Realism Can Spot Liberalism’s Flaws
The central theoretical debate among scholars of international relations for decades boils down to a question of which is more important: power, principles or identity? John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is a scion of the “realist” school that holds material interests to be the driving factor in world politics, and “balance of power” to be the prudent basis for a world order. In The Great Delusion, Mearsheimer writes a defense of realism in the form of a polemic against liberal internationalism.
The first bit of the book develops a philosophical critique of liberal values as the basis for a foreign policy. The remainder of the book tries to show how in practice liberal interventionism — by self-righteous superpowers like the United States — has led not only to ill-considered wars abroad, but also illiberalism at home, by necessitating “a powerful national security bureaucracy to fight its endless wars and monitor and shape the world in its own image.”
Liberalism’s blind spot, Mearsheimer argues throughout, is failure to appreciate the power of nationalism. If US leaders recognized how national interests drive the actions of foreign leaders (and publics), Washington would learn not to intervene in places where the “indispensible power” is in fact unwanted. Mearsheimer offers a formidable critique, but has little to say about how to replace it with something else, apart from a brief call in the final pages for the creation of a “counter-elite” among young Americans who oppose “liberal hegemony.”