Historically, the hard power of the military, the economy, and trade has been linked to and prevailed over the soft power of cultural hegemony. Force has been used as a basis, and persuasion as a means and justification to prolong its effect over time. To establish international hegemony, a position of dominance, economic leadership logically counts, as does military supremacy. These factors, in fact, often go hand in hand. Having the largest and most powerful military helps set the pace of the economy not only in relation to production, but also to trade and, especially, to finance. The strength of capital, combined with a large and well-trained military, is often essential for playing a decisive role in global geopolitics. If the 19th century was Britain's century—the industrial revolution, colonialism, control of the seas, City finances...—after the First World War, the centrality of the world shifted to the United States, which was its true winner—British collapse, industrial hegemony, Wall Street's financial center, Hollywood...—a new era. Certainly, after the Second World War, new global players such as the USSR and China emerged, but despite the firmly established blocs, American leadership remained unchallenged. Despite some military demonstrations, but also failures, until recently, it was a series of intangible cultural traits that made it a country followed, copied, admired, respected, and recognized.
These intangibles are what make up the soft power that legitimizes and reinforces relations of domination and also of dependence. The predominance of its cinematic, literary, musical, and sports culture has served to establish the cultural standards, values, fashions, customs, and practices of many generations. Europe has provided a complementary counterpoint toAmerican way of life, with more social and integrative considerations and somewhat more sophisticated cultural approaches. Together, the United States and Europe have represented a "Westernness" that is admired, copied, or something to be emulated. Soft power has also consisted of financially supporting international institutions, having the best universities, leading scientific knowledge, or financing large poverty-relief programs or practicing solidarity. A leader is there when needed. Trends, currents of thought, and innovations have all been created in the United States, whether we like American culture more or less. Everything pop has been established from the same place, and much of what we think, see, or consume has had to do with its great capacity for marketing and for establishing what should be done.
With Donald Trump and beyond, the United States has abandoned this seductive pretense of winning us over through persuasion. The big change is to show the exercise of power in a ruthless, unadorned manner. It used to be a predictable country, but it isn't. Its democratic system is in the process of being dismantled, and the rest of the world is plunged into perplexity. Persuasion no longer prevails; now, the use of force is directly threatened, the big stick is displayed, along with unpredictable behavior beyond any norm. And this is done to Europe and the rest of the world. The rules, we are told, are now stark, or have declined. The leading power, in order to remain so, shows its hand by falsely accusing us of having lived off it. It turns its lack of productive competitiveness into an insult caused by those who are more productive. In reality, the trade deficit is a defect of those who suffer from it, and not the fault of those who do the job best, a sin it now wants to make them pay for in the form of tariffs.
It is curious that the country that fifty years ago led the world down the risky slope of globalism and absolute free trade, generating an international redistribution of production, now seeks refuge in protectionist measures that the entire world was once forced to abandon. The paradox is that, in terms of trade, today the great defender of the free market and the competitive economy is communist China. All of this demonstrates an insurmountable decline for the United States, which refuses to lose its hegemonic role and wants to remain the sole great power. Like it or not, the world—and China is the example, but also Russia—is rapidly moving toward multilateralism. The brutality in the exercise of power that the United States has opted for is merely a symptom of its weakness. This will no longer be its century. No dominion or hegemony can be sustained over time if it is not based on cultural and moral values. The use of force has its limits. The big question is whether Europe will have the capacity for emancipation, as well as the possibility of maintaining its political, economic, and social model.
