Nick Fury: “SHIELD takes the world as it is, not as we’d
like it to be. And it’s getting damn near past time for you to get with that
program, Cap.”
Captain America Steve Rogers: “Don’t hold your breath.”
This exchange of dialogue from the film Captain America: The
Winter Soldier is the realist versus liberal debate in a nutshell that Mearsheimer
describes. Funnily enough, reading his piece constantly took me back to this
movie: the overall debate and especially about his account towards the end on “Power
politics in liberal America”. Nick Fury, being the head of the fictional
espionage and law enforcement agency argues in the realist terms of being offensive towards all threats (potential and assured) while Captain
America being the epitome of all things American argues the liberal side of justice, liberty and freedom. Mearsheimer is basically talking about the same. How the
general American public dislikes power politics immensely because it challenges
their highly moralistic and liberal views of the world. Of course, being a
movie on heroism the liberal side wins out in the end (SHOCKER!). The real
world is in fact very different. Mearsheimer’s claim that the ‘dirty’ realist
motives are always in play and are just effectively disguised as a force of
freedom and liberty is very true as evident by the examples he gives and many
others like the official reasoning of the United States of going to war in Iraq versus the actual reasoning behind it. ‘Kumbaya America!'
Mearsheimer’s suggested theory of offensive realism comes
off as very practical even if extremely negative. What was most interesting
about his writing was that he seemed almost apologetic for the state of power
politics in the international system. Power politics is ugly, dirty and brutal
but (alas!) a necessary evil. For a cautious optimist (with more liberal
leanings) like me, it is a hard pill to swallow. But I still refuse to gulp it
down entirely. He laments at how the world is (which I agree with) but still
espouses to perpetuate the same state of affairs. Is that not counter productive? Why is offensive realism the
only way (especially as it only worsens the situation) and the others are deemed impractical or disastrous?
However, Mearsheimer’s conviction and humility as evident by
his writing is extremely commendable because rather than starting off with bold
claims about his work, he recognizes his limits first, that there are costs of
simplifying reality and the existence of plenty of outliers and anomalies that
will always contradict but that does not mean one should abandon the work and
study of the social sciences. A claim that I gladly and fully support him on.
Personally, I love the way that Mearsheimer has written this book (as far as I've read it). The language is simple and he doesn't use technical IR jargon to make his work sound smart. I also agree fully with your concluding paragraph - Mearsheimer does not believe that his theory is perfect and recognizes and addresses the limits of his arguments and assumptions, which make for a well-balanced piece of writing.
ReplyDeleteI love his writing style too. It is easy to read and you don't feel too dumb by not being able to follow the argument. The first chapter made me want to read the whole book even though his theory is far too drastic for my liking.
DeleteThe author is correct in identifying Mearsheimer's claim that the international politics is evil by nature to expect optimism from it is mere fallacy. Moreover, I agree that offensive realism is practical but its basic drawback is this it does not deem the cooperation between states and that what Mearsheimer also acknowledges that every theory has its limitations.
ReplyDeleteYes! Tying academia into pop culture and doing so correctly - awesome :)
ReplyDeleteI really, really enjoyed this post. I like that you noted that although offensive realism is a rather pessimistic way of looking at the world, it has practical utility. Mearsheimer does his best to describe the world of international relations as he sees it. For all of its bleakness, offensive realism provides a window into understanding how states behave. I think it is especially relevant when considering America's behavior. Although Americans like to think otherwise (Captain America-style liberalism), American leaders generally behave as good offensive realists would (Nick Fury wins in the end...).