“We Saved The World” WWI can help explain the debate and tension between Wilsonian idealism and realism.
This tension takes place when America rose to power and influence during WWI, as the U.S. transitioned from unilaterism to internationalism. Also, each theory tries to reshape America’s national interest differently. Wilsonian idealism says U.S. national interest should be based on values like democracy, self-determination, human rights, and freedom. As a result, Wilson argues that America needs to be more engaged in internationalism. On the other hand, realism says that national interests should be characterized by real politik. A viewpoint that U.S. foreign policy should pursue its interest separate from morals. Consequently, the
…show more content…
In WWI, Wilsonian idealism meant several things. This included de-colonization. Also, Wilson strongly believed in democratic peace theory, and he thought that the United States needed to make the world safe for democracy. Furthermore, the president clarified that the United States was entering the war on a moral high ground. For example, Woodrow Wilson mentioned the U.S. was not going to war out of national security but the U.S. had a messianic mission. There were some concerns like the Zimmerman letter that asked Mexico to attack the U.S. On the other hand, the messianic mission was “a war to end all wars” and this was war to make the world safe for democracy. His ideas, which were deeply liberal principles, were embedded into the fourteen points he had created during …show more content…
Realists critique the idealist that a international body can fight and prevent aggression. For example, the failure of the League of Nations did not prevent WWII. Germany and Japan still started WWII. Realists critique the idealist on the role of the U.S. in the world. They can argue that it is not to be the “world police,” and they can argue that entangling alliances, like the League of Nations, hinders American sovereignty. Realists critique the idealist for thinking that the U.S. foreign policy is about morals and democracy. Most importantly, what is the role of the United States? What will its national interest be? The United States can engage in real politik and use force. This would re-define the character of the U.S. because values are sacrificed at the expense of real politik. That’s the tension between idealism and realism that still continues today . .
Woodrow Wilson, our 23rd president, became involved in a war that he did not want any part of. Wilson wanted to remain neutral and have peace as in his first term of office. During World War I Wilson’s roles in the war became well known in all countries. Wilson wanted peace more than anything else. In seeking for peace Wilson asked Congress for the U.S. to enter World War I. which may not sound like a peace strategy but Wilson felt it was the only way to stop Germany and gain peace. Wilson wrote his speech for world peace, Fourteen Points, that he was probably most famous for. He attended and played an integral part in The Treaty of Versailles. He was the founder of the League of Nations, which he talked about in his Fourteen Points speech. .
When World War I broke out in Europe, Woodrow Wilson announced that the United States would stay out of European affairs and remain neutral. Wilson was aware that the United States had no interest in the matters that did not directly affect the interests of American citizens. He hoped that the United States would remain neutral and continue to trade with warring nations. The American view of neutrality meant we were entitled to safely and freely trade with either side at war as long as it was out in the open seas. The United States hoped to stay out of the way because war was viewed as wasteful, irrational, and immoral.
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
The theory of Realism key actor is the state. The view of the state in Realism is power seeking and to make judgments based on the significant of national interests. Each state acts in a unitary way to increase its power by war, balance of powers, or through economy. The International System believes in anarchy. The distribution of power among states can be judged by its economy and military capabilities. However, the Realist theory does take in consideration that change can occur in the International System.
Realist Perspective- This perspective focuses on self-help, survival and the need for more power in order to maintain security and sovereignty. This perspective can create distrust towards other actors and inhibits the ability to cooperate. However, in situations of a real threat from another country. This perspective will take steps to “even up the power” or take necessary steps to protect one’s borders (Nau 2017, 22).
In order to understand the negative effect that idealism could have in relation to foreign policy, it is detrimental to
Despite the emergence of alternative approaches, realism remains the dominant theoretical perspective towards world politics. Realism is the traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else. Realism tends to be extremely pessimistic, hence the influencers of realism: Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau believe that humans by nature are selfish, aggressive, violent, unlikely to change, and that conflict is inevitable. Why have people become like that? What are major predictions by realism? Why have states become that self-serving? All of the previously mentioned points must be pondered in order to better understand the role and approach of realism.
Donnelly, J. (2005). Realism. In A. L.-S. Scott Burchill, Theories of international relations (3rd ed., pp. 29-54). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
International relations first arose during the rise of total war in World War One. The war forced intellectuals to look at International relations in a different spectrum and in order of a way to secure the peace Woodrow Wilson, the US president at the time used the liberal ideology to shape a post war order. This helped contribute to liberalism in International Relations. Liberalism was considered idealist because it operated on an optimistic view of human nature. Soon after the war, however, idealism was being challenged by the bureaucratic realism. And so the debate continues between idealism and realism whether which one is more likely to help explain and understand International Relations. In my paper I will argue that both terms are mutually exclusive and in order to fully grasp International Relations and apply it, there needs to be a good mixture of both. An Idealist view on international relations with an equal admixture of realism will result in more awareness in international relations on a global scale, which will help suppress the need for war and dominance of countries. I will argue this claim by showing that too much of an idealistic point of view will result in naïve thinking and too much of a realistic view will result in a distant global relationship. I will compare and contrast the scholarly works of Mordecai Roshwald and Jack Donnelly and their thoughts on Realism and Idealism in politics; Charles W. Kegley and his thoughts on realism and its challenges; and J.A. Hobson’s view on idealism in International relations. I will then connect all the scholarly works together and construct my own proposal and my contribution to this topic of idealism and realism in International Relations.
Zacher, M & Matthew, R.A (1995). Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,’ in C.W Keglay, Jr., Controversies in International Relations: Realism and the neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 107-50.
Realism in international relations is seen as one of the oldest theories of international relations and is widely held as a worldview. It is a general approach to international politics and is not a single theory, which always develops and provides better explanations according to the rapid change of the world. In International Relations, political realism is the foundation on states to be the main actor in the global politics to pursue its national interest in terms of power.
Offensive realism or offensive neorealism has received a lot of attention and its main innovators is John Mearsheimer. According to the offensive realism, states act aggressively because they want to be secure, it is system that makes them to do so. States often have no reason to go in conflict with each other, they are primarily thinking about themselves. Mearsheimer have listed five assumption of international politics that supports his opinion. First of all he argued that there is no government, all states are capable to use their own force and force against other, no one state can be sure that another state would not use force to fight against, all states seek primary to keep their own territorial integrity and states are often rational actors. There are not all realist who accept Mearsheimer´s five assumption. According to Waltz, it is the nature of international politics that foreces states to focus on their own independance and that can they do by forming coalitions (Wagner, R. Harrison, 2007,
The main purpose of conservative theories can be seen as the “explanation of political reality” and that they “help us to understand the world, and nothing more” (McGowan, Cornelissen & Nel, 2006). Conservative analysts state that a good theory can also assist decision-makers into creating better policies. Under the category of conservative theories falls realism. Donnelly (2000: 09) referred to realism as a “general orientation” that sees “international relations largely as a realm of power and interest.” This concedes that there is no concrete definition for realism, but it is rather a perspective on how political reality is shaped. Realists make certain assumptions on which they...
Understanding contemporary world politics is by no means an easy feat. To merely begin the process, one must first have an ample knowledge of historical as well as modern trends in international relations, the issues at hand both now and in the past and major events that affect the field. Several groups and styles of thinking have developed throughout the centuries to make attempts at comprehending world politics and most successfully carrying out international relations. One of these styles of thinking is often called power politics and can be referred to as realpolitik or realism. This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background.