In part 2 I summarized and discussed a few of the comments left in my first diary on this subject. For those who haven't been following along, we've been discussing how the U.S. position in the world is changing. More specifically, about the imminent decline in U.S. power and influence which may already be underway, what it means and how to deal with it. I will discuss the comments to pt. 2 in another post (I want a few more days to digest them). Today I'd like to discuss the role of personality in power -- does the personality of an administration really affect U.S. power? More below.
I think most people will agree that the personality of the Bush Administration has had a huge impact on American power. I'm of the opinion that that impact has been largely negative (despite their claims to the contrary). Why? The answer to that question has to do with how, I believe, personality can affect power:
1.) The individuals in Government do not act rationally all of the time. Nor do they always act predictably. I think one cornerstone of U.S. power (and several commenters have agreed about this) is a certain "moral" authority. In my view that authority is based on being consistent with respect to stated values and objectives. One problem with people running Government is they will never ideally act according to those values, or always have the same objective. Not that uniformity is necessary for effective Government, but people are more likely to assist the U.S. with its policy goals if there appears to be some sort of consistency or reasoning behind them that appeals to something other than blind national interest.
2.) Personality affects how power is applied to solve problems. The President and his Administration can do much to set the agenda, where action occurs and how it happens. Congress also has this ability, as (to a lesser extent) does the Judiciary. It's obvious to most people that the Bush Administration's distinct "personality" has affected how it wields power. Both in determining what issues are important and how much power it can assert.
3.) Personality affects how people react to the President. From a classical Realist or a Rational Choice point of view, this isn't even a consideration when disussing national power. But I think it plays a very large role in determining how effective a country can be in getting others to support its objectives. Thanks to an article out in the Washington Post today, we get a glimpse of a President who's just starting to come to terms with this aspect of power. I haven't solidified my thoughts on this subject, so I'll phrase this as more of a question -- how do you think Bush's personality has affected U.S. power? And, more specifically, how have people's reactions figured into that equation? In the comments to my first post at least one commenter pointed out that the U.S. may seem more formidable because people precieve Bush as "crazy" and thus they don't want to stir up the hornet's nest. Do you think that's true?
Part of this exploration of personality and power is coming up with some sense of how a medium-sized power (or larger-than-average power) can be an effective force in the world. "Force", I realize, is a loaded term; by it I don't mean country A forcing all others to bend to its will. Rather, I mean the ability of country A to effectively pursue its objectives, whether those objectives are having a more peaceful world or opening up foreign markets (or protecting your own markets) or dealing with "stateless" issues like poverty, terrorism/piracy, international crime, etc.