Liberalism Vs. Realism Essay

The idea of Liberalism, especially in the United States, is centered about the unalienable rights of an individual such as the freedoms found in the United States Bill of Rights. In the book, The Strange Death of American Liberalism by H.W. Brands, Brands says that liberalism in the United States could only survive during times of war. The United States retreats into liberalism when there is a war going on and they need the federal government’s assistance. On the other hand, the book, Liberalism: The Genius of American Ideals by Marcus G. Raskin, argued that there was no escaping from liberalism. According to Raskin, liberalism has not faded into history like many people think. Liberalism is important in the United States because it drives

People’s views on a wide range of issues are influenced or determined by the kind of foundational belief systems they hold. Therefore, the difference in the nature of opinions among individuals or groups of people alludes to the existence of distinct belief systems. In the course of history, the distinction between Liberalism and Conservatism has become more vivid particularly in the political arena where various players have expressed opposing points of view regarding the nation’s future. It is indeed undisputable that the foundational beliefs of Liberalism are diametrically opposed to those of Conservatism. This essay will give a definition of each term and describe how the two oppose each other.

Liberalism, in general, was an ideological movement that emerged out of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. It embraced the ideas of individualism which were established in the Renaissance and Reformation era. The Renaissance period sparked a belief in the importance of the individual in society. It helped promote the beliefs of classical liberalism which gradually formed into the liberal ideology of the 19th century. Individuals that were waiting to get their individual rights and freedoms were allowed to finally gain liberty and power through this period of time. Classical liberalism developed

Neo-liberalism is associated with economic liberalism whose campaign support provides economic liberations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation and promoting the role of private institutions present in new society. Classic liberalism criticizes the neo-liberalism objective of introducing liberalization to bring about gradual increase of wealth and freedom among nations, however, classic liberalism explains that instead of realization of wealth and freedom, liberalization resulted to constant fight proposals that threatened the progress of achieving wealth and freedom among nations. Neo-liberalism aimed to prevent and control monopoly situations such that if there are no bodies

Typically Liberalism can be categorized into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterized by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept.

For a while now I have seen myself as citizen of a global community that begins in Australia but is reflective of, and permeable to the influence of outside cultures. There is little doubt that English speaking countries have more influence on Australians like me, however as LDC’s (lower developed countries) technologically advance, interactions and familiarity with outside cultures will instill confidence in the world’s people, ultimately leading to a global civil society (Rourke 2012) – at least that is what the idealist in me believes. Throughout this unit I have been able to identify with liberalism and determine where I sit on the realism verses idealism spectrum. In Liberalisms Inevitability, Jeff Manza writes “… Liberals do not understand

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

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.

Liberalism and conservatism have been political ideas and thoughts from the very birth of our democracy. Their views and points of the government's role in a democratic society have changed over the years, but the basic ideas and principles have remained the same. There are many different degrees of liberalism and conservatism as almost anyone can be labeled. Some individuals are radical and extreme while others stand on more of a neutral territory, but the debates between the understood ideas of each group have continued throughout the history of the United States. We will take liberalism's Gary Doore and conservatism's Irving Kristol as modern day examples and compare and contrast the

In America, there are three major civic stances: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. The liberal stance is the only stance, which offers the foundation to move forward. The following paper will briefly explain, certain aspects of conservatism and libertarianism, and will advance the idea, America must move forward with a more liberal attitude. At heart, this writing will argue a strong government is of the utmost importance in moving this country forward to the future. While other political agendas advocate liberty and freedom, the liberal stance truly offers a realistic approach and method of achieving those aspects of American life.

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists

For this sense when weaker states join organizations, great powers gain from interactions because they do not have common interest as those of weaker states. Such Realist thinking has occurred thousands of years ago. The Melian Dialogue supports the theory by summing up all of realism, stating “the strong will dictate the term of interaction between states”(Melian Dialogue). Liberals also benefit from international organizations as well. They believe that repeated interactions with other states will be an effective way to collaborate with them and prevent one state from cheating on the other. Transparency, information, and monitoring will provide states to strengthen “global economic ties”(Snyder.59).

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

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