Back in July 2003, this was scrivened:
Seer Stuart wrote:Some time ago, we looked at Realism, the world picture that largely drives US policy. I thought it would be interesting if we also looked at its rival world picture, one that is very common in European decision-making circles. This is the theory of international relationships known as Liberalism. I have to make some points here. Firstly, Liberalism is not used here in the sense that its used in most other circles. Here, it is simply a label that is attached to a specific theory of how nation-states interact. Secondly, what we are going to look at is a theory of how nation states to relate to each other as part of an international system. It is not a policy or a strategy but a world view whose implications, if accepted, determine strategy and policy. Finally, we are looking at practical applications of theory here. The discussions and arguments are not those that will be heard in the academic confines of a University political science course. In fact, this discussion bears about as much relationship to a University Polsci course as meatball surgery in a MASH unit does to theoretical biochemistry.
In earlier discussions we have seen how Realism sees the world as being a pyramidical structure in constant conflict with nations competing against eachother to improve their standing with regard to their neighbors and, eventually, the world. We have also seen (too briefly) that Dialecticism sees the world as a chaotic and unorganized environment in which nations interact essentially at random, changing eachother and themselves in the process. Liberalism sees the world in a different light again.
One of the basic tenets of Liberalism is that there is a basic human need to search for order and organization in the human environment. This search starts, at its lowest level, with the application of order and organization at the family level. This search is then extended upwards by the organization of families into larger groups, then those groups into communities and those communities into societies. Liberalism then proposes that those societies become nation states. However, Liberalism suggests that the basic human need to provide order and organization to the human environment extends beyond the nation state to international relations as a whole. It suggests that there is an inherent human need of people to see an extension of order and organization into the international arena and that international politics reflect this need. Therefore, according to Liberalism the basic driver of international relations and the primary cause of human interaction is to create a structured, regulated and organized system within which international relationships take place.
Liberalism sees the development of structured and organized systems at every level of human activity as being both natural and good. Thus, the extension of the structured and ordered human relations environment provided by the family to other forms of human relationships is, by definition, good. In this community, we have had many discussions over the gay marriage issue. To a Realist, the instinctive reaction is who cares, if it works it succeeds, if it doesnt it fails and its rightness is determined by whether it succeeds or fails. To a Dialecticist the issue is just another one of the random combination of issues that will turn up, neither better nor worse than any other; rightness is a meaningless concept. To a Liberalist, the principle of gay marriage is, by definition, correct since its extending structure, organization and order to a group of people who were previously excluded.
This perception of there being a basic human need for structure, order and organization and a drive to extend the structured and ordered systems to progressively higher levels of human organizations has profound effects on how Liberalism sees international relations working. Conflict at any level of society is caused by defective organization at that level of society. The very fact that conflict occurs is proof in and of itself that the structure and organization of all the parties to the conflict is flawed. If a party did not have a flawed organization and structure it would not be involved in conflict. From this it follows that any society that is involved in a conflict must be, by definition, in the wrong. Its in conflict so it must be at fault. If it corrects the faults, then it wont be in the conflict any more. Again, this comes back to the perception of basic human need starting with the family. A well-organized, well-structured family resolves any conflicts it has internally. Two well-organized, well-structured families living a neighbors do not have conflicts. Only poorly-organized, badly-structured families break up, only two such families have conflicts with eachother.
Since under Liberalism a constant search for developing an organized, structured and ordered international environment is the norm and conflict between states reflects the structural failures of both parties to the conflict, it therefore follows that there are two ways of ending an international conflict. One is to correct the defects in the societies in conflict. Since a given society can only influence and restructure itself, Liberalism proposes that the first reaction of any society entering a conflict should be to look at itself, identify the faults within itself that are leading to its participation within the conflict and correct those. Once the faults are corrected, it will no longer be involved in the conflict. Other parties to the conflict are irrelevant to its resolution; the solution to any societys participation in a conflict lies within that society itself.
Furthermore Liberalism demands that, since the need for organization, structure and order is a basic human characteristic, it follows efforts to increase their incidence are good; resistance to these aims is, by definition, bad. Since the primary means of achieving organization, structure and order are agreements and formalized arrangements, it follows that all such arrangements are good. In the Liberalism ethos, there is no such thing as a bad agreement; all agreements serve the end of bringing about a structured and organized international environment therefore all agreements are good agreements. The very fact that an agreement is an agreement outweighs any negative aspects to that agreement. It also follows that, to Liberalism any opposition to an agreement is by definition wrong and contrary to the basic demands of human nature. In fact, because Liberalism sees the bringing about of international order and organization by growing webs of agreements as being and expression of basic human nature, opposing such agreements is not just wrong, it is perverse, unnatural and proof of serious flaws in those who adopt that position. To Liberalism the cry Cant we all just get along isnt a joke or ironic; its the expression of a very profound and important truth.
