Doyle, in Liberalism and World Politics, explores three traditions of Liberal theory: Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Kant. While there are some conflicts between the liberal tradition i.e., a conflict between liberal imperialism and liberal pacifism, Doyle believes that there is a repeated theme that can be found within liberal states. "Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful. They are also prone to make war. Liberal states have created a separate peace and have also discovered liberals reasons for aggression" (1151).
Schumpeter's liberalism is one that stands in contrast to imperialism. Democracies who are capitalistic will be peaceful. Democratic capitalist countries do not benefit from expansionist policies and also, their citizens are gainfully employed and busy themselves producing, which implicitly keeps them away from extreme and aggressive patriotism.
Machiavelli has a different argument. He claims that republics are actually quite good and useful at pursuing expansionist policies. Machiavelli does not support radical democracy; which he believed would eventually deviate into tyranny. However, he does explore the relationship of citizens in public, which he found to be quite satisfactory.
Machiavelli and Schumpeter stand in contrast. W can conclude two things; first that liberal pacifism has at least taken over with the further development of capitalist democracy, as Schumpeter predicted that it would and secondly that the mixed record of liberalism indicates that some liberal states are Schumpeterian democracies while others are Machiavellian republicans.
Schumpeter's liberalism is one that stands in contrast to imperialism. Democracies who are capitalistic will be peaceful. Democratic capitalist countries do not benefit from expansionist policies and also, their citizens are gainfully employed and busy themselves producing, which implicitly keeps them away from extreme and aggressive patriotism.
Machiavelli has a different argument. He claims that republics are actually quite good and useful at pursuing expansionist policies. Machiavelli does not support radical democracy; which he believed would eventually deviate into tyranny. However, he does explore the relationship of citizens in public, which he found to be quite satisfactory.
Machiavelli and Schumpeter stand in contrast. W can conclude two things; first that liberal pacifism has at least taken over with the further development of capitalist democracy, as Schumpeter predicted that it would and secondly that the mixed record of liberalism indicates that some liberal states are Schumpeterian democracies while others are Machiavellian republicans.
What about Kantian liberal democracies? While I understand your points about Schumpeter and Machiavelli, your argument would have been stronger had you considered his points relating to Kant.
ReplyDelete