Charlie Rose

rose212  03/02/2011 06:27 PM Report

the basic issue still remains...if the conclusion is that America is not in relative decline, where is the evidence? Simply, America will no longer be the number one, economic or otherwise, country.

isee  03/02/2011 03:23 AM Report

Power - control and manipulation by whatever means - in astrological parlance, Pluto.

robdverity  03/01/2011 11:10 PM Report

More Harvard putrefaction, a la Larry Summers and other financial wise-guys and exploiters of the common weal. Screw him along with Sandy Weil, Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein et al. The oscar winners in "Inside Job." Protestors (a la Egypt) needed in NYC.

charlizecourriers  03/01/2011 04:32 PM Report

Another meeting of the Club of Democrats, courtesy of the Propaganda Broadcast System, special Zionist Unit, NYC. Mr. Rose looked very tired. Perhaps it's time to move to a different subject.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/01/2011 04:11 PM Report

So:

Hard Power equals "threats and sticks" "payments and carrots".

Soft Power equals attraction in getting others to want what you want.

Smart Power equals combining both.

So Hard Power is "trust but verify", "walk softly but carry a big stick"?

Seems like this smart power is to attack the amygdala first then caress the prefrontal cortex. So we are animals first and then we are human?

The Egyptian example makes us hypocrites--show your muscle to the government (which you have supported financially and verbally) while showing your love and support for the people. Perhaps the book should be "The Future of Bipolar or Schizophrenic Power"?

Ellen_Dibble  03/01/2011 03:40 PM Report

The "toolbox" analogy bothered me as well. What kind of bully are we anyway? Were we elected the world's bully? Where is the American concept we learned from Abraham Lincoln and George Washington in grade school about government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Isn't the idea of democracy about more than "consent of the governed," rather actually leadership by the governed? Of course that doesn't work if transparency has yielded to corruption and availability of information has yielded to media "management," and if elections are just beauty competitions with moneyed backers taking both sides. If you weren't cynical about the presence of the demos in democracy before listening to Nye, you are cynical afterwards. In a more organic planet, a natural ferment of realism among the masses might "outwit" the deployment of strategic planned power, but even globalization and global internet connectivity may not counterbalance the scheming of the bullies (us), and in the long run, raw chance may win, that being smallpox let loose by mistake. To me, it seems if people are not too well-informed, they tend to rally around what might be called religion tenets, "religion" in the sense of "that which binds us, our ligatures," and it shouts but does not listen. Political rallies are not about information and reasoned debate. Therefore, the triumphs of popular protests have every promise of mis-firing. And an academic has spent his life studying power. Well, thanks for trying, I guess.

REMant  03/01/2011 11:46 AM Report

Knowing how other ppl feel about things has always been crucial to rebellions. John Adams wrote afterwards that the American revolution was decided in the newspapers before the first shot was fired at Lexington. Of course, newspapers in those days were 99% opinion and 1% news, so you'd have to say the decline of any attempt at objectivity in them these days, along with the rise of op-ed, and, with computers, reader commentary, must make them so much more so. There can be no doubt, however, that anything that improves and speeds communication, as in electronic trading, is going to make things harder to deal with. Still old-fashioned crowds are an effective means of gaging other's opinions and molding them. Protest marches, still frequently found in France, were once endemic, tho usually against what we now call globalization, not for it. They often resulted in skirmishes between the parties pro and con, just as today, and they contained a distinct religious aspect, religion being, not as it is so often seen today, a matter merely of one's "values."

I think he showed a profound absence of economic and historical understanding, and is wrong to make light of American decline. The Cold War bankrupted us as much as the Soviets. Our middle-class has evaporated, much of our mfring, too, and many cannot afford basic human services and things they once could. Worse, with the preeminence of the dollar, we have exported the problem elsewhere, notably North Africa and the Middle East, and, I expect the Chinese to drop another shoe one of these days. Then there is American education, or the lack of it. Until Charlie mentioned these, the more Whiggish and maniacal Dean Nye seemed to become. I mean, don't you think it is at least cynical to be talking about exerting tools in one's toolbox in the first place? It appeared to me not only self-serving, but also a good reason for sending your kids to college elsewhere, or avoiding poli sci.