Session 15: Liberalism & The Leaning Tower of Peace.

Michael Doyle’s paper on liberalism is an interesting one. Where we see many theorists either completely against Liberalism, and or completely in support of it. Michael Doyle’s takes the road in between, he does not argue that the only path that mankind has to follow if it needs to attain peace is Liberalism, in fact the notion of eternal world peace is subtly disqualified in his arguments, he rather constructs his arguments through the examination of three different Liberal theorists, Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Kant and tries to persuade the reader towards accepting Liberalism as a “better path”. The first theorist that Doyle discusses, Michael Schumpeter argues in favor of liberal Pacifism, his arguments dignify the liberal states as propagators of peace. Schumpeter identifies Democratic capitalism as the central cause of the peaceful nature of Liberal states, however Doyle argues against him, through the presentation of works like J.D Singer, in showing how Democratic Capitalism or the mere existence of Liberal States is not solely sufficient to dignify Liberalism as a Peaceful Ideology. Next, Doyle takes up a theorist who argues much to the contrary; Machiavelli’s theory of Liberal imperialism identifies the freedom of a republic as a necessity for imperial expansion. He argues that a liberal state should employ measures to control the recklessness of the masses which if left on its own would result in a collapse of the state if threatened by foreign conflict. Liberal Imperialism is rather sufficiently supported by historical empirical evidence. Kant’s Liberal Internationalism focuses on the bigger picture, he argues that the behavior of states cannot be studied in isolation and thus the nature of the states and their systematic relations have to be studied simultaneously if we are to conclude liberalism as a rather peaceful ideology. Doyle explains how Kant’s ideology is perhaps a more accurate representation of a liberalist view on International relations, he says that “Unlike Machiavelli’s republics, Kant’s republics are capable of achieving peace among themselves because they exercise democratic caution and are capable of appreciating the international rights of foreign republics”. Conclusively Doyle’s paper does not highlight the Liberalist ideology as the only road towards peace, but what he does highlight are theories that are a step towards its attainment, which I think is sufficient foundation for a more thorough framework.