1.

2B Realism (s)
Lecture Outline:
I. Historical Background
II. The Analytical Argument (Theory) of
Realism
IIIA. Liberalism, Realism, and the
European Peace (as transition to
lecture 1.2c)
IIIB. Liberalism, Realism, and the
Democratic Peace

I. Realism: Historical Background

Recall that theorists are always trying to
explain or prevent the last war;
Thus, in reaction to World War II, not
surprising that Realism was a very specific
critique of Liberalism, which had gained
intellectual and political prominence as
explanation of World War I ;
As your reading shows, realist thinking had
been around for a long time (now ascends)
The Realist critique of Liberalism can be
described as a list of assertions or critiques;

Historical Background of Realism continued (critique of Liberalism)

1.

The critique of Liberal Supranationalism (Mearsheimer)if

states agree, dont need it; if not, wont help; LON a failure
The critique of the Liberal critique of balance of power; Recall
Wilsonrealists now argue that this led to failure to deter
Hitler (often: Munich Analogy). States need power and BOP
The critique of the assumption of individual rationality ;
communities (states) do self-identify; individuals do indeed
identify with each other on the basis of race, religion, ideology,
and common history; the rationality of IR is therefore the
rationality of these collective identities: states
The critique of democracy (or faith in democ); Individuals can
vote for hateful things (Nazi Germany); or seek expansion and
conquest (Mexican-American War; Imperialism); or vote for
imprudent wars out of collective fear or competitive
drive(Iraq?)

2.
3.

4.

5.

Sub-argument: Democracy when imperfect minorities can

capture the agenda or even exercise disproportionate power
(Mearsheimer and Walt on Israeli/Lobby; Kaufman on
Marketplace..);

Be careful what you wish for.transitions to democracy

(Mansfield and Snyder reading)

Historical Background of Realism continued

6.

Indeed, following Machiavelli, a democratic, capitalist republic may

be the optimal machine for imperialismreasoning turns
Schumpeter on his head..optimal production= optimal power;

7. The critique of Adam Smith: absolute gains in prosperity

are not the issue: people are interested in (and fear)
relative gains; (inter-war beggar thy neighbor); states
are mercantilistthey fear the translation of economic
power into military power.

8.

Sub-argument (Copeland): interdependence causes friction, not

cooperation
Another sub-argument: domestic losers from trade mobilize

An overarching critique: the Liberal argument or

theory describes a world that has never been and likely
never will be pure democracy and pure free trade
among peoplesLets get Realist: deal with the world as
it is.not as we wish or as it may someday be;

Crude summary of the realists historical critique

Anarchy/permanent insecurity

Fear, collective passions

Opportunistic politicians

States

Summary of I.
I.

After WWII, perhaps because of it, people saw IR

more in the image of Rousseau: the general will of a
community is powerful and can be passionate, and
lacking an international authority to govern, each
community state has to look out for itself;
Democracy is no protection all states of all stripes
behave similarlybecause they face a similar
situation;
This last phrase is a pretty good overall summary of
Realist theory, the specifics of which now follow in
II.

II. The Theoretical Arguments of Realism

The theoretical arguments of realism are actually quite brief and
follow as a logical argument:
1.
Individuals identify with their communities: states. This
reinforces sovereignty. The rationality of IR is that states
calculate costs and benefits (and theory therefore.);
2.
The system of states is anarchic there is no higher authority
that can regulate their behavior and conflicts;
3.
Insecurity is therefore a permanent, latent feature of IR; this
means that states can never forget that their interests or even
their survival may be threatened;
4.
Insecurity further fuels competitive nationalism (Mearsheimer:
hypernationalism) because opportunistic elites use external
threats to mobilize the population (to secure their position);
5.
The ability to deter threats or ensure survival depends on
power; states therefore assess virtually all choices in terms of
power implications

II. continues
6. Therefore: choices and outcomes in IR (signing a treaty; starting
a war; sending a diplomat to Paris or Cairo; annexing Crimea
or East Ukraine) can be understood as a consequence of a
states assessment of power distributions;
X

Distribution of Power -- State choices

7.

8.

Since power is central, the issue of relative gains is also

central; states will assess the consequences of choices for
relative gains; (Skeptical? Recall: USA and Kyoto; also
China)
The domestic nature of political systems (democratic, socialist,
Islamic, vegetarian) makes no difference:
difference all states respond to
the same logic (1-7 above)..one need not study their
domestic politicswe can understand their choices as a
response to the distribution of power;

II. Continues to continue

Possible 9. Does this not mean that there is an inherent
tendency for states to seek absolute security through
dominance and hegemony?
For some realists ---yes---particularly Mearsheimer (but
not your reading);
This argument is called offensive realism ..the argument
that the nature of IR drives states to seek absolute
securityin the extreme through dominance of all other
statesif they can (hegemony) Posen: USA
Defensive realismthe argument that states seek just
enough military power + allies to deter and defend, that is,
to prevent one state from dominating (as in classical 19th
century balance of power);
Note: not the same as the dangers of offensive military
doctrines discussed by Van Evera (explainwar is most
likely when a state thinks a military offensive will allow
for a quick, low-cost victory)

IIIA. The Island of Peace in Europe: Liberal and Realist

Consider the difference in postWWII Western Europe:at least 4
Explanations

major wars 1800-1938;

But from 1945-2015: none among EU members
Liberal explanation for this: (Common Market/Union since 1957)
Capsule summaryfrom 6 to 28 membersrule expansion
Full democracy
Trade liberalization
(within EU)

Peace

Free Movement of People

Adjudicatory Institutions
[ECSC; ECJ]

Cosmopolitan Identity

The Realist explanation

Bipolar power balance
Nuclear standoff

Insecurity dampened

US guarantee (NATO)

Relative gains
fears
dampened

Competitive
Nationalism
Declines

EU Institutions
& Trade flourish

Mearsheimer was bold: he made

a predictionwas he right?
Did Europe regress into competitive
balancing and nationalisms of 19th century?
(after Cold War ended?)
Mostly no.
Why not?
Will financial crisis and very real
differences of perspective lead to conflict?
???? If yes why? If no why?

IIIB. A second comparison of Liberal and Realist Thinking: The

Liberal/Democratic Peace Argument
and the problem of Liberal Imperialism and Intervention

The empirical pattern: democracies rarely fight

each other..Liberal explanation? (O,K,S)
Yet, No question democracies and near
democracies have engaged in war, imperialism
and intervention in others affairs (just not with
themselves)
Why?
Self-defense (usually against nonliberalprudent)
Liberal arroganceimperialism in particular
Liberal altruism? (Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur?)
Insecurity (cold war interventionsfear of
illiberal statesSaddam had no connect to AQ,
but he could)

 Ergo: even liberal states respond to real or

perceived threats.just as realists argue
What do liberal imperialism and postimperial intervention have in common?
(opponents were weak);
Power: power ratios matter (why did
imperialism/colonialism come to an end
when it did?) because power ratios
narroweddevelopment, transfer, outside
help..democracy democracy power
ratios;

Terminological Clean-Up
Classical realism:
realism branch of realism that derives
arguments from assumption of innate qualities of
human nature (greed, aggressive, power seeking
Morganthau);
Neorealism: more modern version that derives
arguments based on the rational calculations of states
in an anarchic environment (Mearsheimer the primary
example you have read)sometimes called structural
realism.ie, its the structure of the situation that
determines states choices
Earlier slide: offensive and defensive realism as
variants of neorealism

The European peace example as well as

common sense would suggest that one
should attempt a synthesis of realist and
liberal perspectives.thats the subject
of 1.2c Complex Interdependence.