Why Americans dislike Realism

[Perun]

Why Americans Dislike Realism



Americans tend to be hostile to realism because it clashes with their basic values. Realism stands opposed to Americans’ views of both themselves and the wider world. In particular, realism is at odds with the deep-seated sense of optimism and moralism that pervades much of American society. Liberalism, on the other hand, fits neatly with those views. Not surprisingly, foreign policy discourse in the United States often sounds as if it has been lifted right out of a Liberalism 101 lecture.



Americans are basically optimists. They regard progress in politics, whether at the national or the international level, as both desirable and possible. As the French author Alexis de Tocqueville observed long ago, Americans believe that “a man is endowed with an indefinite faculty of improvement.” Realism, by contrast, offers a pessimistic perspective on international politics. It depicts a world rife with security competition and war, and holds out little promise of an “escape from the evil of power, regardless of what one does.” Such pessimism is at odds with the powerful American belief that with time and effort, reasonable individuals can cooperate to solve important social problems. Liberalism offers a more hopeful perspective on world politics, and Americans naturally find it more attractive than the gloomy specter drawn by realism.



Americans are also prone to believe that morality should play an important role in politics. As the prominent sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset writes, “Americans are utopian moralists who press hard to institutionalize virtue, to destroy evil people, and eliminate wicked institutions and practices.” This perspective clashes with the realist belief that war is an intrinsic element of life in the international system. Most Americans tend to think of war as a hideous enterprise that should ultimately be abolished from the face of the Earth. It might justifiably be used for lofty liberal goals like fighting tyranny or spreading democracy, but it is morally incorrect to fight wars merely to change or preserve the balance of power. This makes the Clausewitzian conception of warfare anathema to most Americans.



The American proclivity for moralizing conflicts with the fact that realists tend not to distinguish been good and bad states, but instead discriminate between states largely on the basis of their relative power capacities. A purely realist interpretation of the Cold War, for example, allows for no meaningful difference in the motives behind American and Soviet behavior during that conflict. According to realist theory, both sides were driven by their concerns about the balance of power, and each did what was it could to maximize its relative power. Most Americans would recoil at this interpretation of the Cold War, however, because they believe the United States was motivated by good intentions while the Soviet Union was not.



Liberal theorists do distinguish between good and bad states, of course, and they usually identify liberal democracies with market economies as the most worthy. Not surprisingly, Americans tend to like this perspective, because it identifies the United States as s benevolent force in world politics and portrays its real and potential rivals as misguided or malevolent troublemakers. Predictably, this line of thinking fueled the euphoria that attended the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. When the “evil empire” collapsed, many Americans(and Europeans) concluded that democracy would spread across the globe and that world peace would soon break out. This optimism was largely based on the belief that democratic America is a virtuous state. If other states emulated the United States, therefore, the world would be populated by good states, and this development could only mean the end of international conflict.



Because Americans despise realpolitik, public discourse about foreign policy in the United States is usually couched in language of liberalism. Hence the pronouncements of the policy elites are heavily flavored with optimism and moralism. American academics are especially good at promoting liberal thinking in the marketplace of ideas.

--John J. Mearsheimer The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Pg.23-25

[Awar]

Perun posts a very interesting article. World comes to an end.

[Perun]

Its not an article, its an excerpt from a book Im reading.

[Marulus]

Americans don't live in reality anyway, they live in a bubble, so why would they like realism?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Perun

Americans are also prone to believe that morality should play an important role in politics. As the prominent sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset writes, “Americans are utopian moralists who press hard to institutionalize virtue, to destroy evil people, and eliminate wicked institutions and practices.”


The American proclivity for moralizing conflicts with the fact that realists tend not to distinguish been good and bad states, but instead discriminate between states largely on the basis of their relative power capacities.

One thing is morality, the other thing is moralizing.

These are two very different notions...

[Errigal]

I think the description of America in the article above is a little out of date. America may have been an optimistic country forty-five years ago, but not so much now. Americans seem to me to be much more pessimistic and fearful than Prof. Mearsheimer describes. Even so, I think he is right about America's dangerous belief that they should transform the world and get rid of "evil" foreign governments. Interestingly, the author, John J. Mearsheimer recently got into a lot of trouble for writing about the supporters of Israel in American politics and saying they were doing damage to American foreign policy.