Nye and Kohn are right, probably because they are "arguing with reality", rather than with Donnelly. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if Nye overestimates "the other forms of power" (as I suspect he will), since military might really is the main lever which amplifies the others. Without it, "soft power" would shrivel and die.
But the time is certainly propitious for ruling class debate.
-Brad Mayer
>Nye says this hegemonic view pays too much attention to military might. "I
>think that people who talk about 'benign hegemony' and 'accepting an
>imperial role' are focusing too much on one dimension of power and are
>neglecting the other forms of power -- economic and cultural and
>ideological," he said. Overemphasizing U.S. military strength, he continued,
>ultimately would undercut those less tangible forms of power, and so curtail
>any effort to maintain an empire.
>
>Along the same lines, Richard Kohn, a University of North Carolina
>historian, argues that most Americans wisely would reject an imperial role
>if it were put to them openly. "The American people don't have the interest,
>the stomach or the perseverance to do it," Kohn said. "A few bloody noses
>and they'll want to pack it in. They recognize that it would cost us our
>soul, not to speak of the moral high ground -- in our own minds most of
>all."
>
>To his critics, Donnelly responds that they are arguing with reality, not
>with him: "I think Americans have become used to running the world and
>would be very reluctant to give it up, if they realized there were a serious
>challenge to it."
>
>