5 ms·

America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.

grandempire 2y ago
That makes sense. But then this kind of journalism/talk radio, would not be included.
- whatever1 2y ago
  They even burnt the card of elon musk who was a great asset in the storytelling of US of how innovation is rewarded better here than anywhere else. Now he looks like a nazi pos, only damages the US image.
  - cassepipe 2y ago
    I am afraid he looks like one because he is one. The modern Henry Ford.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 2y ago
It’s only power if the recipients view the US positively, or if other countries view the US positively for that aid. Unfortunately I think it backfires when US power of all sorts (both hard and soft) is viewed as meddling. At that point is the altruism worth the negative optics? I wonder.
- leptons 2y ago
  There is aid, and there is meddling. The two aren't always intertwined. It's best when they aren't. If "The US" drops a bomb on civilians, by accident or not, does that make all Americans bad, when it was really just a few military people that ultimately pulled that trigger? With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    > With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity. If the optics are not crystal clear your soft power is not power at all. You don’t get to tell the world to “put on your glasses”. So if your altruism is not automatically perceived that way are you actually helping…or are you meddling?
mantas 2y ago
A lot of those money went to pushing US cultural wars themes worldwide. And many parts of the world don’t exactly share modern US (or democrats party voters) values. Then US soft power is closer to waging cultural war. Not exactly USAID, but similar topic. In my country US ambassador openly pushed for law that more than half of population is against for cultural reasons. That feels more like attempt of soft colonialism than soft power tbh. Another example I recently noticed. When looking for kids cartoons online, I realized I try to stay away from recent US content. Why? Too much of a chance of blatant cultural propaganda. Meanwhile asian, even Chinese, stuff feels fine in the back of my mind. I guess PLC is pushing its own propaganda too, but I don’t even notice among the dragons and all that jazz. IMO US soft power went south a good decade ago.
- cassepipe 2y ago
  Well the difference between pushing for something and forcing is exactly the difference between soft power/influence and colonialism. Sure people may have different values but people can change and even in your country some people may find refreshing or even life saving to know that different perspectives exist. As you said maybe half of the population is against it... Maybe the other half is ok with it ?
  - mantas 2y ago
    Soft power is usually influence when followers fall in line without a push. And at least in these parts of the world it worked pretty well till mid-00s or somewhere around the '08 crisis? When ambassador is trying to openly meddle with democratic processes in hosting country... It's a wee more than soft power and influence. Especially when both pro- and against- sides read it as „pass those laws contraversial even in US itself or else we won't defend you from muscovites“. Regarding different perspectives existing, anybody consuming at least a tiny bit of media (western or not), knows that different perspectives exist. No need for ambassador to say anything. Showing off your lifestyle in media in a positive light is the best way to promote it, not push it down the people throat. It worked well for decades and the trend is clear. But for some reason in the past decade or so some people decided to ditch worked well. In that specific case, ~ 1/4 supported the law, over 1/2 were against, remaining didn't care. Ultimately the law did not pass in parliament. The smaller party that pushed the law the most is no longer in parliament. A major party that co-pushed the law lost later election, with some members of the party attributing that to overall cultural wars narrative, the party leader resigned and the new leader of that party is much more conservative.

grandempire 2y ago

That makes sense. But then this kind of journalism/talk radio, would not be included.

whatever1 2y ago
They even burnt the card of elon musk who was a great asset in the storytelling of US of how innovation is rewarded better here than anywhere else. Now he looks like a nazi pos, only damages the US image.
- cassepipe 2y ago
  I am afraid he looks like one because he is one. The modern Henry Ford.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kcplate 2y ago

It’s only power if the recipients view the US positively, or if other countries view the US positively for that aid. Unfortunately I think it backfires when US power of all sorts (both hard and soft) is viewed as meddling. At that point is the altruism worth the negative optics? I wonder.

leptons 2y ago
There is aid, and there is meddling. The two aren't always intertwined. It's best when they aren't. If "The US" drops a bomb on civilians, by accident or not, does that make all Americans bad, when it was really just a few military people that ultimately pulled that trigger? With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity. If the optics are not crystal clear your soft power is not power at all. You don’t get to tell the world to “put on your glasses”. So if your altruism is not automatically perceived that way are you actually helping…or are you meddling?

mantas 2y ago

A lot of those money went to pushing US cultural wars themes worldwide. And many parts of the world don’t exactly share modern US (or democrats party voters) values. Then US soft power is closer to waging cultural war. Not exactly USAID, but similar topic. In my country US ambassador openly pushed for law that more than half of population is against for cultural reasons. That feels more like attempt of soft colonialism than soft power tbh. Another example I recently noticed. When looking for kids cartoons online, I realized I try to stay away from recent US content. Why? Too much of a chance of blatant cultural propaganda. Meanwhile asian, even Chinese, stuff feels fine in the back of my mind. I guess PLC is pushing its own propaganda too, but I don’t even notice among the dragons and all that jazz. IMO US soft power went south a good decade ago.

cassepipe 2y ago
Well the difference between pushing for something and forcing is exactly the difference between soft power/influence and colonialism. Sure people may have different values but people can change and even in your country some people may find refreshing or even life saving to know that different perspectives exist. As you said maybe half of the population is against it... Maybe the other half is ok with it ?
- mantas 2y ago
  Soft power is usually influence when followers fall in line without a push. And at least in these parts of the world it worked pretty well till mid-00s or somewhere around the '08 crisis? When ambassador is trying to openly meddle with democratic processes in hosting country... It's a wee more than soft power and influence. Especially when both pro- and against- sides read it as „pass those laws contraversial even in US itself or else we won't defend you from muscovites“. Regarding different perspectives existing, anybody consuming at least a tiny bit of media (western or not), knows that different perspectives exist. No need for ambassador to say anything. Showing off your lifestyle in media in a positive light is the best way to promote it, not push it down the people throat. It worked well for decades and the trend is clear. But for some reason in the past decade or so some people decided to ditch worked well. In that specific case, ~ 1/4 supported the law, over 1/2 were against, remaining didn't care. Ultimately the law did not pass in parliament. The smaller party that pushed the law the most is no longer in parliament. A major party that co-pushed the law lost later election, with some members of the party attributing that to overall cultural wars narrative, the party leader resigned and the new leader of that party is much more conservative.