Trump retreat from soft power hurts US, Kansas — but helps China | Opinion

view original post

The theory of “soft power” probably isn’t something that the average Kansan thinks about on a regular basis.

But we probably should, because it affects us pretty dramatically.

I had a fascinating interview last week with an expert on this, Thomas Garrett, the president of the American Committees on Foreign Relations. He was in town as the guest speaker for the Wichita Committee on Foreign Relations.

The crux of his talk was that there are two kinds of power the United States can exercise on the world stage — hard power and soft power. And balancing the two is the key to effective foreign policy — a balance that’s been abandoned by the Trump administration.

Hard power includes things like military might and economic pressure tactics, such as tariffs and sanctions.

Soft power leans more toward being the good guys in the world, providing such things as food, medicine, mosquito nets and education to struggling countries, along with clear messaging about the ideals, culture, values and generosity of the American people.

As Garrett puts it, “soft power is persuasive, as opposed to hard power, which is coercive.”

Since World War II, presidents from the most conservative Republicans to the most liberal Democrats have exercised both kinds of power, which made us the most successful and influential country on the globe.

But that’s changed. In the first 10 months of the Trump administration, “we’re seeing almost a sole reliance purely on the idea of hard power.”

Through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Inadequacy Efficiency, the Trump administration shut down America’s most effective ways of projecting soft power, including USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), which used to distribute humanitarian aid to the world. And the administration is in court over cuts to cripple another instrument of soft power, the Voice of America, which broadcasts uncensored news to people living under totalitarian regimes.

And where we’re moving out, our adversaries, primarily China, are moving in.

“We had projects that had just begun that just stopped abruptly — you know, days notice. ‘Sorry, but we’re out of here,’ ” Garrett said. “This has just handed China this very low cost, high yield opportunity to say, ‘You know, we’re a responsible member of the neighborhood. We’re a responsible member of the global community. We’re a leader in development. We’re going to pick up all these places where the United States has dropped the ball.’ ”

Here in the heartland, it’s easy to forget that we have a huge stake in international affairs.

When our nation sends aid to a struggling Third World country, we aren’t just writing a check and saying, “Go forth and feed your people.” The checks actually go to American businesses and support American jobs — many of them right here in the mid-continent.

“In the field of foreign assistance concerning commodities, probably there’s not been a good job done in explaining to the American people that when they hear about these large sums at USAID, that’s purchasing American grain, that’s purchasing American products,” Garrett said.

So we’re not just starving people worldwide, we’re hurting ourselves in the process.

“The farm community was one of the single largest blocs in support of President Trump’s reelection last year,” Garrett said. “As far as demographic groups go, they’re suffering, I think, pretty intensely right now. The impact of their vote has happened pretty quickly to this bloc.”

Case in point: the $20 billion (which may grow to $40 billion) in bailouts that Trump has promised to Argentina to prop up its failing economy is hard power masquerading as soft power.

It comes with a big string attached: To get America’s help, Argentinian voters have to keep the ruling party of President Javier Milei, a Trump ally, in power.

“Economic hard power doesn’t have to only be tariffs,” Garrett explains. “It can actually be a bailout that I think almost no credible economist supports. Argentina has fairly solid history of not repaying loans.”

But as usual with this administration, it’s politics over the interests of the American people.

“The bailout is required, really, for ideological purposes to support someone who was DOGE before DOGE,” Garrett said. “You know, it was President Melei of Argentina that gave Elon Musk the chainsaw that he brandished at the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). The chainsaw, which did represent what Elon Musk did to the (U.S.) government in his brief time there, was the trademark symbol of Argentina’s president during his campaign and his presidency.”

So what’s a $20-$40 billion bailout between friends, right? How’s that hurt us?

Here’s how: When Trump levied tariffs on Chinese imports (a classic hard-power move), China responded by boycotting U.S. soybeans.

Soybeans are the fourth-largest cash crop for Kansas agriculture: $1.4 billion a year. Our farmers are scrambling to find a new market for their crops while China’s buying beans in South America, primarily Brazil and Argentina.

And that was before Trump announced a plan to flood American markets with Argentine beef to bring down prices.

For the record, cattle and calves are Kansas’ No. 1 ag product, almost $15 billion last year.

These are uncertain times for the Kansas economy, but this much is certain: the cost of owning the libs has never been higher.