Jump to content
birdwing7

"Don't use the term "soft power"'

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure where this link should go.

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=its_time_to_stop_talking_about_soft_power

 

The article says that Democrats and the left need to quit using the words soft power because it makes them seem weak and puts them at a political disadvantage.

 

Maybe a "do plan but don't use the term soft power" PIC?

Edited by birdwing7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure where this link should go.

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=its_time_to_stop_talking_about_soft_power

 

The article says that Democrats and the left need to quit using the words soft power because it makes them seem weak and puts them at a political disadvantage.

 

Maybe a "do plan but don't use the term soft power" PIC?

 

 

And I've tried it on every chick I've met since joining this Board last year... I'm 0-1300+ posts. :( I'm not sure where my link is welcome, either... :( :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you seriously just suggest PICing out of words in ADVANTAGES but not plan text? Wow these are becoming abusive.

 

Why not? I have seen a debate where the neg PICed out of gendered language and run a gendered language critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you seriously just suggest PICing out of words in ADVANTAGES but not plan text? Wow these are becoming abusive.

 

I agree- with that in mind I think this "soft power" language bad type arguement could turn into a pretty interesting arguement. For example, if the negative runs some sort of cp with a soft power da as the nb the aff could use this arguement as a sort of tiny elections type politics disad to the cp. I.E. soft power language makes the dems look weeak, democratic strength key to 08 election...etc. I think the same thing could be done to an aff claiming a soft power advantage. Now, whether those disads are unique or strategically viable is a whole other story, but I definitly think theres some potential for this "soft power" garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't suggest any alternative phrase though...

 

What a great idea -- we are word people and we understand the power of how concepts are termed. What would we suggest the democrats call "soft power"? We need a word or phrase that suggests strength through compassion and example, and avoids the baggage of "soft." For a minute I thought about the phrase "moral authority," (from the article) but then I didn't like the baggage that would be associated with that phrase.

 

We need to come up with some catchy phrase that raises the concept of soft power to something important and potent. We need something like the Republican's "compassionate conservatism" which made reduction of government benefits/programs sound like a really good thing.

 

Whether you believe in the Democratic position or not, what would you call "soft power"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just interesting that soft power has been linked 100% with democrats. I feel like the concept isn't partisan in any real sense. Am I wrong in thinking this? Obviously neocons haven't been tossing around the SP term...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldenberg's answer to "no alternative"

 

Soft Power

Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I agree with Ezra. There isn't really a need for a replacement term for Soft Power, which is why I didn't bother to suggest one in my original article. In fact, one can advocate for the ideas underpinning soft power - and some kind of mix of liberal internationalism and neorealism - without using the actual term. If you must, Smart Power is pretty good. But the problem with the word smart is that it sounds pretty condescending and elitist. Another friend has suggested Principled Power, which has a nice ring to it. Or Ezra's recommendation of "remember Iraq" is also pretty effective these days.

 

But I think it's ultimately not about the phrase but about the attitude. When progressives refuse to be beaten up on national security and respond aggressively to conservative attacks they overcome the traditional stereotype of weakness. You don't prove that you are strong by making half-hearted politically transparent promises about "killing terrorists" and annihilating other countries. You prove that you are strong by standing up for what you believe in, such as the ideas behind Soft Power, and demonstrating that you are willing to fight for it and not concede the point to your conservative opponent.

 

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/06/soft-power.html

 

And for anyone interested, Ezra Klein is soliciting replacement names. If you win and get quoted by Klein on the American Prospect, I guess you could quote yourself next year.

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2008&base_name=a_new_name_for_soft_power

 

Apparently Yglesias is on board too, though I don't see a card in this post.

 

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/soft_power_1.php

Edited by birdwing7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff chooses what they put in the 1AC and should be prepared to defend it. The neg only needs to win that the aff must defend the entirety of their 1AC advocacy and not just the plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for anyone interested, Ezra Klein is soliciting replacement names. If you win and get quoted by Klein on the American Prospect, I guess you could quote yourself next year.

Cool, I submitted three: Imperative Power, Metric Power, and Normative Power.

 

Any thoughts? Good? Bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool, I submitted three: Imperative Power, Metric Power, and Normative Power.

 

Any thoughts? Good? Bad?

why metric?

 

and what about Diplomatic Power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why metric?

 

and what about Diplomatic Power?

Metric: "A metric is a...set of ways of quantitatively and periodically measuring, assessing, controlling or selecting a person, process, event, or institution"

 

And Diplomatic Power doesn't have name attraction going for it. It sounds clunky and is too narrow to encompass soft power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but to Joe Voter, "metric power" sounds like some system we tried to implement in the 1970s with liters and meters. I think the Europeans believe in "metric power."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a registered Republican. Do I still link?

