What Are The Merits
October 7, 2010By Paul Campbell
What exactly is inherently wrong with being "soft"? Somehow Americans have been put on the defensive by extremists' rants about "soft on crime," "soft on drugs," "soft on immigration," and just about every other socially and politically sensitive issue that exists. In vocal rhetoric an extremist can inflect virtually any word to sound negative and deprecating. The most memorable, and most brilliant, example of this sort of inflection is Col. Jessup's inflection of the word "truth" in the famous climatic scene of the movie A Few Good Men. Aaron Sorkin's writing and Jack Nicholson's performance combine in one of those perfect moments where "means and terms" collide at perfectly diametrically opposed ends of the proverbial spectrum: "You can't handle the truth!"
Yet isn't truth something that is sacrosanct to almost every person? Admittedly "truth" can be viewpoint dependent, but even given that, one's personal perception of the concept of truth is still a sought after and revered principle.
So how have we let ourselves come to believe that "soft" can somehow be equated with "bad"? What are the merits of being a proverbial hard-ass? It is highly unreasonable to believe that either end of the political spectrum wants to live in an armed camp or a giant hippy commune. All Americans, indeed all people, want peace, prosperity, and perhaps above all else stability.
If someone is "soft on crime" it does not imply they want crime, or don't care about crime, or are ignoring crime, or are unwilling to fight crime. It means they have a particular concept of what constitutes appropriate measures for dealing with crime, appropriate punishments for crime, or perhaps what even constitutes a crime. That concept, for the "soft" constituency, is simply a more reasoned approach, one that seeks community consensus, which in the greater scheme of things is the basis for law. The "hard asses" will only continue to be angry and frustrated at a lack of action, because only those that are "soft" on a issue will ever find a consensus acceptable to the majority of society.
Most importantly the reason we cannot allow ourselves to believe that "soft" equates with "bad" is a resurgence in the interest in "soft power." In simplest terms, soft power is getting others to want the outcomes you want. It means using example to replace coercion; enticement to replace force. While extremists are preaching force and military might, the majority of people are realizing that soft power is a viable alternative to hard power, or at the very least an adjunct to hard power (a combination now referred to as "smart power").
While a full study of the implications of what constitutes soft power can take a while, a little thought can make it conceptually easier. Sanctions are used to convince another entity, typically a nation, that it would be in their best political or economic interests to comply with the desires of another nation. This still constitutes hard power, because it is coercion even in light of the fact that it does not involve active military engagement. This is not to suggest that sanctions are not perhaps a necessary tool, nor to suggest that soft power can possibly replace hard power in any of its forms. The intent here is to understand that soft power is intended as a tool to get others to want what you want from genuine personal or national desire.
So what are the merits of soft power? Well, at the very least it makes for a far less adversarial relationship between all that are involved. Perhaps an example can be drawn from industries dominated by oligopolies, where the players are certainly competitive, but are not adversarial. For nations, adversarial relationships commonly lead to physical conflicts, often armed, and it is essentially impossible to accomplish anything productive when you are shooting at and bombing each other. Soft power implies a sort of consensual relationship even in light of significantly opposing ideals, where the parties involved may not get everything they want, but have to examine what those wants really are.
Soft power, indeed being "soft" on so many issues, is in fact indicative of being "reasonable". Is it reasonable as one syndicated radio host, who is arguably an extremist, suggests "So, kill 100 million of them, . . .." in reference to Muslims? No rational or reasonable person would even entertain such a proposition. Being soft on issues, using soft power, and being reasonable is where work will get done, where progress will be made, and where community, social, national, and global stability will persevere.
What's next?
