Realism vs. Liberalism - Global Politics Theories Compared
Summary
TLDRThis script explores the dichotomy between realism and liberalism in global politics. Realists advocate for self-reliance and power accumulation for security, viewing international relations as an anarchic struggle. Liberals, conversely, promote cooperation and soft power, emphasizing institutions like the UN and the democratic peace theory. The script contrasts the EU's economic growth through liberal cooperation with the US's unilateral approach and its implications, ultimately questioning which theory better explains global political behavior and encouraging optimism for a cooperative future.
Takeaways
- 🌐 Global affairs can be seen through two lenses: cooperation as per liberal theory, and self-interest as per realist theory.
- 🤝 Liberals believe in the power of cooperation, citing trade agreements, regional organizations, and the United Nations as examples that encourage states to work together.
- 🏛 Realists, inspired by Thucydides, argue that the international system is anarchic, with states constantly seeking power for survival and relying on themselves for security.
- 🛡️ For realists, power accumulation is a means of protection, and trust in other states is limited due to the lack of higher authority in the international system.
- 🕊️ Liberals emphasize the importance of liberal institutions and the concept of the 'democratic peace,' suggesting that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared interests and values.
- 💡 The script suggests that focusing on soft power and cooperative efforts, such as economic and social progress, might be more beneficial than an exclusive focus on hard power.
- 🌳 Liberals advocate for empowering non-state actors like NGOs to help tackle global issues like climate change, which requires collective action rather than individual state efforts.
- 💼 The European Union is highlighted as a successful example of liberal cooperation, demonstrating economic growth through a unified market.
- 🔫 In contrast, realists align with hard power, focusing on capabilities like military force and technology to ensure security and maintain a competitive edge.
- 🇺🇸 The United States is cited as an example of a state that maintains significant hard power, but recent actions have impacted its global soft power and respect.
- 🔄 The script discusses the Iraq War as an example of realism, where power and security interests were prioritized over the promotion of democracy and resulted in ongoing conflict.
- 🌟 The final takeaway invites viewers to consider whether hope and cooperation or fear and self-interest better explain the behavior of actors in global politics.
Q & A
What characterizes global affairs according to the script?
-The script presents two perspectives on global affairs: one is cooperation, where states work together to solve global problems through trade agreements, regional organizations, and the United Nations; the other is the principle of every man for himself, where states seek power for survival in an anarchic international system.
What is the core belief of realism in international relations?
-Realism believes in the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no higher power above the state, leading to an unregulated and uncertain environment. States are constantly seeking power for their survival and security.
What does the script suggest about the role of liberal institutions in global politics?
-Liberal institutions, such as free trade and the United Nations, are seen as promoting peaceful relations between states and fostering cooperation. They are important for the growth and empowerment of states through collective problem-solving.
What is the democratic peace theory mentioned in the script?
-The democratic peace theory posits that liberal democracies, being alike in interests and values, are less likely to go to war with each other due to the mutual benefits they see in cooperation.
How does the script differentiate between soft power and hard power in liberalism?
-Soft power in liberalism focuses on using influence to bring states together for mutual benefit, such as through economic and social progress. Hard power, while acknowledged, is seen as less necessary in a cooperative world.
What role do non-state actors play in the liberal perspective on global affairs?
-Non-state actors, such as NGOs, are seen as important in fighting global injustices. They are given more legitimacy and are empowered to help address major global issues like climate change.
How does the script describe the European Union as an example of liberalism in action?
-The European Union is highlighted as a success of liberalism, where the collective economic power of its member states has led to significant growth, demonstrating the benefits of cooperation over individual power accumulation.
What capabilities does realism emphasize in the international system?
-Realism emphasizes hard power capabilities such as geographic territory, demographic power, military force, and advanced military technology, which are crucial for a state to stay ahead of potential enemies.
What is the script's view on the United States' role in maintaining global peace and power?
-The script suggests that while the United States has a strong military and full spectrum capability, its unilateral approach and recent actions have not always led to long-term success or respect in the international community.
