Ways Of War And Peace Liberalism Vs Realism

Michael W. Doyle’s book Ways of War and Peace systematically analyzes classic theories like realism and liberalism that try to explain why nations wage war. However, not all theories discussed within the text are equal. In this paper I will try to argue that within the book written by Michael Doyle he paints a picture that the theory of realism is more applicable today then liberalism, even if that was not his original intention. Through careful evaluation I will prove that not only is realism a more pragmatic and realistic approach for the present time compared to liberalism, but I will also argue that fundamentalism is the best of Michael Doyle’s four different forms of realism. To begin with, there must be an examination of what both of

He states within his text that, “Liberal states [...] founded on such individual rights as equality before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation, are fundamentally against war” (Doyle 206). Basically, people who adhere to the liberalist concept believe that by having states who are based on freedom allows for a state of peace to exist amongst different nations. This is in direct opposition to the realist perspective that believes all states are in a perpetual state of war. One vindicator of why I believe that the liberalism paradigm is unrealistic because states who operate democratically have historically still waged wars against one another. For example, the Spanish-American war in 1898 was fought between two governments that identified themselves as democracies. Furthermore, democracies fought on different sides during World War II such as the United Kingdom and Finland, although I will concede that using a multi-polarity war is difficult due to the amount of nations involved in the conflict. Nevertheless, there are still examples of countries who have thrown their common belief in freedom out the window in order to obtain more power which would give credibility to realism being a much better

The four realisms that Michael Doyle lays out are complex realism, fundamentalism, structuralism, and constitutionalism. All realisms share the “worldview or an explanation of interstate politics as a state of war” (Doyle 45). Doyle makes the argument that where these different strains of realism differ is there answer to three fundamental questions: “What causes the ‘state of war’? What causes particular wars and particular peaces? [and] What strategy of peace is explicit or implicit in the work of each of the three traditions?” (Doyle 44). First, a basic overview of the four kinds of realism is in order. Complex realism is unique because “its interpretive insights are generally implicit, wrapped in historical accounts and contingent interpretations” (Doyle 45). Basically, it makes logical assumptions based on events that have already occurred and can be analyzed. Fundamentalism is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently evil and political players have a need to consistently strive for power. The concept of structuralism is rooted in the postulation that the structure of governments leads to their constant search of power, rather than it being a human nature issue it is a government structure one. Finally, “[c]onstitutionalism examines the effects of variation in cultural,