The differences between the world views we have looked at come out when crises develop. To the Maximal-Realism School , a crisis is a challenge which is dealt with by defeating the challenger as quickly and publically as possible. To a Minimal Realist, a crisis is a challenge that is best met by painting the challenger as a would-be hegemon and organizing a coalition against them. To a Dialecticist a crisis is just another random event that should be manipulated in ways that bring about as many good results and as few bad ones as possible. A to Liberalist a crisis is proof positive of flaws in their own society which should be corrected, after which international agreements should be reached that bring about an end to the crisis in question. There is another aspect to this which is rather interesting. To a Realist, those who disagree with them are rivals to be put down if they become threats, to quote the Mafia, its just business, nothing personal. To a Dialecticist those who disagree are just other parts of a random anarchic universe whose opinions may or may not be useful at some time or another. However, to a Liberalist, those who hold opposing world views are denying the very basis of human nature and are evil, perverse and inhuman.
For those who wish to look further into the Liberalism world view I recommend:
Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea by Leon V. Sigal.
Written in 1997, it looks at the Carter/Clinton handling of the 1994 crisis over North Korean nuclear aspirations. The gist of the story is of how Realism brought the US to the verge of war with North Korea and Liberalism saved the day. Perhaps the best comment on that is made by Sigal himself when he dedicates the book to his son who will not now have to face the threat of a nuclear North Korea.
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
Theodore wrote:Has the earlier essay/discussion on minimal-realism and maximal-realism been preserved? I didn't find it in the back pages of this board, but maybe I missed it or didn't look in the right place.
In this springtime of hope, some lights seem eternal; America's is. - Ronald Reagan
Seer Stuart wrote:Its in the Essays Section here
http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... D=67.topic
Tony Evans wrote:Uhhh...it takes two to tango, but only one to commit rape.
It is not enough that God is on our side. We must likewise be on God's.
Jeff Thomas wrote:Stuart, I'm going to forward this to my kids, who are in the process of learning about what's wrong with the world from their poly sci profs. Should be interesting to see what we get back.
Good essay.
The American personality might be characterized as an easygoing, sentimental, fair-minded ruthlessness.
DocMartyn wrote:This is a simple summary of the points made by Stuart.
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100% literacy."
--John Derbyshire
Two cannibals are eating a clown.
One says to the other: "Does this taste funny to you?"
Seer Stuart wrote: Uhhh...it takes two to tango, but only one to commit rape.
There's a very interesting aspect to that. To the "Liberalism" school, the fact that their are two parties to rape means that both are at fault, that the situation existed because of faults in both their conduct. The woman, in this world-view, should be asking what she did to provoke the attack and whether her behavior had lead to the attack taking place.
There's a joke there. Faced with rape, a woman:-
Who is a "Liberalist" blames herself for provoking the attack and demands new laws, rules and regulations to stop it happening again.
Who is a "Dialecticist" says "@#%$ Happens" and tries to salvage what she can
Who is a "Minimal-Realist" demands the formation of a neighborhood watch to catch the rapist.
Who is a "Maximal-Realist" shoots the rapist dead, pumps six more bullets into his head to make sure then drags the corpse around the neighborhood behind her car to warn any other potential rapists of what will happen to them.
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
gan123 wrote:Another excellent essay.
I must be a maximal-realist since I like the idea of pumping the rapist full of lead and dragging him around the neighborhood.
Another analogy is the saying that it only takes one person with sward to make a war.
Your essay does go far in explaining a lot of the strange, in my view, behavior we have been seeing out of Europe lately.
It also explains another reason for their desire to form the EU.
I find your statement about any agreement is good even if it is bad extremely interesting since this implies process is more important than results under their world view.
Thus their interest in the Kyoto and international court agreements even though they are not beneficial to the EU.
Silkbow wrote:how this Liberalism outlook would appeal to Europe. It appears like, of the three world pictures so far, this one would be most appealing to the weak and divided; those who can only wield influence through consensus. You can bet if Europe was one nation, one tribe they would be as Maximal Realist as anyone.
Did I miss Stuarts essay on Dialecticism? Oh well, I snooze I lose. Silky bad.
Cheers,
Silk.
Life is a dream walking, death is a going home.
Seer Stuart wrote:There is a brief mention in the Essays link; I haven't done a better one yet. Should do that; its a very interesting view on international relations.
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
gan123 wrote:On further reflection, the views of many of the Democratic leaders and those of many of the main stream press would be more closely described as the liberalism world view.
Following 9/11 there were many stories and statements about what the USA did to bring this on our selves and "why do they hate us."
If I remember correctly your essay on Realism stated that the Democrats tended follow a minimal realism model, but I would say many now use the liberalism world view.
As an example look at the handling of the North Korea nuclear "crisis" under Clinton and Carter. Process and image trumped results. Many of the Democrats are quick to "blame America first," for all the problems of the world as are some Republicans. As with Europe this does explain some of the strange things we have been seeing and hearing in the USA.
