Liberalism and Realism Essay

Realism is an international relations theory with a lineage that dates back to thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Forde). Because the conditions for international relations are inherently anarchic, with neither hierarchical power nor expectation of reciprocity to enforce cooperation between actors, realists insist that the sole responsibility of the state must simply be self-preservation. As foreign policy specialist George Kennan wrote, “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical must be allowed to prevail” in spite of morality.

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

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.

Realism is the theory of writing in which the ordinary, familiar, or dull traits of life are portrayed in a straight forward manner that reflects life as it actually is. Multiple works of literature show some type of Realism. Realism started its rise in the United States in 1865 and ended in the early 1900’s. Realistic writers would set their stories in specific American regions trying to capture the local traditions before they would be forgotten. They wrote about the grim realities of everyday life. These grim realities are shown in Mark Twain’s The War Prayer. Twain exhibits the truth about warfare and all the chaos that happens while fighting. Mark Twain was not blind when it came to the realities of war in the United States.

Realism is the preeminent theory of International Relations, as it provides the best explanation for what is going on today

Realists and Liberals have their differences. One can already foresee that Realism has much more a conservative and pessimistic vision of the world. This comes from the realist’s skepticism about the capacity of human reason and the delivery of moral progress, all due to self-interest. As growth is not possible for Realism, survival of the state is the solitary thing that matters, which therefore reflects on its conservatism. From a realist perspective, the most important objective is relative power, whether a state is more or less powerful than one’s traditional rival. This concept influences how states act. States that have relatively more power; have very few constraints to states that have less power. Overall, this influences the stability

The philosophical meaning of the terms liberalism and conservatism in the American political discourse were defined as the following in the textbook, Liberalism: is simply the recognition of a sphere of individual rights that government should respect and leave untouched (Ethridge, 31). However, in today’s political discourse it essentially means that: 1) the government is required achieve equality for all citizens, and not to discriminate between citizens. 2) the government is required to protect human rights and civil liberties. 3) it is the government’s role to ensure that all citizens are not in need and that all of the social and political issues should primarily be solved by the government.

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

There are many theoretical perspectives used when examining the international political system. In this paper I will explain two of the most important: liberalism and realism. Though they are both strong theories, liberalism is best when it comes to explaining international politics. Liberalism better examines all of the influence that impact the decisions made within the international system and better represents the emotions and personal agendas of the state. Liberalism can be considered a combination of constructivism and realism.It takes democracy into account and examines the dynamics through all 3 levels of analysis. The downfall of liberalism is it feels like a westernized approach to international politics, so it might hurt a less

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.

Overtime, the international system has experience a multitude of theoretical frameworks including realism, liberalism, and idealism; furthermore, each has emerged into new schools of thought after the conclusion of the Cold War. The liberal school of thought has inherited many developments and new features since 1989. The ending of the Cold War and initiation of neoliberalism was expected to lead to a decline in conflict and result in a cooperating international system under the anarchic system. In addition, to the new features of liberalism, new features of realism (neorealism) opposing neoliberalism emerged attempting to explain the flaws in cooperation.

Classical liberalism is a very interesting political theory. The underlying belief is that what makes a person human is freedom from the dependence on the will of others. It is complete freedom from any relations with others, except those entered voluntarily. Another main point of classical liberalism is that the individual is the owner of his person and his capacities, for which he owes nothing to society. The individual, although free, has no power to limit anyone else's freedom. Classical liberalism includes the following: an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society, the support of the right of property carried to its economic

Firstly, the theory of realism called for overcoming differences among nations through the international rule of law. The most prominent representatives of this trend, such as Morgenthau, considered that the international system is by nature chaotic and driven by a single law (Schuett, 2011). Realism has interests and is supported by historians. However, the theory suffers from uncertainty because it lacks universally supported definitions for example “power”, and it assumes that state officials act for national interests in accordance with the interests of power; if this is true, this

Structural realism, as a theory, is unconvincing on the whole as it suggests that human nature does not play a part in international relations. However, there is a large amount of evidence that suggests that human nature plays a significant role in international relations. This essay will outline a number of different theorists from both classical and structural realism and highlight key points and concepts within the theories. This will then help me to come to the conclusion that Waltz’s theory of structural realism is unconvincing.

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.