How does the script discuss the outcomes of the United States' actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
-The script implies that the United States' actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, driven by realist principles, have resulted in instability and ongoing conflict rather than long-lasting positive change.
What does the script suggest about the future of global politics?
-The script encourages optimism and the choice of hope over fear, suggesting that cooperation and the benefits of working together should be aspired to for the future of global politics.
Outlines
🌐 The Debate Between Realism and Liberalism in Global Affairs
This paragraph introduces the ongoing debate in global politics between the principles of realism and liberalism. Realism is portrayed as an approach that emphasizes the anarchic nature of the international system, where states are solely responsible for their own security and power accumulation. It suggests that trust cannot be placed in other states and that self-reliance is paramount. On the other hand, liberalism is presented as an ideology that promotes cooperation, interdependence, and the strengthening of institutions like the United Nations to foster peaceful relations and collective problem-solving. The paragraph also touches on the democratic peace theory and the belief in mutual benefits through economic cooperation, contrasting it with the realist's focus on hard power and capabilities.
🛡️ Power Dynamics: Soft vs. Hard Power in Global Politics
The second paragraph delves deeper into the practical implications of the realist and liberal ideologies, focusing on the types of power states employ. It contrasts the liberal emphasis on soft power, which includes economic and social progress, with the realist preference for hard power, such as military force and technological capabilities. The paragraph uses the example of the European Union to highlight the success of liberal cooperation in economic growth. It also discusses the United States' approach under different administrations, suggesting that unilateral actions driven by realism may not always lead to successful outcomes. The paragraph concludes by questioning the effectiveness of realism in promoting democracy and stability, as seen in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Global Affairs
💡Cooperation
💡Realism
💡Anarchy
💡Liberalism
💡Democratic Peace Theory
💡Soft Power
💡Hard Power
💡Capabilities
💡European Union
💡Unilateral Approach
Highlights
Global affairs can be characterized by cooperation, with states working together to solve global problems through trade agreements, regional organizations, and the United Nations.
Realism, a prominent theoretical foundation of global politics, focuses on the sovereign state and the anarchic nature of the international system.
Realists argue that states are constantly seeking power for survival, relying only on themselves due to the lack of higher authority in international relations.
Liberals view the world as cooperative over competitive, emphasizing the importance of liberal institutions and free trade for peaceful relations.
The democratic peace theory suggests that liberal democracies are less likely to conflict due to shared interests and values.
Liberalism promotes the use of soft power and the empowerment of non-state actors like NGOs to address global issues.
The European Union is highlighted as a success of liberalism, demonstrating economic growth through the collective power of its member states.
Realism aligns with hard power, focusing on capabilities such as military force and advanced technology for security.
The United States is cited as an example of a powerful state due to its full spectrum capability in hard power assets.
The Trump administration's impact on American global respect and soft power is discussed, suggesting a potential decline.
Realists would consider cooperative actions by the United States for mutual benefit as a mistake due to mistrust in the intentions of other states.
The attempt to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan is presented as an example of realism, with power enhancement as the motive.
The Iraq War is discussed as a case where the realist approach of the United States did not yield the desired long-lasting change.
A call for more meaningful cooperation with the international community is made, suggesting a more liberal approach could yield better results.
The debate between choosing hope over fear and optimism for the future in global politics is presented.
Viewers are encouraged to reflect on which theory they find most convincing and share their thoughts in the comments.
