I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration.
The data from Pew only goes back to 2002. I'd love to find some more data from Pew or Gallup, but I can't seem to get any. The major idea is that public opinion plummeted between 2003-2008, and after 2016.
Academics write academic materials, and they have a decided ideological slant. You can certainly find opinion pieces on this topic (decline is US influence) every year. That's not of course, empirical data, but there really isn't empirical data that would accurately measure something this squishy. Instead it would be measuring something as a proxy, and the selection of the proxy reveals the bias.
But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean? I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."
I think what I believed the end of global standing gives a good enough definition of what I mean. "convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing"". To put it more clearly, I believe "global standing" is the ability of the United States to persuade other friendly countries, and even unfriendly countries, to take courses of actions that benefit the United States, themselves, and other allies. It's basically soft diplomacy power.
That really makes me think that global standing is especially "squishy." That concept is certainly contradicted by most of the examples you provide.
Fundamentally, ask yourself why we have to "persuade" other countries to do what is
in their best interest? Shouldn't they do that anyway? I think the reality is that very little globally is actually in someone's "best" interest, or frankly even relevant to them. I mean look at the battle over whaling. What is actually in anyone's "best" interests? The Japanese want to eat whales most western people want to save them. But ther's almost nothing in that debate that's really in anyone's "best" interest. Japan has bribed other countries into supporting them - I don't think anyone really believes their support is ethical or moral rather than economic, and they are able to do that because getting paid is more in a most country's "best" interests than not getting paid. In the west supporting japan costs the politicians votes therefore it's not in their personal interests. Lots of power, soft and hard, playing in that game despite a lack of real interest.
As to being "uncouth", you will have to define what you mean by that for me to have an opinion on whether it has had any effect with our relationships with allies or enemies.
They find him personally repugnant.
So what exactly did it do? What policy of the US did this cost us? What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.
If we're looking at policies we would have to look at the level of cooperation we have been able to get from allies and enemies.
No, not if your definition is true. We'd have to look at whether the policy is in their interest and we have to splain it to them to get them to go along.
If you're measuring whether they go along with us, you could simply be measuring quite a large number of things other than our global standing. You could be measuring whether polices actually do align with their interests. You could be measuring the extent to which we are or are not "bribing" them either directly like Japan (or say cash pallets being shipped to Iran) or indirectly, like say dumping billions into the EU's defense to get them to give us cover in third world fights where they have no real dog in the fight.
The first example might be pullout from the Iran deal and further sanctioning of Iran. The opinion of many the United States was that the Iran deal was a bad deal. It was even seen as a bad deal by certain local allies. But notable allies in Europe did not follow suit. Convincing them to go along when they were not thrilled about it would have been an effect of global standing.
Was it? The Europeans view Iran's hatred of America as more about America than about Europe. Lifting the economic sanctions on Iran opened up cheap Iranian oil and new business deals for the EU (and they know they'll have an advantage over the US). Normalizing Iran is 100% more in their interest than it is in ours. By all reasonable account Iran has been using the economic freedom and free cash to fund regional terror campaigns, but hey those aren't Europeans dying, so that's not actually very much in their interest to stop. Europeans do care about Nukes, they are even more anti-Nuke than the US (and closer). So a deal that slows Nukes, opens markets and lets Iran kill it's neighbors is morally acceptable to them, in their interests and provided Iran plays by the rules and doesn't develop nukes completely okay.
So why would it take any "standing" to get them to enter that deal? Trump could get them to support him on re-executing it tomorrow. Their support is 100% based on their direct benefit and ability to offload the downside to people in the middle east.
The only decision that changes their analysis is whether the US will make it costly to them to keep the deal in place. If we sanction their banks then they drop Iran like a hot potato, cause it's not about principal.
Another example might be the Paris accords. Same situation. The current administration believes it was a bad idea. But several other countries remain in the agreement.
But again, how is that an example? To get the worst polluters to sign, it was agreed that they would sign up to non-binding commitments to increase pollution by slower rates somewhere in the future, and get bribed by the West. The "trade" was that the US would agree to deliberately sabotage it's economy and pay for almost all the pollution reductions. So wow, they agreed to a deal where the US pays twice and they reap the benefits. The only "global standing" that demonstrates is that we're chumps with principals willing to try and actually save the environment.
Further examples would be concessions made by the EU on trade negotiations or NATO negotiations.
They would, if they weren't coupled (and then some) with EU anti-competetive practices that range all across the spectrum. We don't have trade imbalances with virtually everyone in the EU because they are outcompeting us. WE have them because for decades we've let them run a trade war against us without response.
Another example would be further support from allies on additional actions taken on Iran, including the hit on Solemani.
Didn't hear a lot of condemnation from them, but again, they couldn't care less about what Iran does to the locals. Keep it out of the news to much, don't use WMDs and to Europe it's all okay. Or can you name the major EU interventions without US that weren't in direct support of their colonial regimes?
Maybe additional NATO support for the Baltic States that did not include trading the Kurds for Turkish support.
Again, this seem to fail your test. The winner or loser there is almost not in anyone's best interest to decide. I'd guess the Europeans would be perfectly happy to let the Turks rule the Kurds for the foreseeable future. What you are really asking is that we bribe the Europeans with concessions on something else (our normal pattern) so they'll agree tod send soldiers to make ours look like they're not alone. We know for a fact they won't stay without us. If you ask them to, they'll have the UN declare a peacekeeping mission, with Western generals and third world soldiers for hire.
I mean, you can take the position that all of our allies are wrong or stupid.
That's literally your position when you define global standing as you did. You basically define their role as to be too stupid to know their own interests without us telling them and then bribing them. Instead what you actually thought was our global standing was them acting in their own selfish interests most of the time, including by going along with our bribes when they didn't care that much one way or the other.
I can only think of a handful of times when anyone (and it was really only the UK and Canada) took a decision that wasn't in their own interests just to help us out.
It certainly seems that the current administration has taken an adversarial stance towards NATO and the EU over several issues. But taking our ball and going home seems to be the rule of the day rather than any sort of diplomatic attempts.
Yes. Rather than bribing them he's actually telling them to act in their own interests. That's exactly why he demanded they pay up in NATO. Effectively, they were still getting a bribe that they are no longer delivering on. They've been acting in their own interest (to the detriment of ours) for decades, that's not why we entered into any of those arrangements.
Or to put it another way, does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything? I think we all know that when you buy friends they don't stick around, and your almost certainly in a worse place than if you'd just been honest in the first place rather than trying to buy them. But you're kidding yourself if you measure how good his skills are at making friends without considering the bribes he was paying.
