What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?

[Peter1469]

What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?

A refresher course.

Here’s a puzzle for all you students of U.S. foreign policy: Why is a distinguished and well-known approach to foreign policy confined to the margins of public discourse, especially in the pages of our leading newspapers, when its recent track record is arguably superior to the main alternatives?

I refer, of course, to realism. I’m not suggesting that realism and realists are completely marginalized these days — after all, you’re reading a realist right now — but the public visibility and policy influence of the realist perspective is disproportionately small when compared either to liberal internationalism (among Democrats) or neoconservatism (in the GOP).



This situation is surprising insofar as realism is a well-established tradition in the study of foreign affairs, and realists like George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Walter Lippmann, and others said many smart things about U.S. foreign policy in the past. Realism also remains a foundational perspective in the academic study of international affairs and with good reason. At a minimum, you’d think this sophisticated body of thought would have a prominent place in debates on foreign policy and that card-carrying realists would be a visible force inside the Beltway and in the world of punditry.



Furthermore, realism’s predictions over the past 25 years are clearly better than the claims of liberals and neoconservatives, which have dominated U.S. foreign policymaking since the Cold War ended. Yet time and time again, presidents have pursued the liberal/neoconservative agenda and ignored the counsels of realism. Similarly, major media outlets have shown little inclination to give realists a prominent platform from which to disseminate their views.


The results, alas, speak for themselves. When the Cold War ended, the United States was on good terms with all of the world’s major powers, al Qaeda was a minor nuisance, a genuine peace process was underway in the Middle East, and America was enjoying its “unipolar moment.” Power politics was supposedly becoming a thing of the past, and humankind was going to get busy getting rich in a globalized world where concerns about prosperity, democracy, and human rights would increasingly dominate the international political agenda. Liberal values were destined to spread to every corner of the globe, and if that process didn’t move fast enough, American power would help push it along.


Fast forward to today. Relations with Russia and China are increasingly confrontational; democracy is in retreat in Eastern Europe and Turkey; and the entire Middle East is going from bad to worse. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting in Afghanistan for 14 years, and the Taliban are holding their own and may even be winning. Two decades of U.S. mediation have left the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” in tatters. Even the European Union — perhaps the clearest embodiment of liberal ideals on the planet — is facing unprecedented strains for which there is no easy remedy.


All of which raises the following counterfactual: Would the United States and the world be better off today if the last three presidents had followed the dictates of realism, instead of letting liberals and neocons run the show? The answer is yes.


To remind you: Realism sees power as the centerpiece of political life and sees states as primarily concerned with ensuring their own security in a world where there’s no world government to protect them from others. Realists believe military power is essential to preserving a state’s independence and autonomy, but they recognize it is a crude instrument that often produces unintended consequences. Realists believe nationalism and other local identities are powerful and enduring; states are mostly selfish; altruism is rare; trust is hard to come by; and norms and institutions have a limited impact on what powerful states do. In short, realists have a generally pessimistic view of international affairs and are wary of efforts to remake the world according to some ideological blueprint, no matter how appealing it might be in the abstract.

[donttread]

What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?

A refresher course.

I don't see much in that definition to support stirring the $#@! stick half way around the world. And certainly noting to justify using " a crude instrument often producing unitended consequences " . Perhaps I should learn more . Speaking of which when do unitended consequences become so predictable that they can no longer be deemed "uninteded"?

[Peter1469]

I don't see much in that definition to support stirring the $#@! stick half way around the world. And certainly noting to justify using " a crude instrument often producing unitended consequences " . Perhaps I should learn more . Speaking of which when do unitended consequences become so predictable that they can no longer be deemed "uninteded"?

Start with the basics.

Each nation is sovereign.

Each sovereign nation acts primarily in its own best interest and understands that every other nation does the same.

There is no morality. Nations act in their self interest within their natural constraints.

[Casper]

What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?

A refresher course.

My issue is the claim that the issue goes back three Presidents, think harder....................

[Peter1469]

My issue is the claim that the issue goes back three Presidents, think harder....................

It is a specific reference to the neocons. They didn't have any power until the late 1980s- and didn't really have much effect on policy for another decade.

The foreign policy prior to that was completely different.

[Casper]

It is a specific reference to the neocons. They didn't have any power until the late 1980s- and didn't really have much effect on policy for another decade.

The foreign policy prior to that was completely different.

No, it really was not all so different, I was there for some of it, and in uniform. the Neocons had their issues, they still do, as did the Libs, they still do and could be well called Neolibs. This issue goes back to the days during and following WWII, we have still not learned.

[Dr. Who]

It is a specific reference to the neocons. They didn't have any power until the late 1980s- and didn't really have much effect on policy for another decade.

The foreign policy prior to that was completely different.

I believe that the CIA has been up to all manner of shenanigans in the middle east since the end of WWII (before there was even a CIA). It really began August 8, 1944, with the signing of the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement. Then the overthrow of the Syrian government in 1947, the overthrow of the Iranian government i.e. Operation Ajax in 1953, the Suez Crisis in 1956, the Iran-Iraq war beginning in 1980, then working to bring Saddam Hussein into power, funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s (and according to some establishing AQ which ultimately spawned ISIS).

[Peter1469]

I believe that the CIA has been up to all manner of shenanigans in the middle east since the end of WWII (before there was even a CIA). It really began August 8, 1944, with the signing of the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement. Then the overthrow of the Syrian government in 1947, the overthrow of the Iranian government i.e. Operation Ajax in 1953, the Suez Crisis in 1956, the Iran-Iraq war beginning in 1980, then working to bring Saddam Hussein into power, funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s (and according to some establishing AQ which ultimately spawned ISIS).

Yes, that is true.