Realism and the U.S.

A theory, by definition, needs to be partial in order to create a model for seeing the world. Without this key aspects theories would merely by empirical observations and we would have no way to predict behavior. Realism perfectly balances this partiality, highlighting military strength as the critical part of states need for power in the interest of their security.          

The U.S. is the perfect example of realism in action. It uses it unparalleled military strength as an implicit threat when dealing with its allies, such as France who is seeing increased pressure to participate in airstrikes against ISIS following President Obama’s declaration of war, and against its enemies. Following the famous words of Theodore Roosevelt “speak softly and carry a big stick” the U.S. has time and time again used its military to solve disputes and consolidate its power. The ever-present threat of its military, now costing as much as the next eight countries militaries beneath it, dominates the international stage. Without a doubt, the U.S. is the world hegemony. It uses its powerful economic resources to fund its military and in turn create better economic opportunities for itself. Many have speculated that the U.S. involvement in Iraq and other Middle Eastern states was just as much about oil as it was about national security. While it is impossible to prove these theories, many will cite the fabricated nuclear weapons claims as proof that the U.S. was merely seeking to increase its power. As all realists believe, power is relative and therefore must be taken from others in order to increase your own. More proof of the U.S.’s realist tendencies comes in the form of the NSA. Many have heard of the agencies lack of morality and unrivaled espionage ranging from international allies such as Germany’s Angela Merkels cell phone tapping to the US’s own citizens. The U.S. is acting in the interest of national security with no regard for international laws or moral code, knowing full well that with the backing of its military, none will oppose them perfectly exemplifying the mistrust that, as Mearshiemer states “Great powers fear each other. They regard each other with suspicion, and they worry that war might be in the offing.” They have such a mistrust of other states that they would spy on the Prime Minister of their own ally. As the hegemony, their fear is magnified by the risk of losing their place at the top of the world influence. 

While the critics of realism would argue that it is a one-sided view of international relations, it has been maintained since Machiavelli’s time largely with the same central tenets. It was very applicable in his time, when armies and military power were the only focus of sovereign states and their rulers. However, realism has evolved to continually explain the world today, as proven by Morgenthau and Mearshiemer, who carefully developed many of the key aspects of realism today. Critics focus on the small inconsistencies and repetitions of their theories, such as the ambiguity of what power is or the lack of empirical evidence toward the true human nature, which Morgenthau claims is “in which the laws of politics have their roots”.  Realism does not fail to explain the world in which we abide, proving time and again that military power trumps all the rest particularly in the case of the U.S. It flawlessly personifies the realist state in anarchy seeking to security, only using its economic resources to further expand its military and living in paranoia and constant mistrust of other states.

Sources: Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,

2001, p.29-54. (ELMS)

Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political Realism” in International Politics:

Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007, p.7-14 (ELMS)