IAP Political Forum

I had some time on my hands and wanted to start this debate... so if people just ignore it, it's fine.

Anyway, I'm taking an International Relatins class as a Humanities credit, and while I basically knew a lot of what we're learning, I never really had terms for them. I also didn't know the motivations of each side, and while I usually disagree with putting people into "columns", I'm curious to see where people may stand on each concept.

Me? Well, I'm pretty sure I sit right on the fence.

I think individual groups inside each state decide its motivations (Liberal), but I think the concept of power for each country is important only in the sense of how much power that state has compared to others (Realist). I think the motivations of each group is usually only to gain more power, but the state ultimately chooses which action to take... depending on the people in power (this is a combination of the 2, basically) and that every other state is also concerned with itself (Realist) and how it looks to others (Liberal).

I think the world is basically in perpetual conflict and see both balance and imbalance of power as contributing to it (this is a rejection of a Realist concept) and that progress (social or otherwise) is only a result of this conflict (this is a rejection of a Liberal concept).

So basically, I'm pretty much in the middle.

Anyone wanna share their own?

haha, i took IR my freshman year, best professor! 

Anyway, i can see how the realist perspective may seem explain a lot of history, but as we are increasingly becoming interdependent economically the muscle that was once needed for protection has softened into a power of cultural and idealogical influences.  If you look at Globalization as it were an ungoverned entity by nature, and it is the pursuit of self-interest that propels it.  But if you think about it it is the liberalism that perpetuates the idea that we are not citizens defined by the boundaries of out state, however we are citizens of the world, because in the end we all just want the same things. 

Also take into consideration there exists liberal realism and constructivism.  (there may be some overlay.)

I'd say everyone should just respect sovereignty and let's all live as one race, the human race... *hug me*

I totally forgot I wrote this...


We were talking about the liberal expansion of Human Rights in the world and I made the mistake of not being a liberal.

We got into a debate over what constitutes basic human rights, of which I agreed were education, shelter, food and water. But then someone said healthcare and everyone nodded in agreement. Well, I put my hand up and questioned the idea that it was a human right.

"After all, if shelter, education, food and water are supplied, an individuals health is his own right... not the responcibility of the state."

Well, that didn't go over so well...

Anyway, I really like the class and the experience, and if I weren't already so far along on my engineering degree, I might very well switch my focus. But then what do I do with a degree in International Relations? Work for the UN? No thanks...

I'm more of a  (Neo-)Realist. To me the world is more of a constant bargaining arena where nations try to gain the most advantages they can get. With the exception in treaties where several nations can find  common benefit if they work together on certain areas, basically saving a lot of money or become more influential in the world (Something similar to the EU).

And I'm a little bit pessismistic over certain issues even when I don't want to be... :laugh:

If you were a 'liberal' you would probably have been the only one in the room given that there is nothing 'liberal' about universal human rights.

Being a true liberal, I would have objected to "shelter, education, food and water" being human rights.  Indeed, there are no human rights.  A quick tour of Africa will quickly confirm this universal truism.

Rights are nothing more than some privileges granted to some people in some states by some governments that are sometimes upheld.

Any survey of the world will quickly show that the vast majority of the world's population has no rights at all, not even food and water.  Ergo, the idea of 'human rights' is entirely an artificial, arbitrary and political construct.

I'd be questioning your professor here.  Seems like the defintion of "Liberal" being tossed around here here would apply to Nazi Germany's actions.  Ergo, there is something wrong with this definition since Hitler/Nazis were not liberal by any standard.

Certainly the actors within Nazi Germany determed Nazi German foreign policy and Nazi Germany was particularly concerned about how it appeared to other nations (the 1936 Olympic propaganda is particularly notable here).

Thus, according to your OP, Nazi Germany was following a "liberal" foreign policy.  That's absurd.

Why do you say that?

Granted, I'm new to the arena of foreign relations - or rather, the buisness of defining terms associated with it - but the general spread of basic human rights and peoples' condemnation for torture (once a public spectacle), to a liberal, shows public progress.

It's a major tenet of their philosophy, I thought, because it proves that progress is possible and the motivations of states do not wholly dictate global politics... but indidualism does.


