Let me start by unequivocally declaring that I’m all for “smart power.” At least in principle, that is: If only someone would explain to me what it actually means!

Smart power — as many have noted during and after yesterday’s Clinton confirmation hearing — is the new Secretary of State’s pet slogan:

“I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted,” she said. “We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural… With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”

There is more:

We must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power. . . persuade both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors.

And more:

As we focus on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, we must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Palestinians.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has a “Commission on Smart Power,” headed by Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye. Their goal is summarized below:

America must revitalize its ability to inspire and persuade rather than merely rely upon its military might. Despite the predominance of U.S. hard power, there are limits to its effectiveness in addressing the main foreign policy challenges facing America today. America’s standing in the world is diminished, and although there have been discrete “soft power” successes – most notably the progress against HIV/AIDS and malaria, and the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation — many of the traditional instruments of soft power, such as public engagement and diplomacy, have been neglected and fallen into disrepair.

Although the formal definition of smart power centers on the synergetic integration of hard power with soft power, only the latter is emphasized in the above explanation. Clinton’s flavor  of smart power is probably similar in placing diplomatic tools over military force and other coercive means. But has any American administration ever opposed smart power? Do you know of any U.S. President or Secretary of State to have rejected available diplomatic solutions in favor of military aggression?

Of course not. In any debate about smart power, the point of contention has never been the need to be smart, but rather how to use power smartly. Consider this: Robert Gates, a Defense Secretary appointed by George W. Bush, is a fan of smart power:

He [Gates] also has advocated greater reliance on “soft power,” such as diplomacy and economic influence, over “hard” military power. On Monday, Gates said the United States remains the strongest military power on earth. “But not every outrage, every act of aggression, every crisis can or should elicit an American military response, and we should acknowledge such,” he said. “Be modest about what military force can accomplish, and what technology can accomplish,” he said.

The Obama administration is keeping Gates, whose stated fondness for soft power has likely endeared him to the President-elect. But Gates was never a renegade in the old administration or at odds with the Bush Doctrine. On the contrary, retaining Gates signals that there will likely be no great divide between Obama’s foreign policy and Bush’s — at least not as great as many had feared and many others had hoped. Gates will be the same Defense Secretary under Obama that he was under Bush, and the needs and challenges of using power effectively will also remain the same. Continuation is the new Change.

So why was Clinton championing smart power as if it were a revolutionary concept? What I read between the lines is that she has nothing new to offer, but must assure her party’s base that the Obama administration will overhaul foreign policy somehow. Since Bush is universally characterized as stupid in the Left’s collective imagination, Clinton touts the word “smart” to distance the new administration from his policies.

There was never a president, including Bush, who didn’t want to be smart about using power and who repudiated feasible diplomatic solutions in order to pursue foreign-policy goals militaristically instead. Everyone is for smart power. The open-ended issue concerns finding the ratio of soft to hard power needed to yield optimal results.

The Obama-Clinton team — believing, in Clinton’s own words, in “principle and practicality” and not “rigid ideology” — can talk about smart power as the magic wand that will “persuade both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior.” The question is whether this new combination they propose — specifically relying more on soft and less on hard power — can achieve the practical goal of persuading these countries to curb their destructive ambitions. Or maybe Tehran actually understands  American smart power — as used by the new administration — as less power, and thus finds no reason to even consider concessions or behavioral changes.