Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 

Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old white male who had been in and out of prison much of
his life. He made a living by gambling and theft.

Gideon was serving a five-year sentence for the crime of breaking and entering with the intent to
commit a misdemeanor (petty larceny). He was convicted of breaking and entering into the Bay
Harbor Pool room in Panama City, Florida.

Gideon submitted a five-page writ of certiorari directed to the Supreme Court for the State of
Florida. Gideon felt his conviction violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
        “No state shall …deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Why or how? Gideon asked for aid of counsel. To try a poor man for a felony without giving him
a lawyer was to deprive him of due process of law.

However, there was an earlier Supreme Court case known as Betts v. Brady, in which the
Supreme Court had rejected the idea due process clause of the fourteenth amendment provided
a flat guarantee of counsel in state criminal trials. The earlier decision of Betts v. Brady surprised
many people because Justice Owen J. Roberts said the 14th amendment provided no universal
assurance of lawyers help in state criminal cases.  Constitutionally required only if to be tried
without one amounted to “a denial of fundamental fairness”. Later cases refined the rule of Betts
v. Brady. For the poor man he had to prove he fell under special circumstances of the court.
Those could be illiteracy, mental illness, or ignorance and event to the complexity of he
charges.

In Gideon’s petition he showed no prior knowledge of this case. From the day Gideon was tried
he had the idea that a poor man was entitled to a lawyer.

June 1, 1962 the court granted Gideon’s writ of certiorari and to discuss if the court’s holding on
Betts v. Brady were reconsidered.

Abe Fortas was appointed as Gideon’s counsel. Fortas saw that Gideon had no special
circumstances that required him counsel under Betts v. Brady. But it was clear that Gideon would
have benefited from a lawyer. 

Fortas’ told the court that there was no indication that Gideon had low intelligence, or the judge
was unfair, but Gideon’s case shows the difficulty with Betts versus Brady. It shows that no man
however intelligent can conduct his own defense adequately.
A few days later Gideon v Wainwright was decided, the court concurred in the overruling of Betts
v Brady. All the states responded quickly to the decision, especially Florida. Shortly after the
decision Governor Farris Bryant called on the legislature to enact a public defendant.

The resolution of Gideon v Wainwright did not decide the fate of Gideon. He was now entitled to
new trial. Gideon was appointed a state attorney W. Fred Turner. After nearly two years in prison
Gideon was found not guilty. 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: an individual cannot be compelled to incriminate himself

-in 1966, U.S. Supreme Court held that Ernesto Miranda’s constitutional rights were violated because he was not advised of his rights
-the rights of one accused of a crime have come to be known as the Miranda rights briefly stated as follows:

-prior to questioning, law enforcement officers/police must 

(1) warn a suspect that he has the right to remain silent, 
(2) that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him, and 
(3) that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, 
(4) that if the person cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning

     Chief Justice Earl Warren's 1966 majority opinion in landmark civil liberties case regarding rights of the accused during arrest. 
     Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape and subsequently identified by the victim in a police lineup. 
     Miranda's interrigation lead to a signed confession which read that he had done so with "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding that any statement I make may be used against me." 
     Miranda's confession was entered as evidence in court and used to gain a conviction despite the officer's testimony that Miranda had not been told of his rights to have an attorney present during interrogation. 
     The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the grounds that Miranda had not specifically requested an attorney. 
     The United States Supreme Court overturned Miranda's conviction. 
     Chief Justice Warren based the Miranda ruling on Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). 
     Warren writes that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." 
     Warren contends that, prior to interrogation, anyone taken into custody by law enforcement must be made fully aware of their right to remain silent, that any statement they make may be used as evidence against them, and that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. 
     Warren observes that an individual may request this attorney at any time during the questioning process, and that answering some questions does not deprive one the right to have an attorney present during further questioning. 
     The Constitutional issue in Miranda is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. 
     The problem in Miranda was the problem of secrecy, that the interrogation occurred while the defendant was being held incommunicado without the knowledge that he was rightfully due an attorney during said questioning. 
     Warren sights various police manuals as evidence that the goal of police officers during questioning is to gain a confession from the accused by way of psychological coersion which is most effective in private, and that without the presence of an attorney the accused is a victim of this privacy and secrecy. 
     This secrecy leads to gaps in knowledge of the facts of an interrogation. 
     Warren observes that the curcumstanes surrounding private interrogation of the accused by law enforcement are designed to intimidate the defendant, and that this is at odds with the right to freedom from self-incrimintaion. 
     Warren rules on the basis that procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the freedom from self-incrimination, and states that certain procedures must be followed 
     A defendant must be notified of his right to remain silent, that anything he says may be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
     The defendant may waive these rights after due notification, but until he has done so after notification no statements he makes may be admitted as evidence in a trial. 