I don't deny that the spread of human rights has been relatively slow. In fact, I'm more of a realist in believing that human rights is really nothing more than an excuse used by other nations to intervene in the affairs of another (see: Iraq), but I think the general acceptance of human rights by the public is undeniable.

We're not killing people in public anymore and, more recently, people (in America, anyway) expressed condemnation at the prospect of the US torturing prisoners.

Again, liberals don't cite the spread of human rights as evidence of liberal theory, but rather the desire for them.


Liberal theory isn't entirely dependent on the idea that they care what others think.

Actually, I think all government orginizations are, by default, realist. Nazi Germany was concerned with the spread of their ideals and their relative power to the Communists and the European powers.

Sorry, I just deleted my entire reply since it was proving too tedious with this particular system software to deal with the errors caused by multiple nested quotations (and the brutally slow server that hosts this forum).

Perhaps I'll reply later.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Anything I can help you with?

THe world has ALWAYS operated under the guise of realism...its only until the very recent years (about 50 years or so) that liberalism has had any implementation...and even then, its not a prevalent as they would hope. 

Liberalism's pillars (free trade, human rights, IGO cooperation etc) are actually supported by realists....only when they give maximum gain to your nation state though.  The bottom line is, its not in man kinds genetics to cooperate all the time and violence in part of our nature.  You have to learn to embrace that and channel it into an effective force IMO.

My key takeaway from political theory:  While I'm a staunch realist, I feel its important to be surrounded by an equal force of liberals.  Balance is paramount!

Liberalism and Realism both try to explain how the world's foreign affairs work (also Marxism). They are theories, not policies. Or at least they are supposed to be. However, I believe that country's actions cannot be explained by realism or liberalism, because in fact the people in charge of countries foreign relations act depending on what they believe to be true (which makes me a Social Constructivist I suppose). For example, American foreign policy tends to be of a more Realist bent than European foreign policy, because Realism is a theory more popular in American IR thought and books than it is in European IR thought. Therefore, American foreign policy often considers more confrontational courses of action than European foreign policy, because it is more likely to consider that other states are acting in the way predicted by Realism, whereas European thinkers expect other states to act in a way predicted by Liberalism (this is not a hard and fast rule, I am talking about generalities). So in fact, whether Liberalism or Realism is correct depends a lot on what people think is correct.

Agreed.  Though the origin of 'liberal internationalism' in foreign affairs pretty much ought to be considered as beginning with Woodrow Wilson and the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919.  This is the penultimate expression (in principle) of the idea of liberal internationalism.

That being said, it is quite debatable how much US foreign policy since WW2 has been 'realism' or 'liberal internationalism'.  I think the former has always been dominant in the USA. 

Yes, but that is because you are (perhaps) mixing up 'liberalism' as a general theory of economic policy with 'liberal-internationalism' as a general theory of foreign policy.  The two are not connected to each other in any ideological or theoretical way (other than a similarity of the term 'liberal').

That is to say, 'free trade' is a core principle of classical liberal economic theory - and usually favored by 'conservatives'.  This is always understood on the foreign policy side as a 'realist' policy (because it is self-serving - pushed by the large corporate interests), 'free trade' types of policy are never driven by 'liberal internationalists' who seem to abhor 'private-deal' trade agreements and prefer international or sectorial trade agreements (GATT and WTO) - or outright protectionism (oddly enough). 

This a good policy - and it fits your username! 

Personally, and in reference only to foreign policy issues, I've never been a liberal internationalist, but I've never been willing to accept the label of 'realist' due to the idea that 'realism' (in reality) means 'self-serving' in foreign policy lingo, and I don't accept that entirely as an ideal worthy of my support (it has plenty enough on its own because it is 'self-serving' and thus doesn't need my analytical or theoretical assistance).  :)

I've always described my own foreign policy position as that of realpolitique, italized to denote that it is a French word, not an English one.  Catherine d'Medici (Queen of France) has been one of the most famous original models here, as would be the author of her favorite book - the grand master of realpolitique himself, Machiavelli.  To me, realpolitique is more complicated than mere 'self-interest'.  Though, perhaps this is only my own hubris.  I'll have to give this further thought to offer a rationally-based distinction between realpolitique and 'realism' approach.

I think I've just answered this question in my reply to neorealist above.

That is to say, the term "liberal" gets tossed around pretty freely and easily gets mutated by fusing together disparate elements associated with the word "liberal".

