It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
The prudence can only be reasonable in a system of balance of power because this balance should be maintained by great powers. So, when it comes to the question of morality and prudence, Waltz is ambiguous. On the one side, he argues that this result in the clash of order and survival. On the other, it leads to the discussion about what people are willing to and should fight for. The moral element was always there but with entering the nuclear era it becomes more
Nationalism creates a division in society as nations begin belonging to their own specific classes. The mindset of divided nations and conquering those of less worth, led to the necessity of militarism. That militaristic mindset, promoted aggression and approved violence. Militarism was funded on the idea of building a strong military in comparison to other, especially the neighboring nations (“The 4 Main Causes of World War One”). It created a culture of paranoia and a lust/need for competition, to prove their nations worth; which resulted in a larger pressure to act out aggression.
REAL-POLITIK: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” “For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be; what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” Machiavelli emphasized that being a good politician doesn’t always necessarily equate to being a good person. However, Machiavelli never praised immorality. He was not nihilistic, and he did not suppose that there was no value in this world. He did not wish to create a world where all values would be destroyed.
What a tempting opportunity for any irresponsible leader of government! History and the headlines are loaded with such opportunities and the leaders who capitalize on them. Out of the weaknesses of individuals, governments justify and construct new warfare. War becomes a tool: loyalty can be assured, imagined threats can be inflated into seeming realities, and promises of safety can become magnets for the weak. Across the whole human world, we find societies which seem to have built the process of war-traumatization into their systems.
Liberalism on the other hand is progressive and optimistic. Liberals believe change is necessary and foremost inevitable. Neither viewpoint gives us the right or wrong side as both contain truths depending on the circumstances. International politics strongly relies on all players in order to be complete. Not a single theory or example can cover all the situations.
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security
(de Alvarez tr. 1989, ch. 3). To reverse it to the issue of a leadership – conflict cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other's advantage. In other words, a good leader should be on the alert of integral conflicts in terms of anticipation conflict situations and transform them into an advantage.
It plainly suggests that egoism means that no person shall bend another to his or her will; that no one has the right to do so. We must discern the delicate contrast between an egoist and an egotist. The egotists would adopt Rand’s philosophy as a tool for their own shortcomings, to forgo the rule of communal synergy. "Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right" (Shawn E. Klein, Community and American Individualism.
To sum up, Cummings criticizes Blind Patriotism in his language, form, grammar and content-wise. He wants to illustrate that we should question what we are told. Ron Paul, an American physician, author, and former Republican congressman alleged “ Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong”. Unquestioned obedience is not the same as patriotism. The voice of liberty should not be mute.