An analysis of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 reveals bureaucratic failures as well as the proposal of controversial legislation.

The dilemma: How much should government intrude into the lives of citizens in its quest to provide protection?

In 2003, an assessment stated “At home the counterterrorism effort suffered from the lack of an effective domestic intelligence capability.” (FBI/CIA)

Kettl suggests that “Americans and their officials wondered if the nation’s tradition of openness and minimal intrusion of government had allowed the hijackers an advantage that they had exploited to horrendous result.”

Congressional proposals included legislation to ease the government tracking of telephone calls as well as emails, also extended wiretapping capabilities and tracking funds to terrorist organizations. Kettl elaborates that the Bush administration wanted to extend these proposals with indefinite detaining of noncitizens suspected of planning terrorist acts, extended eavesdropping, and also make these capabilities permanent for the federal government.

Opposition to this hasty legislation was proposed by Senator Lehay and the American Civil Liberties Union on the basis of civil liberties, lack of habeas corpus, also detaining “enemy combatants” indefinitely without trial.

The USA Patriot Act was introduced. (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) Kettl notes that the acronym described the act, but “wrapped the legislation in the cloak of patriotism, which the drafters hoped no one could resist.”

Patriot Act’s expansion of powers:

-tracking and gathering of info with phonecalls and now email
-allowing “roving surveillance” not bound to one location/tool (includes voicemail/library books)
-investigating money laundering
-strengthening border agents power to detain/deport suspicious individuals
-declaring certain activities as federal crimes (attacks on transportation facilities, bio attacks, harboring of terrorists, money laundering for terrorism, etc)
-allowing “sneak and peek” searches (those searches done without informing, as not to tip off potential terrorist cells)
-allowing prosecution of computer hackers (with terrorists possibly hacking electronic files/businesses)

 Kettl concludes by stating that homeland security is a balance, between protection and safety in their workplaces and homes, as well as freedom and liberty in their daily lives.

Brown vs Board of Education - December 13, 1952 

     By the 1952 Term, the Court was failing to reach a unanimous decision 81% of the time 
          It was the most severely fractured court in history (mainly due to Fred Vinson's failure as Chief Justice) 
          The divided court has dealt with other racial cases by chipping away at Jim Crow
          laws and ignoring Plessy vs Ferguson's validity
               With Brown they could not ignore Plessy any longer 
               It was the South with which the Justices had primarily to deal in confronting Brown 
          The civil rights of blacks and criminal defendants were prone to be mixed together in
          the public, all these factors were a target for the "red tar" of anti Americanism 
          The Supreme Court but a stop to the Brown discussions as the year ended (Vinson
          swore in Eisenhower) 
               The Justices were not close to a decision and they knew that a close vote
               would be disastrous for the court and the country 
               Fred Vinson was increasingly disagreeable, he was upset over the Court's
               inability to find a strong, unified position on Brown 
               Fred Vinson died of a heart attack on September 8, 1953 
                    Some felt he was the obstacle to the courts problem of reaching a
                    defensible settlement of the monumental segregation cases 
          Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice 
               Warren thought it was a simple case 
                    He looked at previous decisions and said that they kept "chipping
                    away" at Plessy rather than facing it head-on 
                    He felt there was only one way the case could be decided, but the
                    question was how it was to be reached 
               Warren declared that the Court's policy of delay (favored by Vinson) could no longer be permitted 
               Warren believed that the idea of separate but equal rested on the idea of the
               inferiority of the African American race 
                    He stated that the law could not set the races apart and doing so went
                    against the intentions of the three Civil War amendments
               Warren wanted to unite the court on the Brown decision 
                   He felt that a lot of precedents would be broken when they overturned
                    Plessy, but he felt it was a necessity 
                    He recognized that the Court's decision would have wide spread
                    repercussions, varying in intensity from state to state 
               Warren decision was approved at the May 15 conference 
               The decision was announced on May 17, 1954 

"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis......deprive the children of minority group of equal education opportunities.?  "We believe that it does."....  "We conclude.... unanimously," - "that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place.  Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" 
The Court wanted full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, so they scheduled further argument for the term beginning the following fall  Attorney Generals and all states requiring or permitting segregation were invited to participate 

• May 17th, 1954 Justice Earl Warren, issued a historic ruling that he and his colleagues hoped would irrevocably change the social fabric of the United States.

