Comparison Between Idealism And Realism

Another principal attribute that disqualifies realism in debunking the Afghanistan War is the fact that America made concerted efforts to gain support from the United Nations (UN) before commencing the invasion. This contravenes the assertion put forth by the realist theory that, a nation does not take the international system or organization into consideration when taking actions directed towards safeguarding its survival. The autonomous action stipulated in realism is particularly essential when a state is threatened and cannot afford to trust other nations. In

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

The states are the most important actors in realism. Realism is a broad intellectual tradition that explains international relations in terms of power. More specifically, when states work in an effort to increase their own power in relation to other states. With Realism there are claims made, such as the world is a harsh and dangerous place, and the only certainty in the world is power. If a state is powerful, that state will always outlast its weaker competitors. In addition to this, the most important and reliable form of power is military power. Another claim is a state’s primary interest should be self-preservation, and due to this, a state should seek power and protect itself. Realism has a very defined foundation, and that is dominance. The looking glass of realism sees the world through recognizing the winner and the loser.

The world is in a state of anarchy where there is no authority above the states to control their actions. Realists, who believe individuals are selfish and power seeking, think the world is a self-help system where states view each other as adversaries. The article America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone, written by H.R. McMaster and Gary D. Cohn, portrays President Donald John Trump as a realist who views the world as an international arena where states and individuals compete to enhance security in a balance-of-power system. Trump’s “America first” policy practices realism that increases military power and intensifies the United States’ control over countries such as paper. In this paper, I will demonstrate how depending on realism alone is dangerous and problematic for the United States when it comes to environmentalism such as Paris Accord and trade agreement such as Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A number of contrastive theories dominate American foreign policy operation, both in the present and in the country’s relatively brief history. Among them are exceptionalism, a long-standing, explicitly American ideal that lends us a divine purpose; expansionism, a desire to widen our borders and conquer territories; unilateralism, a freedom to engage with other countries but without formalities such as alliances or agreements; and isolationism, a hesitance to engage with other countries in any manner, to focus on domestic interests. In its brief life, America and its citizens have maintained sturdy exceptionalist mindsets and, arguably, functioned with a mostly unilateral approach. The result of the interaction between exceptionalism, expansionism, and unilateralist thought and belief has created a blurred-lines realist approach

The foreign policy of realism and idealism have shaped the foreign policy of the US. The territorial expansion was motivated by both realism and idealism. Realism is the belief that international relations should be guided by self-interest and practical goals through the use of national defense and other resources. Realists believed that the expansion made the nation more secure because of the removal of foreign threats on its borders. Idealism is the belief that international relations should be influenced by moral values and promote America’s founding ideals.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

The United States (U.S.) uses two approaches to their foreign policy. The first approach is realism. This viewpoint stresses that the principal actors, states, will pursue their own interests in an anarchical world. States will try to establish a balance of power that restrains aggressive states from dominating weaker ones. The second approach is idealism. This view stresses that states should transform the system into a new international order where peace can prevail. This approach emphases the spread of democracy across the world and the creation of international institutions. Realism and idealism provides an explanation to how U.S. foreign policy has developed since World War Two (WWII), identifies which influential factors play a role in both foreign policy approaches, and determines which view has best served the pursuit of national interests.

The U.S. Department of State and the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) has published five strategic goals.1 Under these goals they have formulated a total of thirteen objectives to give the strategy a more specific direction. In these strategic objectives there is representation of Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian ideals. Current U.S. foreign policy certainly has a strong Wilsonian flavor. However, Wilson’s theory alone does not accurately portray U.S. foreign policy in the 21st Century. I will present examples of the other main political policy ideals and practices (Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian) in twenty-first century U.S. foreign relations.

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, “The aspirations for power on the part of several nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it inevitable but also that they are essential for

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.