A 'true' liberal must be one who is a classical liberal - holding to classical liberal economic theory ('free trade' is a good example) and holding to general 'utilitarian' type philosophy (cf. Bentham and JSMill). 

Alternatively, in foreign policy circles, a 'liberal' is a 'liberal internationalist' who supports the UN and humanitarian causes.

This is the confusion of terminology that I'm pointing out here in this thread.  Classical liberalism, economic liberalism, philosophical liberalism, political liberalism and liberal internationalism are not ideologically related things.  Indeed, it is the latter two that are most unlike first three.

It is a great pity for the sake of art that Leni Riefenstahl wasn't contracted to undertake a documentary of the 1936 Olympics!

Besides which, I'd take such examples of propaganda to be evidence of 'realism' at work.  Liberal internationalists know they have moral right on their side so they are sanctimonious about it.  It is only the 'realists' that need propaganda to spin the masses to support the self-serving policies of the elite rulers.

Sure.  There was NOTHING even remotely 'liberal internationalist' about the Nazis.  Their policies were always self-serving and 'realist'.

Right, and I think what I'm saying about torture is exactly what a "Liberal Internationalist" would say in defense of international liberalism (heh... that sounds ridiculous when you say it out loud).


And I never said otherwise.

Could you point out what you are staying about torture?  My brief review of this thread didn't find any reference to torture.

I mentioned itHERE (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,1975.msg50200/#msg50200), though, admittidly, I failed to flesh it out. It was part of my argument to show that UHR means something to liberals, not neccessarily cause they are concerned with UHR specifically, but rather the world's new \concern for UHR proves that statism is NOT the only determenent factor in world politics... but so is individualism.

From your reference to torture in the OP...

I suppose it does, but that's kind of facile and that's why I raised my disagreement at what this professor is apparently teaching you about the academic discipline of 'international relations'.  It seems like your class is only 'glossing over' this topic, rather than this being a full course in 'international relations'. 

Please forgive me, but I have taken many such courses in my undergraduate studies and also this topic impinges upon my graduate studies in philosophy (ethics), so I'm just probing a bit to see what your knowledge and interest level in this topic is.  My replies can be seem cryptic, obfusicating, pedantic or condescending if I don't 'tune' my replies appropriately.  I never know if others are high school, college, university or graduate-level students. :)

As for universal human rights, I'd say that even basic human rights haven't actually spread at all outside the 'Western Pale' as far as I can see.  Indeed, all the progress in 'human rights' is political progress in trying to build majority support for the idea inside the 'Western Pale'. 

To put it simply, Africa and South America have no more and no less human rights now than they have ever had, or had 50 or 100 years ago.  I'd be quite pleased to be proven wrong here, if anyone has any substantial evidence to the contrary.  I'm not talking about fanciful rhetoric in lofty statutes, laws or proclaimations here - I'm talking about actual results on the ground for poor people.  Poor people (outside the west) just don't have any actual human rights in actual reality.

As for torture, are you familiar with Michel Foucault's brilliant sociological study on the evolution of the character of state punishment since the 1500's?  Discipline and Punishment is the title - a very short book - along with Madness and Civilization a related study of how society treats mental illness - I recommend most highly.  Probably the single most impressive piece of academic analysis I've ever encountered (definitely accessible to a 'non-specialist' reading audience).

My point here is that 'torture as civic spectacle' disappeared a good century or two before the dawning of the 'enlightenment' and the birth of the ideals that have since spawned the ideals of 'universal human rights'.

Well yes, the idea that the human condition can theoretically be 'improved' is a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism and is the foundational distinction of 'tory vs whig' - the earlier terms for what is now deemed to be 'conservative vs liberal'.

As for the assertion that the actions of individuals can have international effects, that is an unproven assertion that is popular on both the left and the right.  I've see little evidence of it in a modern context.

That's a reasonable argument to make. 

Personally, I'd reject the argument because true classical liberalism is traditionally as suspicious of the state as they are of large corporations or religious institutions.  Classical liberalism seems to ally with the statist principle only on the basis of a 'lesser of two evils' principle (holding that statism is less bad than anarchism).

Statism is a passion only of authoritarians.  No liberty-loving liberal can love the state.

