A Historical Analysis of Liberalism and Conservatism through International Policy

The end of World War II catalyzed the start of an age of political accord in the United States. This accord, dubbed the "liberal consensus," took shape with three core beliefs: first, that economic growth would solve all social problems; second, that Washington had an obligation to prevent the spread of communism; finally, that empowering marginalized groups would spur pluralism and maintain a healthy democracy. For almost two decades, the baby boom, the Red Scare, the early civil rights movement, and the Kennedy Presidency reinforced public support for the consensus. Yet the conflicts of the 1960s - the Vietnam War, widespread American poverty, and domestic racial tension - planted seeds of dissent.

Political science is known to be one of the most ignored sciences there are. Over the years, there has not been a demand for everyone to pay attention to politics because people always have their own opinion anyways. Ten Things Political Scientists Know that You Don’t was an article written by Hans Noel. His main objective to writing this was to inform readers of the reasons why politics is something that is important to understand. Many journalists and bloggers became more aware of politics and want to know more about what political scientists actually know. This article also wants to inform many people that political science is something that you can study over a period of time, which is the real reason to pay attention to elections. Hans Noel came up with 10 different things that political scientists know but American citizens do not.

When George Washington was elected President in 1789 by members of the fledgling United States of America, he was setting into motion a tradition that has stood the test of over 225 years - the presidential election. Even as the United States has seen dozens of wars, made hundreds of scientific advances, and selected thousands of politicians to seats everywhere from small town councils to Congress, the principles of the election have remained the same; the people band together to determine who will best protect their interests at home and assure that the US will always remain on top in foreign policy. Oftentimes, this is found to be a difficult decision, as public opinion is constantly wavering. One sees this in action particularly during the 1992 election - a battle of wills between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot; complete with lead changes, major vote swings, and Perot’s unprecedented initial success - ultimately a false alarm to the bipartisan establishment.

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

International political economy is an important subdiscipline of international relation. It has three main ideologies, Liberalism, Mercantilism and Marxism. In this essay there will be three parts, first part is to demonstrate what the Liberalism and Mercantilism are on the perspective of international political economy and then the second part is to compare and contrast these two ideologies of political economy. At last, give a conclusion to the Liberalism and Mercantilism.

This belief faced significant criticism, however, since free trade between states of different stages of development can result in a relationship in which the less developed state is dependent on the more developed state ( global South to North dependency). Many beliefs related to Liberalism actually face criticism as a result of an imbalance of power and influence between states. The Democratic Peace Theory, for example, suggests that conflict between two democratic states is unlikely – less likely than conflict between two non-liberal states or conflict between a liberal and non-liberal state. While history would suggest this to be true, there are multiple factors that contribute to this truth. For one, liberal states tend to be wealthier than non-liberal states. This means that they have less incentive to start war than a less wealthy state. Additionally, liberal states tend to have amicable relations with other liberal states – take Canada and USA for

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

When trying to comprehend international politics, current events, or historical context, having a firm grasp on the various international relations theories is essential to understanding patterns when looking at interstate affairs. Realism, liberalism, constructivism, and marxist radical theory are used to provide a framework by which we can dissect international relations.

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’

International relations theories are the study of international relations from a ‎theoretical perspective. Such as, realism, liberalism, maximise, socialism ‎