Skip to main content

Why do political realists and liberals conflict in how they understand war?Under which of these theories are we more likely to have war?

"Realists" believe national governments are best understood as entities that act in their own self-interest. The internal composition of the government is unimportant, as are the particulars of its political institutions. Realists are above all concerned about the balance of power. They believe war is least likely when power is balanced, and most likely when there is one country that has overwhelming power and can therefore expect to win any conflict.

Liberals believe that national governments are best understood by the principles that define their laws; they believe that democratic countries are inherently more peaceful because most people desire peace. Liberals are not concerned about the balance of power, but instead the composition of national governments; they believe the best way to avoid war is to make every nation into a democracy.

Both theories are trying to avoid war, so whichever theory is right would result in the least war if it is properly followed. If realism is right and we follow liberalism, a powerful enemy could emerge and destroy us while we were undefended because we were so naive. If liberalism is right and we follow realism, nations will start internal wars (that could potentially involve other nations) because of uneven power structures, conquering other countries for no reason and slaughtering thousands needlessly.

Empirically, who is right? Well, neither is completely wrong nor completely right, but the liberals are generally a lot closer. The world is currently the most peaceful it has ever been, and this appears to be because of the economic, technological, and military hegemony of the United States. This makes sense on a liberal theory: a democratic country is perceived by much of the world as "in charge," so there is less war. This makes absolutely no sense on a realist theory, however; the hegemony is supposed to conquer whatever other countries it wants because that would be in its self-interest. According to realists, it's a bipolar world like the Cold War that's supposed to be maximally peaceful.

To be fair, a lot of realists try to redefine "self-interest" so that the US can try to spread its markets or its values around the world, which it indeed does seem to do. At that point, though, we really lose the distinction between realism and liberalism; liberals always said that democratic countries can and should want to spread their values around the world by peaceful means. What made realists distinctive was their claim that much more narrowly defined interests like acquiring territory and natural resources were supposed to define the behavior of a nation, regardless of its internal structure. That's simply false. Nations do have particular values that they try to spread around the world, and it makes a difference whether those values are democratic or authoritarian.

We do still maintain a certain realist stance in some respects—the strongest military in the world, various diplomatic, military, and espionage compromises that advance national security while propping up regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia—but on the whole, liberalism has been the policy of the United States and it seems to be working.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more