And this brings us to the infamous American cultural 'redefinition' that liberalism=socialism.  Of course, socialists always love the state.  Real liberals don't.  But if one 're-defines' liberalism as socialism (as is extremely common in the USA) then it does make sense to say that liberals love the state.

Well... it's really "Introduction to International Relations"... the first part of what I believe to be a 5 or 6 part saga education.

It's not my major (it's Naval Architecture). It's just an elective I thought I would enjoy.


Well, I do believe she said torture began to fade from public entertainment because of the Enlightenment, but I could have misunderstood her.

Also, she's not a bad teacher. She's one of the few I've ever liked and we've talked privately after class a few times. I think she feels constrained by trying to equally present, prove and disprove each theory as to not seem like she's indoctrinating anyone.

Few people really walk in with an opinion on the subject and I'm sure she doesn't want to accidentally make on for them.


Well, she tried to say the "Boomerang Effect" was evidence of that, but for the essay question on our recent test I took a radical departure from the intention of the question (to just explain the Boomerang Effect) and said that despite it's minor flaws, it was severely flawed.

Without motivation or benefit, no state or IGO will intervene.


I know what you mean.

UHC = Socialized medicine ::)

I'm not even a fan of UHC but I won't stoop to such ridiculous lows. It's absurd.

But what's more absurd is that it actually works.

I presume that's a college level course?  In that case, I stand by my critique of the professor doing a half-assed job of it.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this is what your professor is saying.

So many people in academia study only one topic all their lives and often lack any context of that topic vis-a-vis other topics like history.  They thus make silly mistakes like this since it is so 'common sensical' that the Enlightenment ended torture as public spectacle.  It takes one with an obsession wtih history to note that the public spectacle of torture ended long, long before the Englightenment began.

If I were the Dean (which I'm not) I'd like to see her fired for that.

Kudos for the attempt to not perceive indoctrination.  It is her denial of the game that strikes me as pandering to you.

Teaching is indoctrinating and any teacher that pretends they are not indoctrinating you is a liar, a sham and a fool.  Education is by definition 'indoctrination' with knowledge.  It cannot be anything but.


Agreed. 

Though, it should be noted that 'liberal internationalism' can be justified on the grounds of self-interest.

Yes, those who oppose universal healthcare policies on the basis that 'they don't work' are just plain wrong and in serious denial.  The evidence and data that these programs work pretty damn well in most Western countries is plentiful and well documented. 

As far as I know, only Britain's system qualifies for the 'tag' of 'socialized medicine' as that's what their policy really is all about (with doctors drawing a salary from the state like civil servants).  This is entirely unlike France or Canada (for example).

Ok, first of all, I think you're being WAY to rough on her. You only have what I've said to work with and while I appreciate the confidence, I am susceptable to misunderstanding people. Also, remember that this is an introductory level class (with 70 kids in it), and it wouldn't surprise me that the classes are a little broad in their direction at the moment.

For the purpose of this class at this level, critical thinking of the topics is not necessarily required. It's encouraged, appreciated and commended, but not required. Not now. This is a brief introduction to the defenitions and bounderies of international politics. It's simmered down into a basic laundry list to make digestion easier.

I have no doubt in my mind the classes turn into full fledged debates in later courses (because they have less students and therefor can have debates)... but again, this is merely an introduction, and as a result, the teacher is corseted by the material because at the moment most people (in my class, anyway) are not fit to choose and she doesn't want to make a choice for us by giving one theory more mic time than another.

I'm sure, given how long she's been in this, that she has some kind of opinion. I had one going in that really hasn't changed much, it's just I have new words to use if it ever comes up in conversation.

Again, you have to understand that this is just an introductory level class.


Right, but a Realist cites the state's intrests as the only intrests that dictate international politics.

A liberal would cite the intrests of the political party in charge, powerful companies or even an individual in a state as actors in international politics. Realists generally don't.


Well, like I said, I don't really agree with UHC. It looks like the federal government has a penchant for fucking up large, federal programs like this and I just don't want to see our physical health suffer as a result of buerocracy and incompetence.

I don't think there is a difference...at least its not taught in mainstream IR theory today.

I totally agree.  However, I believe there may in fact be a real difference.  Perhaps in the 'term' used as the frame of reference.  Realism seems to only consider the most short term of interests.  Realpolitique seems to focus upon long term interests.