• “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate-but-equal' has no place.  Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
• The Brown lawyers had apparently accomplished what politicians, scholars, and others could not- an unparalleled victory that would create a nation of equal justice under the law.
• The Court's decision seemed to call for a new era in which black children and white children could have equal opportunities.

• Court concluded that to achieve the goal of desegregation, the lower federal courts were to enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis “with all deliberate speed.”
• Lawyers found out that “all deliberate speed” meant slow.

• Brown I was supposed to end segregation in public schools.
• Brown II encouraged the integration and implementation of all races in public schools.

After first introducing the two larger movements, assimilationists who work within the system and liberationists who work outside mainstream politics, Rimmerman goes on to focus on the liberationists and their methods almost solely through the example of ACT UP, a group focusing on nonviolent civil disobedience, and the 3 marches on Washington, D.C. 

In 1987 ACT UP broke off from the service based group, GMHC, and focused on political action by using the mass media. It spread worldwide and made an effort to recruit women and minorities, though despite this many chapters had strong divisions between men and women.
The first march in 1979 went largely unnoticed though it had over 100,000 participants. 

• The second march in 1987 garnered far more media attention by helping newspapers focus on local angles by having groups hold signs showing what cities and states they were from. Many critics however, argued that the march was useless in political sense because no one in congress cared despite the large numbers because the gay movement fails to do the day to day work in congress preferring demonstrations.
• The third march in 2000 also showed the movement’s disunity when 2 groups the HRC and the UFMCC made many decisions without even asking other organizations or greater gay rights movement as a whole. The march also failed to address the criticisms aimed at the last march.

Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy present the story behind an "obscure federal case involving the First Amendment and freedom of religion." 

The case involved a road that the U.S. Forest Service had decided to build through public lands considered to be secret b the Yuroke Tribe in northern California. 

The tribe felt that if the road was built it would destroy the sanctity of the "high country" forever. 

The Indians used the free exercise clause which forbids the government from outlawing religious beliefs as their guide to fight the building of the road in court. 

In 1983 the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California voted that the building of the road would violate the Northwest Indian's right to freely exercise their religion. 

The government continued to appeal the decision without success until it reached the Supreme Court in November of 1987. 

The Indians based their Supreme Court arguments on their victories in the lower courts and on a 1972 Supreme Court case, Wisconsin v. Yoder. 

The Indians lost by one vote. 

The Supreme Court concluded that "unless the government coerces individuals to act in a manner that violates their religious beliefs, the free exercise clause is not implicated, and the government does not have to provide a compelling reason for actions. 

Tiger O'Rourke, an Indian who helped fight the cause, stated that, "We have to understand the Constitution now.  We still need our line of warriors, but now they've got to be legal warriors.  That's our war now, and it's the only way we're going to survive." 

Although the Supreme Court acted in favor of the government, the 101st Congress passed legislation adding the G-O Road corridor to the Siskiyou Wilderness. 

This legislation ensures that the logging road will not be completed. 

However, the area was protected to preserve the environment rather than the Indians' religion.

"A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." - Chief Justice Warren Burger - 

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion

-for ages Indian tribes in Northern California have performed sacred religious ceremonies

-when the U.S. Forrest Service announced plans to build a logging road through the heart of the high country, the Indians went to court, claiming that the logging road would violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion

-the Indians lost their case in the U.S. Supreme Court by one vote with Justice Brennan writing an emotional dissent

-however, the 101^st Congress passed legislation ensuring the logging road will not be completed based on environmental reasons rather than the Indian’s religion. Thus the Indians’ victory was bitter sweet

-Legitimate, deeply-rooted rights have given way to what are nothing more than demands.
-In 1988 election, only 1/2 of eligible voters voted.
-Americans vote less than citizens of other liberal democracies.  They also display a remarkable
degree of apathy concerning public affairs.
-In the home of free speech, genuine exchange of ideas about matters of high public importance
has come to a virtual standstill.
-A near-aphasia concerning responsibilities make it seem legitimate to accept the benefits of
living in a democratic social welfare republic without assuming the corresponding personal and
civic obligations.
-As various new rights are proclaimed or proposed, the catalog of individual liberties expands
without much consideration of the ends to which they are oriented, their relationship to one
another, to corresponding responsibilities, or to the general welfare.
-We need the renewal of our strong rights tradition, not the abandonment.

