What is Political Realism?
Political realism is a way of thinking about power and international affairs. Realists say that the world has no higher authority above states, so every country must look after its own survival. Power and national interest, not moral slogans, drive what governments do. A realist does not say that ethics are worthless. The claim is that leaders who ignore the hard facts of power will hurt their own people. Realists therefore stress prudence, balance of power and a sober view of what can be achieved. They tend to distrust crusades to remake other societies, and to doubt that international law or institutions can restrain strong states by themselves.
Core beliefs
- The international system has no world government, so states must rely on themselves.
- The main actors are states, and their basic goal is survival and security.
- Power and interests explain most state behavior better than ideals do.
- A balance of power between rivals is the best available guard against domination.
- Leaders should weigh the results of their choices, not just their intentions.
- Moral crusades often cause more harm than good, and humility about foreign affairs is wise.
History
Realist thinking is very old. The Greek historian Thucydides described how Athens and Sparta fought a long war driven by fear and power, and his account of the Athenian argument at Melos is a famous realist text. In The Prince (1513), Niccolo Machiavelli advised rulers to deal with the world as it is. Thomas Hobbes pictured relations between states as a permanent standoff. In the nineteenth century, Otto von Bismarck was seen as a master of what Germans call Realpolitik. Modern realism took shape between the world wars. E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis (1939) attacked the idealists who had put their faith in the League of Nations. After the Second World War, Hans Morgenthau gave the school its classic form in Politics Among Nations (1948). In 1979 Kenneth Waltz moved the debate to the structure of the system itself in his Theory of International Politics.
Variants
Classical realists such as Morgenthau rooted state behavior in human nature and the lust for power. Structural realists, or neorealists, such as Waltz say the anarchic system itself forces states to compete, whatever their leaders are like. Within this camp, defensive realists think states mainly want security and should avoid grabbing too much. Offensive realists think states are pushed to seek as much power as they can. Neoclassical realists add a role for domestic politics and leaders' perceptions.
Criticisms
Liberal thinkers argue that trade, shared institutions and democracy can reduce conflict, and that realists underrate cooperation. Constructivists say identities and ideas shape what states see as their interests. Moral critics worry that a focus on power can excuse cruelty and abandon the weak. Some say realism is a loose set of ideas that can justify almost any policy, and that it explains too little about internal politics. Realists reply that their approach is not amoral, but rests on an ethic of responsibility, and that history keeps repeating the lessons they teach.
In practice
Realist ideas have guided diplomacy built on balance of power and spheres of influence, such as nineteenth century European concert diplomacy and Cold War efforts to ease tension. Many well known realists argued against the Vietnam War, and many scholars of the school publicly opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a poor use of national power. Realism has no set economic program, so on the 12 axes its scores sit close to the center on most economic questions. It scores toward Strength on Foreign policy and toward Order on Security.