 

Sarcasm aside, I don't find this argument very persuasive. If you run it as a critique, there is no impact. If you run it as a disad, there's no link.

 

If you treat this position as a discourse critique, the implications are nil. Everyone in the room watching the debate knows what "soft power" means, and none of them would be naive enough to associate the concept with being "weak" on foreign policy goals. The cards posted above are talking about how the general population reacts to the use of the term by Democratic politicians, not how debaters interpret other debaters. The he/she discourse analogy is artificial - using the generic "he" is inappropriate even in academic settings. "Soft power" is completely appropriate, unless debaters honestly think their audience extends to the American population at large.

 

On the other hand, if you're running the position like it's a disad, there's absolutely no link. The aff's plan text tells you very little about the specific wording of the legislation it advances, and it tells you absolutely nothing about what the legislators who pass it will say on the record. A 1AC makes no pretense of being a speech by a Representative offering legislation to a committee, and nobody thinks a plan text or 1AC should represent the wording of legislation.

 

Take your pick.

Edited by Tomak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you're running the position like it's a disad, there's absolutely no link. The aff's plan text tells you very little about the specific wording of the legislation it advances, and it tells you absolutely nothing about what the legislators who pass it will say on the record. A 1AC makes no pretense of being a speech by a Representative offering legislation to a committee, and nobody thinks a plan text or 1AC should represent the wording of legislation.

 

I wouldn't say there's no link. Just a tenuous one. If I were the 1NR (who'd be the one extending it because, egad, no one wants to answer cross-x questions about this link story) I'd argue that a) no legislation gets passed without its proponents offering some justification for why it's a good idea, and "soft power" would inevitably be a part of that explanation/discussion (in other words, advantage evaluation is normal means) and B) Republicans would spin the plan as a "soft power solution" even if Dems try to avoid that characterization, to take advantage of Obama's seeming weakness on foreign policy. Of course those sort of blurry would/should characterizations are precisely why some people hate politics debates I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a registered Republican. Do I still link?

 

Sarcasm aside, I don't find this argument very persuasive. If you run it as a critique, there is no impact. If you run it as a disad, there's no link.

 

If you treat this position as a discourse critique, the implications are nil. Everyone in the room watching the debate knows what "soft power" means, and none of them would be naive enough to associate the concept with being "weak" on foreign policy goals. The cards posted above are talking about how the general population reacts to the use of the term by Democratic politicians, not how debaters interpret other debaters. The he/she discourse analogy is artificial - using the generic "he" is inappropriate even in academic settings. "Soft power" is completely appropriate, unless debaters honestly think their audience extends to the American population at large.

 

On the other hand, if you're running the position like it's a disad, there's absolutely no link. The aff's plan text tells you very little about the specific wording of the legislation it advances, and it tells you absolutely nothing about what the legislators who pass it will say on the record. A 1AC makes no pretense of being a speech by a Representative offering legislation to a committee, and nobody thinks a plan text or 1AC should represent the wording of legislation.

 

Take your pick.

 

You may be right; I'm not sure. I sure hear debaters talk about hard power and soft power (concepts to which they were introduced only in debate, I imagine) in everyday contexts. As a matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of many examples of hearing the term "soft power" except from debaters or while doing debate research.

 

And if counterplan or alternative picks up all affirmative significance, how much impact does the net benefit need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Floating PICs are 100% illegitimate. That's like saying unconditionality bad.

 

whats wrong with saying unconditionality bad? i won a round on it... =p then again that same round there were sources from someone named Shanaynay(made up) and aliens from the planet zargon... but either way,

unconditionality bad because its unfair to the negative team for screwing themselves over by sticking themselves with such a horrible excuse for a counterplan. (standards of fairness (to the neg) education (because no one cares about consulting NATO on SSA) and predictability (how can we expect them to screw themselves over like that)) and floating pics are just another tool in the game. but make sure you can support why of course and like Ankur said the prime example of a legit pic is a gendered language PIC with K. its pretty easy to stick a team with defending the entirety of their 1ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about not reading soft power, as it's not key to heg, and there's no issue spillover. there's not a case in history where the US was liked/disliked and people reacted according to Nye's concept. There's a brooks and wohlforth card saying that somewhere... I'll find it if you care...

 

no, really, you could probably win soft power key to heg (in debate). and it's still a good answer to a bunch of cps this year, so it's strategic value may be worth it.

 

regardless, the pic's got a lot of theory problems for a strat that can be acheived with a bunch of other cps

Edited by Destroyer1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Floating PICs are 100% illegitimate. That's like saying unconditionality bad.

 

lol someone has actually read that against me at a local tournament

 

they just read their condo good block and labeled it differently, ahh made me laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...