The delusion of liberal democracy’s universal appeal has seen better days. The idea that undeniably desirable Western universal values would take root across the planet was a fool’s hope. Liberal democracy swaddled in the promise of instant gratification once had its appeal in some parts of the world. It is now either being more frequently outright rejected or incorporated, but in a way that does not necessarily benefit the aims of the hegemon’s soft power apparatus.
Coca-Cola, Levis’s, and rock and roll were enough to skew the minds of the youth growing up under Eastern bloc socialism. The deliberately vague and moldable notion of individual freedom perfectly matched the erratic youthful angst of young Eastern Europeans under socialism. Wallowing in the Western high-style combo of self-exploration and self-pity provided a more straightforward path toward obtaining meaning in their lives than youth work actions, discipline, and temperance. But this is all in the past.
The decline of the hegemon’s soft power influence took the very first blow as soon as it officially won in December 1991. Without the bad “other” (Soviet Union), there was no one to point the finger at, to project at, or to compare to. “Islamic extremism” was concocted to fill the void, but the methods and merchandise that worked in Eastern Europe were useless in the Middle East. In other words, what the West had to offer in terms of cultural enticement was in no way appealing to the people of the countries they had simultaneously used hard power on. Radio programs funded by Washington were consistently heard by half of the Soviet population and nearly 80 percent of people living in Eastern Europe. Only two percent of Arabs cared to listen to the Voice of America during the September 11 attacks.
Most Arab world wanted nothing to do with liberal democracy or any social aspect of Western modernity. They were subjected to NGO workshops and taught that urinals could be art and that publicly exposing nipples and testicles is liberating, but none of it stuck. The Arab world, using common sense, saw in the hegemon’s liberal democracy its primary components–corruption and violence, and the latter was used almost exclusively by the hegemon to impose itself on the region.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld–never a fan of soft power to begin with– opted for exclusively hard power tactics, which, over the years, did untold damage to the hegemon’s capacity to employ soft power to achieve its aims of full-spectrum dominance. The blatant aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan made it harder to sell the image of a benevolent authority. Anyone not living under a rock now points to the hegemon’s abuse when told to accept the American goodwill and virtues.
Russia and China are the concocted “others” of today, but neither entirely meets the desired level of menace that can simultaneously be caricatured and feared. Both are far from how the Soviet Union was so effortlessly deformed and demonized by the hegemon’s soft-power apparatus. Russia’s conservative values appeal to the average Republican voter, even if many do not publicly admit it. How bad can China be if it gave us TikTok? Without the unambiguous “other” hiding under our beds, the hegemon’s soft-power machinery cannot be as effective as it once was.
Henry Kissinger has noted that China’s soft-power influence could never compete with the American one simply because the former continues to be a foreign and mythical place for most of the world. However, he has never entertained the idea that China’s foreignness and unwillingness to push its heritage onto its partners’ backs may work in its favor. China (much more so than Russia) has already established a strategy to accelerate American soft power’s decline. Its non-interventionist foreign policy, win-win economic deals, cultural modesty, and technological innovations are highlighted but never bragged about. China merely displays and offers what it has and achieves, allowing the potential partner to accept or refuse. Less, in China’s case, is more.
What also became clear over the years is that the potency of the hegemon’s soft power depended on its economy’s stability and superiority. During times when a janitor with a disability could afford a decent suburban dwelling with a single income, the ideas of individual initiative, independence, and hope carried weight. With the visibility of homelessness and the clamor of life-long tenants reaching the phone screens around the planet, the American Dream became a hard sell. Add to the general economic woes social unrest around the issues of race, the political division and downright clownery of the prominent political leaders, the degradation of infrastructure and public institutions, and what is left are spoiled goods that no one sane wants to touch, let alone buy.
To these two widely talked about and understood reasons for the decline of American soft power, I want to add another curious development that has, at least in Russia, successfully blunted the teeth of the hegemon’s soft power. I will use a specific case to illustrate a general point, but bear in mind that the examples are plentiful. “Going Vertical” has been the third highest-grossing film in Russia in the last two decades. The movie follows the simple and familiar Hollywood blueprint of an underdog story. In this particular case, the underdog is the 1972 Soviet national basketball team, and “the Monstars” is the U.S. Olympic squad led by a to this day bitter Doug Collins. The mishmash of players from the former Soviet Republics feud amongst themselves, experience hardships, reconnect, and at the buzzer miraculously win the XX Olympic Summer Basketball Tournament. The movie is basically “The Miracle on Ice,” with roles reversed. Hollywood plot with Holywood acting and flair used to ignite patriotic sentiment in Russia.
As a kid growing up on the receiving end of NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, my favorite way to spend time was watching the Rambo series. The irony did not dawn on me back then, but at least I can say I was a child. Many young adults and even middle-aged men were rooting for Rambo as well. Yugoslavian cinema has many Rambos, but our Rambos are sad and thoughtful, and they are not shirtless, do not sport a headband, and do not use flamethrowers. Nowadays, the explosions in Russian movies are just as impressive as anything Marvel puts out. The second highest-grossing movie in modern Russia, Stalingrad (2013), has all the memorable bits of Saving Private Ryan and more.
I am not arguing here that this inversion and assimilation of Hollywood formulas to push against the hegemon’s soft power was some deliberate genius ploy by the Russian government or its public relations industry (which barely even exists). On the contrary, it is an accidental byproduct of the cultural colonization running amok, deviating from its original purpose, and in many ways backfiring. Moreover, one unfortunate outcome of this imitation is that the cinema in modern Russia has no connection or continuity with Soviet cinema. Serbian film director, Emir Kusturica, hits the nail on the head when he says: “When a Russian film starts looking like an American picture, it’s really funny because it stops being Russia but it never becomes American.” Everything inorganic soon becomes stale, and Russia will eventually need to return to its rich cinematic roots, especially if it wants to become one of the poles in a multipolar world. Only by retracing its steps and reclaiming its core will it be able to create something more honest and original. Despite all this, the point still stands: Hollywood’s impact is not what it once was, and the influence it continues to have is now an evolved entity that can be manipulated to attack its parent.
Now let us not kid ourselves, the hegemon continues to be the leading trendsetter, and its global sway has no equal. It still has Marvel Studios, hip-hop, and social media platforms. Its competitors primarily respond to its moves and analyze its newest fads to find the best way to condemn them. In other words, the hegemon continues to set the agenda. This article merely argues that the loss of “other,” the transparent and blatant aggression abroad and numerous domestic ills, and the modification of American mass media mechanisms to promote domestic aims and even deter the hegemon’s cultural assault have collectively contributed to the continued decline of American soft-power potency. Lastly, it also contends that China’s economic rise and relative stability, honest foreign policy approach, and dominance in advanced technologies will inevitably assert themselves as the prevailing global currents even without a billion-dollar public relations industry behind it.
Milan Djurasovic enjoys eating, reading and playing basketball. He has written a collection of short stories titled “Balkan Grit” and occasionally posts on his YouTube channel: Class is Fundamental – YouTube.