Corollaries to this liberalism world view:
1. Small or none existent military, not needed when you are a "pure" country and you negotiate your way out of trouble.
2. Large social engineering programs to make and keep your country "pure."
3. Multiple treaties of variable effectiveness.
4. Strict codes of conduct and speech for your people to prevent individual offense and disturb the "family."
5. A very regulated economy to preserve order.
6. World-wide income redistribution is practiced and encourage to keep the "world Family" ordered and stable.
Allen Hazen wrote:Attributing something like the view Stuart dubbed "Liberalism" (is that term widely used in this sense?) to some people seems to explain an odd thing about the debates before the recent invasion of Iraq: a lot of people-- Europeans in particular-- seemed less interested in the possible rights or wrongs of the actual case (is Iraq a menace? would forcibly removing S.H. from power be a good thing?) than in what seemed like "procedural" issues: nothing must be done by anyone other than the U.N.
Liberalism as described would lead people to think that the establishment (by precedent etc) of a general presumption that wars are only permissible when the U.N. issues a permit is more important than any details about military threat or tyranny.
So: useful concept!
lion0fzion wrote:Quote:
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100% literacy."
--John Derbyshire
This is the same guy who said
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshir ... 1501.shtmlQuote:
Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability".
In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed
www.nationalreview.com/de...1501.shtml - LINK
Great source you use. :rollin
Seer Stuart wrote:Attributing something like the view Stuart dubbed "Liberalism" (is that term widely used in this sense?)
The terms used are those invented by the guys who came up with the theory. I haven't made any of them up myself. Really.
The political science departments of any university can give you lists of hundreds of such theories and sub-theories. There are a clutch of sub-variants of liberalism as well.
What I'm trying to do here is give people a feel for the theoretical background behind the positions held by certain political factions. This means using the very much buzz-saw rough-cut version of the academia versions used by people who apply political science to the real world.
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
yanceyd wrote:This is a very useful tool in understanding the Europeans. I am glad you posted it Stuart.
Parts of the Liberalism model sound akin to the economic theory that markets produce spontaineous order. I think spontaineoius order theories are right up to a point, but have never thought they provided a completely satisfactory answer for all too real human frailties.
The focus on enviroment by the Liberalism model has domestic parallels. Liberals of a domestic policy type have thought that fixing or changing the environment of the poor can change the person. Slums make bad people and if you tear down the slums and rebuild something nice, you can change the people for the better. Thus we see the liberal interest in projects and programs that change the environment of the poor. But, it might just be that bad people cause slums and not the other way around as domestic liberals would have it.
It seems that the Liberalism view in international relations has a similar view with its emphasis on structure and order. It seems to me that lots of attempts to impose inappropriate structures in international relations have not changed fundamental interests and conduct in the "bad actors." League of Nations and many other following examples.
DY
OSCSSW wrote:Hell, I always thought I was a knuckle dragging Neanderthal!
Furthermore, a REAL "card carrying" "Maximal-Realist" rape victim would shoot the rapist repeatedly in the crotch, wait a while then , then pump six more bullets into his head to make sure then drag the corpse around the neighborhood behind her car to warn any other potential rapists of what will happen to them.
Any philosophy that blames the victim for crimes committed against her is by definition cravenly cowardly (both physically and morally), utterly illogical and doomed to abject failure.
This real problem is the amount of pain and suffering Liberalism" school of international politics is willing to inflict on the innocent and the aid and comfort they provide to the bastards of this world.
No wonder the DNC and the french subscribe to the Liberalism" school of international politics!
Seer Stuart wrote:The usual descriptor applied to "Maximal-Realists" is "Cold-hearted, flinty-eyed imperialists". Its quite accurate; "Realism" implies quite strongly that imperialism is actually the normal state of affairs in international relations, not an abberation. What makes the United States version unique is the recognition that imperial power need not be the same as overt military power; economic and cultural dominance will do quite nicely. That may be a very important difference.
There's a battle going on for the soul of the Democrat Party, between the "Minimal-Realist" majority and a "Liberalist" clique at its center. That battle has been going on for about 30 years now. I suspect that the end result will be the fragmentation of the Democrat Party. How that will play out is interesting to contemplate.
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
ltbarcly wrote:I realize this post is a ridiculous amount of time after the last, however:
Think about the army, and who is blamed when something is stolen. Both the person who stole it (primarily) and the person who didn't lock it up. Why is this? It's not because the army is a hopelessly 'liberal' institution. It is because they are realists. They don't want theft to happen at all, because it causes problems. If you want to PREVENT theft, you degrade both the benefit (punishment) and the temptation (lock your stuff up). In the examples above, the realist wouldn't shoot the rapist, she would have avoided being raped in the first place (or at least tried). Because in the REAL world rape does happen, and a realist would look at what actually happens, not what should happen or what is allowed to happen. If a rape did happen, she wouldn't shoot the rapist, but would call the police. This is because in the real world killing someone after the fact is considered murder, and she would not be interested in revenge, she would only be interested in making the most of the situation she now found herself in.
Dirk Mothaar wrote:VW, that you? (n/t)
Seer Stuart wrote:You're misusing the term realism. In this context, it doesn't mean what you're interpreting it as meaning. Check here (Link to maximal realism essay) for a complete explanation of what the term "realism" means in the policy formulation and analysis context.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
