Idealism vs Realism

August 4, 2012

Futility in Foreign Policy

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Idealism vs Realism, Philosophy of Freedom, World Freedom and World Peace

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an American-Iranian interview of Martin Peretz, a prominent American Jew who has a life-long devotion to the ideal of Zionism in the Middle East. Over at The Washington Post, Dr. Henry Kissinger, also a prominent American Jew as well as former Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has an Op-Ed arguing that realist versus idealist solutions to problems in the Middle East will both fail by not combining both strategies. And China yesterday voted with eleven of the other most repressive, authoritarian governments in the world to not have the United Nations criticize the repressive government in Syria, arguing that the problems in Syria are the result of foreign intervention in Syrian domestic affairs.

One can only shake a head, witnessing the futility of such thinking. The solution to the problems in the Middle East are not to be found in Zionism. The solution to the problems in Syria has nothing to do with the differing psychologies which produce competing idealist and realist theories of international relations. And no amount of determinist scapegoating by the repressive, communist government in China is going to address the actual problem in Syria.

In every case, the fundamental problem is the lack of freedom. Zionism has to deny freedom to others in order to preserve itself. The Alawites in Syria have to deny freedom to others in order to keep their minority control over the majority population. Marx’s well known lack of concern for freedom and justice in communist theory will never be able to tolerate ‘regime change,’ whenever such a change will result in more freedom for the people under that changed government.

Peretz’s Zionism and Kissinger’s real politik and China’s communism are all monistic, and the philosophy of monism is ‘peace.’ In contrast, the philosophy of pluralism is ‘freedom.’ As Kant pointed out 200 years ago, there will never be a world at peace until there is a world that is free.

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

May 2, 2012

Whistling Walt

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Idealism vs Realism

Dr. Stephen Walt of Harvard University wrote today on his blog at Foreign Policy magazine about how employing ‘realism’ theory instead of ‘idealism’ theory in foreign affairs would have resulted in ten improved outcomes in American foreign policy over the past decade. Among the improvements: no 2001 or 2003 interventionist wars in the Middle East, no Israeli settlements on the West Bank, no eastward expansion of NATO, all of Europe and Asia would begin to finance their own self-defense, and, oh yes, China would not expand its military capabilities as it grew increasingly wealthy (sigh). In Dr. Walt’s world-view, all good things in foreign policy emanate from employing realism, and all bad things result from idealism.

Less than a century from now–sooner than a decade, if we are lucky–the entire current debate between idealism and realism in foreign affairs will be regarded as being as scientific as the practice of blood-letting to cure a cold. The two theories jaw at each other about how correct their approach is and how wrong the other’s is, and nothing, certainly nothing scientific or objective, is resolved.

Idealism in foreign affairs is the view that employing institutions is the best method to resolve issues in the relations between nation-states. Realism counters, it is the self-interest of the nation-states that accurately describes actual nation-state behavior, and is therefore the best method to resolve issues. They are both as much wrong as they are correct.

Idealism and realism are actually competing theories in International Relations based upon contrasting psychologies. Each proponent of each theory is, unintentionally, making an argument based upon their own psychology. If the interlocutor personally has a more pessimistic psychology, they argue for realism. If they have a more optimistic personal psychology, they argue for idealism. Just as there is a psychological divide between a political Left and Right, there is a psychological divide between realism and idealism. Which means, every nation is never going to have an objective, rational foreign policy so long as only one psychology dominates the internal debate on how to conduct relations between states.

A more rational approach to foreign affairs would be to admit to fallibility (this is an important first step because, as Talleyrand noted long ago, nothing is worse in foreign policy than to make a mistake), work constantly to try to identify unintended consequences of any policy option, and then include both competing views in crafting foreign relations. Dr. Walt’s realism is just as arrogant about its own infallibility as is the idealism he criticizes; our Republic is not well served by the hubris in either theory.

Perhaps it would help our foreign policy if we required any appointment of Ambassador have an education that includes as much political psychology as International Relations.