-Glendon is in favor of individual rights but yet she wants people to be more realistic and less artificial when it comes to their  definition of rights.

-Voting, for example, is a right but yet Americans tend to do it less than all other citizens of liberal democracies.

-Poor voter turnout is a problem especially because people complain so much about their rights but yet they won't go out and  do anything about it.

-Conflict about rights has become something  very common that we discuss in a public setting to talk about the issues of right or  wrong.

-To keep adding on to rights is eventually going to cause a collision as far as "well this right says I can do it but on the other hand  this law says I can't do it".

-Simplistic rights talk reflects and distorts American culture.

-What is needed is not the abandonment but the renewal of our strong rights tradition.

The United States ideology is from: the Wealth of Nations and the Declaration of Independence. 

The Wealth of Nations is an overview of how the market system can benefit the greater society, as an “individual intends to his own gain” is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” 

As the Wealth of Nations was an economic ideology, the Declaration of Independence was a political one. It lays the foundation of the United States based on the fact that each person can pursue their own values—with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Friedman argues that “Economic freedom is an essential prerequisite for political freedom.” Yet, a combination of economic & political power is dangerous.

Friedman continues to state that the growth of big govt or central govt limits freedom, and there is a noted growth in the United States government. The big government would eliminate the growth of the free-market and freedoms of the Declaration.

The question is how can we save economic freedom from big government? Friedman details the concentration of power in DC with thousands of employees, lobbyists, etc. He also details about the huge bureaucratic system, and its powers of red-tape. 

Friedman proposes a solution to the growth of big government and the limits of economic freedom with: An Economic Bill of Rights: This limits the funds that federal and state legislators can appropriate. By implementing this, the legislators would remain in balance with the programs which they want to support.

Friedman concludes by stating that “human and economic freedom are part of the very fabric of our being…” and the “greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power…” yet we are still free to choose for a change of direction.

*Economic freedom is necessary to ensure Political freedom
    - if you combine economic and political power together in one person/ institution, tyranny is imminent

-strong / big gov't poses danger to freedom (out weighs the "good" big gov't can do)
- our gov't has become to strong (local--Fed.)
        even with good reasons for expansion this is dangerous
- if the gov't keeps expanding we will possibly loose prosperity and our freedom
- we can still save America if we stop the growth of big central gov't
- mentions how powerful Washington is and lobbyists, interest groups....

    there is an "invisible hand in politics"  BUT people who promote the general interest are guided by the "invisible hand" to promote special interests inadvertently
- we have a gov't run largely by bureaucrats that are not looking out for the general interest
- they have ways of affecting policies by slowing things down, speeding them up, or interpreting policies in different ways

Proposal:
    -we can limit what gov't may do
    - Economic Bill of Rights
            -limit the total amount of $ the legislators (st. or fed.) may appropriate
            - with this limited budget the legislators would have to cut something in order to add something new which would keep them "in check" and accountable for the causes and policies which they support
 
 

-Explored the situation of people who were poor w/in a society of plenty. 
-His characterization of the poor as "socially invisible" and "politically invisible" led to wide
public recognition of the problems of poverty in Amer.

-In 1950s this Amer. Worried about itself, yet even its anxieties were products of abundance. 
-Began to call itself "the affluent society" 
-Nations problem no longer matter of basic human needs. Now they were seen as qualitative,
a question of learning to live decently among the luxury.

-At same time, 40M- 50M citizens were poor and still are. 
-Amer. Poor are pessimistic and defeated and they are victimized by mental suffering to a
degree unknown in Suburbia. 
-Millions who are poor tend to become increasingly invisible. 
-American city has been transformed. 
        -Poor still inhabit the miserable housing in the central area, but are increasingly isolated
from contact w/or sight of anybody else

-The Development of the Amer. City has removed poverty from the living. 
        -well-meaning ignorance 
-Poor politically have no face and no voice. 
-Slums no longer visible to the middle class, so need for help is gone. 
-Today's poor missed the political and social gains of the 30s. 
        -First poor not to be seen. 
-Any attempt to abolish poverty in the U.S. must seek to destroy the pessimism and fatalism
that flourish in the other Amer.

        -This can be done by offering real opportunities to those people by changing the social
reality that gives rise to their sense of hopelessness.

-The spirit of a campaign against poverty does not cost a single cent. It is a matter of vision. 
-Poverty forms a culture, and interdependent sys. 
-Campaign against the misery of the poor should be comprehensive. 
-Fed. Gov't only institution in society capable of acting to abolish poverty. 

