

pjc50 2y ago

VOA is the old world propaganda network. Twitter/Facebook are the new ones. Direct mirror image of TikTok effects.

rstuart4133 2y ago
> VOA is the old world propaganda network. True. But, most of the places VOA projects into are in the "old world". How many people in North Korea do you think login to Facebook? For that matter, how many people in the new world still login to twitter? And while I'm firmly in the new world, I still listen to the radio most days. I suspect the "afternoon drive slot" will belong to radio for a long while yet.

hoseyor 2y ago

What I find the most interesting is that to me at least it seems like there has been some strange inversion over the course of my adult life, where the same people that used to lament things like the COA VOA propaganda, warfare, instigating and stoking and orchestrating coups, subverting democratic elections, etc. are exactly the ones doing and supporting all those things they used to decry. I get the sense that I’ve just remained consistent in my views, but it still does not expiration things like how the same “liberals” who decried the invasion and corruption of Iraq, cheer on and demand limitless warfare and corrupted spending today on the likes of the Ukraine, while the “conservatives” want to stop wars and limit profligate spending and corruption. It’s upside down world, and terrifying to witness how quickly people can be manipulated to take directly contradictory positions.

krapp 2y ago
You're confusing "liberal" with "leftist," I suspect intentionally. Liberals supported the Iraq war. And the conservatives don't want to stop wars, they're literally the pro-war, pro military industrial complex party, and nothing they're doing is actually limiting profligate spending or corruption. Nice bit of propaganda and misidrection though. I can tell you worked hard on it.
symbolicAGI 2y ago
In the USA, Republicans build the military and Democrats wield it.
ckemere 2y ago
I don’t think this in quite fair. Since the time of Reagan, I think that liberals have consistently upheld the possibility of non-military government service being of value in contrast to the Reagan-ite generalization that only military service was generally honorable. (E.g., VOA, diplomatic service, DOJ)
01100011 2y ago
This. I was surprised to see the outrage over USAID, which up until now I had considered an arm of the CIA. Of course you are downvoted, because right now the progressive thing is to support these institutions and not question them. But this attitude used to be the domain of the left and so was seen differently. Now that the right is saying it, we have to downvote you. Edit: Some pre-2025 links: https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other... https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P https://mronline.org/2008/09/23/usaid-key-weapon-in-dirty-war-on-latin-america/ https://mronline.org/2008/09/23/usaid-key-weapon-in-dirty-wa... (from a socialist magazine, so take w/ a grain of salt) https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/coup-connection/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/coup-connection... Please do not be blinded by your well deserved distaste for trump. People calling for the ending of USAID are not all MAGA.

kennysoona 2y ago

> The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake.

ben_w 2y ago
> Republicans think this is a good thing because they think the US can rule the world through hard power alone. It's such a depressing monumental mistake. Given the way they talk about everyone else's media/free speech rules and limitations, I think they're projecting what works for their own domestic support base onto countries that consider the Democrat party to be worryingly right wing.
- tempodox 2y ago
  It's a common mistake for U.S.-ians to think the rest of the world works exactly like their banana republic.