Transcripts
do you believe that global affairs are
characterized by cooperation
where states realize the power of
working together to solve global
problems
after all we have numerous trade
agreements regional organizations and
the united nations
that all encourage states to work
together or do you believe that the
international system runs on the
principle of every man for himself
as thucydides once said the strong do it
they can and the weak do what they must
realism has long been one of the most
prominent theoretical foundations of
global politics and traditionally
focuses solely on the sovereign state
this focus on the state stems from a
foundational belief in the anarchic
nature of the international system
meaning there is no power above the
state making everything that happens in
the international realm unregulated
and uncertain due to this anarchic state
realists argue that states are
constantly seeking power for survival
for the realist you can never trust
anyone and you can only rely on yourself
so this constant accumulation of power
acts as a means of protection and
security
on the other hand liberals see the world
as one of cooperation
over competition where states that work
together
grow stronger together to enable this
cooperative system
liberals will stress the importance of
liberal institutions
in part this means the support of ideas
like free trade
and organizations like the united
nations that promote
peaceful relations between states a
major belief of liberalism in
international relations
is the concept of the democratic peace
theory that argues liberal democracies
are
so alike in interests and values and see
mutual benefit in cooperation
it makes conflict less likely after all
why go to war with a trading partner
where you see the mutual benefit of that
economic cooperation
so what best explains the state of
global affairs today
first let's think about power liberalism
has a strong focus
on soft power over hard power while
liberals will acknowledge that war might
be necessary to pursue liberal interests
if we're past the necessity of preparing
for war
let's look at ways we can use power to
bring states together
instead of driving them apart sure some
major powers like the united states
might still need a strong military to
keep the peace
as it were but for the rest of us let's
use that money
towards economic and social progress if
we're focused on collectively tackling
global issues let's use all the tools at
our disposal to help make that happen
liberals look to empower and give more
legitimacy to non-state actors
like ngos that help in fighting global
injustices
and major global issues like climate
change won't be solved in a world
of states constantly growing their own
power at the expense of others
let's also consider the european union
one of the greatest successes of
liberalism in action the economic power
wielded by the common market
with all the eu states joining forces
has ushered in tremendous economic
growth
in contrast realism aligns itself with
hard power
and what realists often refer to as
capabilities these capabilities are
things such as geographic territory and
demographic power
and most commonly military force and
advanced military technology
all of which allow you to stay ahead of
the enemy and mitigate the risk of
attack
or invasion take the united states for
example while economic and social
progress
are important the united states still
remains one of the most powerful
countries in the world
and this is due to its ability to
maintain a full spectrum capability
meaning that it has high capability
across all hard power assets
not because it acts cooperatively in
international institutions in fact
some might say that it's done the
opposite of that in recent years
okay but under the trump administration
american global respect
influence and soft power took a hit
that's not a recipe for long-term
success
well it doesn't matter who the president
was
a realist would consider the united
states acting cooperatively for mutual
benefit to be a grave mistake
as you can never trust the intentions of
another state in this anarchic
international system
next let's consider bringing democracy
to iraq
afghanistan and other former
authoritarian regimes
while obviously there have been some
setbacks at least attempting
some form of liberal democracy has to be
preferred
over the dictatorships of saddam hussein
and the taliban
not quite the iraq war often seen as
part of the war on terror
is a poignant example of realism at work
in the international system
realists would argue that the united
states seized the opportunity to enhance
their power capabilities
the us's infiltration of iraq and
afghanistan have actually done more harm
than good
leading to instability and ongoing
conflict the motive was power
not altruism and the promotion of
democracy and this can be proven by the
less than ideal results of the mission
exactly the realist approach of the
united states
produced less than stellar results and
failed to produce
long-lasting change with more meaningful
cooperation
with the international community and
more in line with liberal institutions
over the united states's unilateral
approach
well maybe we could have had a different
result yeah
you can hold on to that liberal utopia
in your dreams
so what do you think better explains the
behavior of actors in global politics do
you agree that states should never trust
the intentions of others and should
always look out for themselves
or that states see the benefit of
cooperation as being beneficial for
themselves as well
should we not choose hope over fear and
have optimism for the future
something to aspire to if you learned
something from this video hit that like
button which theory do you believe is
most convincing
let us know in the comments below and as
always subscribe so you don't miss
anything in the future and we'll see you
again
next time
[Music]
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Global Governance in International Relations explained
Introduction to the United Nations | Global Politics
Theory in Action: Realism
Here’s Where Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer Disagree
The League of Nations - the first 'world organisation'
IMF F&D magazine: Harvard Professor Jeffry Frieden on Political Economy
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)