-In “Flat Broke with Children,” Sharon Hays describes the welfare system changes in 1996. The changes she is referring to were made by The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which ended poor families’ entitlement to federal welfare benefits.

-At first, it seemed that all was well—getting unemployed people on welfare to work instead of relying on a check every month. Even though there was a lot more money in the state systems, all but four states left their wages for these people the same; two actually lowering them.

-Also, the new changes required the clients to find jobs in a certain time allotted by the state; however, every state’s rules were not the same. 

-Over ninety percent of welfare clients are mothers, this meant that they would have a job, but also they would have acquired costs for sending their children to daycare.

-As she spent time in the welfare offices of two towns, Hays discovered in many case that the desire to work was present. Although many of the women had not worked for some time, it was not a lack of initiative that landed them on welfare. The money itself would not support their many obligations.

-Although the new rules were encouraging, because the new caseworkers seemed to care about their clients, there was still punishment involved if a job was not obtained. Also, the welfare mothers got the message that they were not wanted, and Americans were tired of helping them.

-While most seemed to feel down and out, there were some welfare clients who thought the changes were good. They were offered training for their new jobs that they found very inspiring. They felt that “Americans were standing with [them] rather than against [them].

-This reform was beneficial only in the amount of people left on welfare. If we are simply worried about our money as individuals—the moral obligations aside—this plan was a failure.

-Great ambition without contribution is without significance. To truly impact any social standing, welfare included, everyone must be involved in the change, not only those who suffer, but also those who thrive. 

Barber’s definitions relative to the reading:

 Jihad- a religious struggle which can result in violence through the political and militaristic means of the crusade. The term, while many times associated with Islam is used in the context of any heartfelt struggle. Eg. Montana militia, Nazis, even Christians

 McWorld- the rapid economic and cultural expansion throughout the world of popular culture and goods. McDonalds is international and can be found within any and every culture. It is representative of the global encompassment of American culture, popular culture.

Jihad and McWorld balance each other out. They are two opposite forces which continuously struggle against each other, and neither one of them will ever truly die out. There will always be a cause for Jihad, a new effort for radicals to be involved in, and at the same time, society is continuously changing. Even those who fight against change embrace it in their actions.

 Bosnian assassins wear new Adidas apparel, Middle Eastern zealots watch satellite network television, and radical organizations listen to and play rock music in an effort to release their message.

 McWorld is the theory of globalization, and Jihad is anti-globalization. Together they balance each other out. 

What do Jihad and McWorld have in common?

 Both are negative
  Jihad focuses on destroying nationalism and sovereignty through isolating communities, while McWorld hurts national interests by the forging of global markets which hinder the sovereignty of nations. McWorld’s most powerful negative factor is the greed which is the focus of McWorld globalization.

Huntington describes the renewal of religion, especially the conflict between Islam and Christianity, as the primary factor in the shift of power to non-Western civilizations.

• The ideas of modernism, reason, progress, and prosperity continue to define American values.

• People are now emphasizing ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions.

•  The clash of civilizations has replaced the old rivalry of the superpowers.

(1) Some attempt to emulate the West and to join or to “bandwagon” with the West.
(2) Other societies attempt to expand their own economic and military power to resist and to “balance” against the West.

• Trade may or may not follow the flag, but culture almost always follows power.

As Western power declines, the ability of the West to impose Western concepts of human rights, liberalism, and democracy on other civilizations also declines and so does the attractiveness of those values to other civilizations.

East Asia, for example, attributes their own dramatic economic development not to their import of Western culture but rather to their adherence to their own culture.

Ronald Dore terms the rise of the much larger second generation in non-Western civilizations as the “second-generation indigenization phenomenon.”

•  Most of this second generation, in contrast to the first generation of foreign-educated teenagers, gets its education at home in universities created by the first generation, and the local rather than the colonial language is increasingly used for instruction.

•  This religious resurgence involved people returning to, reinvigoration, and giving new meaning to the traditional religions of their communities.
•  In society after society, this renewal manifests itself in the daily lives and work of people and the concerns and projects of government.

•  People need new sources of identity, new forms of stable community, and new sets of moral precepts to provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose.

More broadly, the religious resurgence throughout the world is a reaction against secularism, moral relativism, and self-indulgence, and a reaffirmation of the values of order, discipline, work, mutual help, and human solidarity.

