Obama was a first-term senator from a Midwestern state who had declared his interest in running for the presidency. Many people were skeptical that an African-American with a strange name and little national experience could win. But as his campaign unfolded, he demonstrated that he possessed the powers to lead — both soft and hard.
Soft power is the ability to attract others, and the three key soft-power skills are emotional intelligence, vision and communications. In addition, a successful leader needs the hard-power skills of organizational and Machiavellian political capacity. Equally important is the contextual intelligence that allows a leader to vary the mix of these skills in different situations to produce the successful combinations that I call “smart power.”
During his campaign, Obama demonstrated these skills in his calm response to crises, his forward-looking vision, and his superb organizational ability. In addition, his contextual intelligence about world politics has been shaped from the bottom up with experience in Indonesia and Kenya, and his understanding of US politics was shaped from the bottom up as a community organizer in Chicago.
Obama continued to demonstrate these leadership skills in his almost flawless transition. By selecting his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, as his secretary of state, and reaching across party lines to retain Robert Gates as secretary of defense, he showed openness to strong subordinates. In his inaugural address, he sounded the themes of smart power — a willingness “to extend an open hand to those who unclench their fists” — but also stressed themes of responsibility as Americans confront sobering economic problems.
Moreover, Obama has started his term in decisive fashion. In his first weeks in office, he began to fulfill his campaign promises by outlining a massive economic stimulus plan, ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, promoting new fuel-efficiency standards to save energy, giving an interview to Al Arabiya and sending a top emissary to the Middle East.
Former US president George W. Bush once said that his role as leader was to be “the decider.” But even if Bush had been better as a decider, people want something more in a leader. We want someone who reinforces our identity and tells us who we are. We judge leaders not only by the effectiveness of their actions, but also by the meanings that they create and teach. Most leaders feed upon the existing identity and solidarity of their groups. But some leaders see moral obligations beyond their immediate group and educate their followers. Former South African president Nelson Mandela could easily have chosen to define his group as black South Africans and sought revenge for the injustices of apartheid and his own imprisonment. Instead, he worked tirelessly to expand the identity of his followers both by words and deeds.
When Obama was faced with a campaign crisis over incendiary racial remarks by his former pastor, he did not simply distance himself from the problem, but made use of the episode to deliver a speech that served to broaden the understanding and identities of both white and black Americans.
The crisis on Sept. 11, 2001, produced an opportunity for Bush to express a bold new vision of foreign policy. But he failed to produce a sustainable picture of the US’ leadership role in the world. A successful vision is one that combines inspiration with feasibility. Bush failed to get that combination right. Obama will need to use both his emotional and contextual intelligence if he is to restore US leadership. Contextual intelligence is the intuitive diagnostic skill that helps a leader align tactics with objectives to produce smart strategies in different situations. A decade ago, the conventional wisdom was that the world was a unipolar US hegemony.
Neo-conservative pundits drew the conclusion that the US was so powerful that it could do whatever it wanted and that others had no choice but to follow. This new unilateralism was based on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of power — that is, the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants — in world politics. The US may be the only superpower, but preponderance is not empire. The US can influence but not control other parts of the world. Whether certain resources will produce power depends upon the context.
To understand power and its contexts in the world today, I have sometimes suggested the metaphor of a three-dimensional chess game. On the top board of military power among countries, the US is the only superpower. On the middle board of economic relations among countries, the world is already multipolar. The US cannot get the outcomes it wants in trade, antitrust or other areas without the cooperation of the EU, China, Japan and others. On the bottom board of transnational relations outside the control of governments — pandemics, climate change, the drug trade or transnational terrorism, for example — power is chaotically distributed. Nobody is in control. This is the complex world in which Obama takes up the mantle of leadership. He inherits a global economic crisis, two wars in which US and allied troops are deployed, crises in the Middle East and South Asia and a struggle against terrorism. He will have to deal with this legacy and chart a new course at the same time. He will have to make difficult decisions while creating a larger sense of meaning in which America once again exports hope rather than fear. That will be the test of his leadership.
Joseph S. Nye is a professor at Harvard and author of The Powers to Lead.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers