GVPT200 Blog #1

             What would the United States of America look like if its actions were solely based on the principles of realism? Though realism, being an older theory of international politics, has vital points, it would be incapable of standing alone today and maintaining a state as a single theory. Think about the last article you read from the newspaper, I can reckon that at least one of them mentioned some issue occurring in some other state. Realism does not address the concerns of the current world. Nowadays, a successful nation must not only be concerned with its own survival, but with the survival of its people— which are two separate elements. Realism in itself is a contradiction, because its policies deny the problem in which they are seeking to solve (Alexander Wendt).

            In the past, realism has successfully explained the way of international politics, but in a very vague manner. State X will attack State Y because State Y is posing as a threat, or State X only expresses concern for the economy in State Y if it comes to undermine the economy of State X. State X provides a rational explanation for involving or hindering themselves in the affairs of State Y: on matters where another state may become more powerful, and therefore threatens their security. Though this seems as a logical, or realistic, way to approach conflicts, realism can only work in a world that lacks complex issues.

            The question becomes a when and a what. When did the shift between the application of realism to other theories of international relations, and what provoked it?

            As a person who believes that human rights are timeless, I like to believe that issues of human rights have been prevalent throughout history. Until recently, issues such as woman’s rights, the definition of natural rights, and so forth, were not topics of discussion. However, as the world progresses through science and intellectuals, realism could no longer be applicable. Let’s assume that the reason realism doesn’t seek to incorporate values is because the lack of knowledge, then how after so much knowledge can people negate the values of other people?

I do not believe that there is a way to fully disconnect a course of action and the morals of the person or people carrying out that action. If so, then the only way to justify realism is to say that both morals and values did not exist or that the majority of society was not educated.

 If realism is backed up by rationalism, then what’s the basis of rationalism? Who decides what course of action is rational or irrational? A state’s values decide that. Now that territorial conquests are not a part of current politics, then existence on the map is no longer a primary concern. Physical survival as a nation is no longer a key concern; the concern is over survival by recognition of other states. If a state doesn’t acknowledge the other, then is it actually a state?

            A state views the legitimacy of another state by the current success of the nation internally. The Human Development Index, an international ranking of the development, or success of states, is what measures the success and appeal of its state amongst other states. The higher the ranking, the more prosperous the state. However, what factors currently decide what makes a state more developed? Health, poverty levels, trade, and inequality – all factors that realism do not address. The current ranking of the United States is 3, what level would we be at if we negated such factors?

            After proving that realism is not timeless, I take it one step further to conclude that realism is a self-fulfilled prophecy, as Alexander Wendt explains in his paper, Anarchy is What States Make of It. Though I agree with many points that are consistent with liberalism, I do not identify myself as one. The most successful way to maintain a country is by not only identifying with the needs of the state, but also for the needs of the people within that state.