•  Religious groups meet social needs left untended by state bureaucracies, such as medical assistance.

In conclusion, the futures of both peace and Civilization depend upon understanding and cooperation among the political, spiritual, and intellectual leaders of the world’s major civilizations.

-Around 1500 A.D. global politics were a multipolar system, meaning nations interacted, competed, and fought wars with each other.  Decisions by one civilization affected every other.  During the cold war politics became bipolar, in that the world was divided into three parts, with a group of democratic societies clashing and competing with nations associated with and led by the Soviet Union

-Post Cold-war the most important distinctions between people are cultural, not ideological, political, or economic.  We know who we are often after we only know who we are not or who we are against.  The world post cold war is made up of seven or eight major civilizations

-East Asian economic success has its source in East Asian culture, as do the difficulties East Asian societies have had in achieving stable democratic political systems.  Islamic culture explains in large part the failure of democracy to emerge in much of the Muslim world.

-Huntington states the West is and will remain for years to come the most powerful civilization, yet its power relative to other civilizations is declining.  Modernization is generating the revival of non-Western societies throughout the world

-“hard power”, power to command resting on economic and military strength, “soft power”, ability of a state to get “other countries to want what it wants” through appeal of culture and ideology.  Culture and ideology become attractive when they are seen as rooted in material success.  Nations will be swayed to follow the path of a successful nation in order to be successful themselves

-Communist ideology appealed to people worldwide when it was associated with economic success in the 50’s and 60’s, but that appeal evaporated when the Soviet Union stagnated and was unable to maintain military strength.

-For several centuries non-Western peoples envied the economic prosperity, technological sophistication and military power of Western societies, now though many East Asian societies attribute their dramatic economic development not to their import of Western culture but instead their adherence to their own culture. In other words, they are successful because they are not like the western world

Joseph Nye, “Soft Power”
by Deborah Garrett, Spring 2008
• Niccolo Machiavelli believed that it was better to be feared than to be loved.  Nye believes though that in the global age with information and technology we need to be feared and loved.  Adapting people’s worldviews has always been important, and Nye believes that politicians have spent little time reevaluating how power has changed.
• What is hard power? 
• Hard power is basically defined in military power and economic strength of a nation.   “Hard power can rest on inducements (“carrots”) or threats (“sticks”). 
• What is soft power? 
• Soft power “rest on the ability to shape the preferences of the others” which means that we should instead bring others to our side to our cultural values and viewpoints.  This is just as important to Nye as hard power.   Like the president’s power resides in his strength to persuade the nation to be behind his policies so does the nations power in a way with soft power. 
• He Believes a nations soft power rests in three sources. 
• (1) Culture (2) political values (3) foreign policies 
• American culture has misunderstood the significance of soft power.
• Nye says we want to act in the interest of others but we do not act in their interests.  Anti-Americanism is growing around the world.  Nye believes this is because we do not support soft power and our international relations are declining.
• Many are skeptical about soft power and believe that national sovereignty is more important than popularity. 
• Nye believes that soft power is of critical importance in United States even though we succeeded without soft power in the past.
• Soft power is not just about popularity or acceptance of other countries it is a form of actual power.   In some countries following America policies or is kiss of death for their leaders makes them less likely to follow United States policies abroad. 
• “Absurd views feed upon each other, and paranoia can be contagious.  Americans attitudes toward foreigners harden and we begin to believe that the rest of the world really does hate us.” 

• Various groups on foreign policy with soft power views
• Wilsonians/neoconservatives-soft power that can be generated by promoting democracy 
• New Unilateralists –assertive approaches in promoting American policies abroad today

• In February 1998, an American Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler was traveling at 621 miles per hour, at a height of 360 ft, when it crashed into a gondola killing twenty people. The Northern Italians were outraged, and thought President Clinton promised financial compensation, it was shot down in Congress.
• The term “blowback” was first used in the CIA. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies kept secret from the America people. Simply put blowback is a way of saying “a nation reaps what it sows”
• In 1980, in Nicaragua the U.S. trained Contras, military insurgents to revolt against the socialist-Sandinista government, then turned a blind eye when those same Contras made deals to sell cocaine in the United States for guns and supplies.
• Blowback can lead to more blowback in the form of retaliation.
• Because of the wealth and power of the United States there is expectantly more blowback to come.
• Johnson makes a point to say that if we do not take steps to solve our problems [abroad] with more caution and regard, blowback will only become more intense. 
• [some further points need to be made here]