‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power.

Whether you build the soft power ethically or unethically (and false propaganda could be one of the many unethical ways to build soft power) is upto the country in question.

And whether that soft power is deployed for “good” or “bad” purposes is also dependent on the actions and goals of the nation.

So it’s kind of as meaningless to ask whether soft power is “good” or “bad” as it is to ask whether a hammer is good or bad, except generally “soft” power tends to be a better way to achieve the goals of a country than the alternative (which involves the threat and/or actual dropping of bombs) and the methods of developing soft power tend to generally be better than the alternative (distributing medicines for Thberculosis, cultural exchanges, etc instead of building a bigger and more dangerous military).

Propaganda is a message. Soft power is a means.

For example, Voice of America publishes "Learning English" radio/tv broadcasts, podcasts, and news articles. They are produced with a limited vocabulary (I think a few thousand words), shorter sentences, and are spoken slower. They often match up with native language reporting of current events so you can listen to both for context clues.

Having people all over the world able to speak a basic level of English helps further the dominant role of the US in international trade, allows our military to use friendly locals as translators anywhere they go, and gives people around the world some level of "connection" with us - shared common ground to work from.

VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Which is why repressive governments hate it, as do people who want to create them.

> What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good?

A report from the American Enterprise Institute:

> To improve the US government’s response to the exploitation of youth by terrorist groups, the report recommends (1) adopting clear criteria to be used in weighing young peoples’ vulnerability to radicalization and recruitment and in creating and targeting terrorism prevention programs, (2) fostering both attitudinal and behavioral change to build youth resilience to recruitment, (3) moving beyond a traditional focus on young men to confront the radicalization and recruitment of girls and young women, and (4) engaging the family as a potential site of radicalization and recruitment.

* https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa...

For example:

> Cuts to health and food programs that wind up costing lives will embitter affected populations and be exploited in propaganda by anti-American groups. This will have at least a moderate effect in boosting recruitment by terrorist organizations.

* https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after...

All countries are in continual struggle for influence, to further their own interests. Doing this through soft power means (student exchanges, radio programs, films, music, building roads, blue jeans etc) is surely preferable to doing it through violent means. If the US reduces it's soft power, then no doubt it's influence will wane compared to other countries.

Have you ever tried to be nice to people instead of threatening them to get what you want ? That's the idea

Propaganda is a form of soft power, as is foreign aid, as is trade and cultural exchange. These things are "good" in the sense that they allow a nation to further its interests and strengthen its influence, and thus maintain stable and peaceful relationships with other nations, as opposed to furthering those interests through the direct use of violence.

Also what on earth does Nietzsche have to do with anything?

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

Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?

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)

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.

> how the same “liberals” who decried the invasion and corruption of Iraq, cheer on and demand limitless warfare

This is an absurdly dishonest take on Ukraine, and why “liberals” (or whatever you’re trying to say) support it.

There isn’t a single, real, person who supports “war” above and beyond “Russia should stop invading and leave” and it is extremely difficult to believe that stating otherwise was done in good faith.

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...

https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AA2RFE4CPSKBZ78P

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...

Please do not be blinded by your well deserved distaste for trump. People calling for the ending of USAID are not all MAGA.

In the USA, Republicans build the military and Democrats wield it.

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.

It sounds like you’re not actually interested, and would like to make a point instead.

There absolutely are protections for probationary employees, just not as many as there are for those not in probationary status. Courts are already re-instating people who were clearly fired without cause. Our courts just aren't equipped to deal with these types of events as frequently and widely as they are happening now.

ah ok, thanks for the clarification! But there shouldn't be too many probationary employees, right?

So what's administrate leave exactly? Just relieved from your responsibilities? I guess you still get paid.

I am having trouble understanding the document. Where is it stated? I can not exactly follow your argument. I am not sure why being accountable to the people necessitates having not any job protection?

I would have expected this to be codified (What is accountability for a federal employee). I mean regulatory bodies should also be accountable but also shielded from political influence, right?

It's both

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Unrepentant incompetence, especially in the presence of a counter/restoring force being actively ignored is indistinguishable from malice.

The U.S. is not unanimous in this dismantling effort, great controversy has been and continues to be brewed, which to any competent leader should signal a slower, more cautious approach. We see no such thing.

Hanlon's razor does not apply in such a circumstance. It only serves to ease the process of bloodletting by acting as a thought terminating cliche.

Biden didn't do nothing. He stated firm support for Israel, to the point of declaring himself a Zionist, he sent billions of dollars in arms and aid to Israel, and the US under his leadership vetoed numerous UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire, as well as witheld funding to Palestinian relief organizations.

He got the nickname "Genocide Joe" because of how enthusiastic he almost seemed to be about it. Utter disregard and contempt for Palestinian lives is one area where very little daylight exists between Biden and Trump. Even Kamala Harris didn't deviate from that norm.

I don't think so. What's described isn't one party attacking another for positions they supposedly support. Neither of the mainstream parties supported the "end of the American Empire" - that's something you really only heard from paleo-socialists, anarchists and contrarians regurgitating Cold War Soviet propaganda.