In the words realists define national interest mainly in terms of whatever enhances or preserves a state 's security, influence, and its military and economic power. This does not mean that realists are amoral (Williams, 2004). Some argue that the highest moral duty of the state is to do good for its citizens while other realists argue that surviving in a dangerous world requires that morality be weighed wisely against national interest. There are many implications to the realists ' dark view of politics. One is that there is little hope for substantially reforming the anarchic international system.
Britain viewed themselves superior to the United States and the American citizens were forced to accept and obey the British colonial rule. It was of great significance for Henry to persuade the colonists with his speech in order for them to take action against Britain and the British rule and that nothing they have done has worked so far. Henry’s speech contains logos by providing logical reasoning as to why we should fight Britain and take back our freedom. He uses logos when he says “What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Also, John Locke, one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, founded his social contract. This talks about the relation between state and individual. He suggested that state have authority over individual. Additionally, because of the differences in causes and people’s attitude toward the society, the effect of the Enlightenment is more influential than that of Romanticism. Although Enlightenment didn’t fully change the form of society, it make a huge progress in the development of human being and set the basic theory for the future revolution in American, French and many other countries.
The nation would be more capable of deciding what was best for the other underdeveloped countries in the surrounding region. The diplomacy was based upon the American belief that American ideals were the way of the future for the world; what was good for the US must as well be good for the countries of Latin America. The Hispanic newspaper Regeneración of April 13, 1912, quoted Robert M. La Follette's criticism of the diplomacy. He regarded the diplomacy as an outpost, intervening the nations in Central and South America by imposing the US's method and supervision. The diplomacy often resorted to military power as a solution to the internal conflicts within the region.
While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted. This started a series of issues between the two opposing sides with the Federalists pretty much winning every issue. From the issue of funding the war debt, whether a bank of America should be created, to the Alien and Sedition Act; the two sides did not see eye to eye. However, when Jefferson became president, it could be argued that the same abuse of power that he criticized the Federalists to have done could be argued against his own presidency. It is more than fair to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite not only from a Federalist standpoint but also from the
He is well known for his arguments in favour of a social contract between the state and its citizens to empower the former to be a sovereign force to protect the latter. Like many other great thinkers, his concern was to create a social and political system that could best protect men and women from the dangers of civil conflicts. However, Hobbes marks the beginning of a tradition that started to question the usefulness of Aristotelian approach to knowledge acquisition. With rationality as the touchstone for the progress of knowledge, Hobbes, influenced by Bacon and many others, sought to rebuild its foundations on mathematics and empiricism. His contempt for the methods of the ancients is clearly seen as he notes: The natural philosophy of those schools, was rather a dream than science, and set forth in senseless and insignificant language; which cannot be avoided by those that will teach philosophy, without having first attained great knowledge in geometry: for nature worketh by motion; the ways and degrees whereof cannot be known, without the knowledge of the proportions and properties of lines, and
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 Myth of American Exceptionalism Godfrey Hodgson, author of “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” critics the concept of American exceptionalism throughout the book. Hodgson’s states that his purpose is not to ‘’minimize American achievements or to demean the quality of American civilization.” (16) He says he admires the idea of a country ruled based on popular sovereignty, equal rights and the questioning of a government that was created for the people. However, he also criticizes the concept of American exceptionality through the notion that the United States’ superiority and “uniqueness” has been greatly exaggerated by misguided interpretations of American history, as well as to warn the audience, not only Americans, about the dangers of “self-praise” build around “unreal and hubristic assumptions.” (16) Geoffrey Hodgson starts off by exposing several occasion where the idea of America’s superiority has been altered and often exaggerated by misguided interpretations of the past; for example, he remarks the interpretation of the Mayflower contract by the sixth president of the United states, John Quincy Adams, who said, “perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.” (5) To debate the radical claim made by president Adams,
Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis, Carr writes after the aftermath of World War I and the United States failure to join the League of Nations. These historical events greatly imapacted Carr’s theories of international relations. Carr argues that the best way to ameliorate the anarchic system of the international system is to use both elemets of utopianism and realism in order to approach issues of war and peace. Carr writes,“Politics are made up of two elements – utopia and reality – belonging to two different planes which can never meet. There is no greater barrier to clear political thinking than failure to distinguish between ideals, which are utopia, and institutions, which are reality,” (Carr, 93).
Realism has been the prevailing hypothesis of world governmental issues subsequent to the start of scholastic global relations. The hypothesis was made known after the First World War when realists got in a civil argument with the optimism for the result of the war. The romantics concentrated more on comprehension the reason for war to discover a solution for its presence. Here came the realists who overlooked the part of force and overestimated the extent to which the country states shared an arrangement of regular intrigues and were excessively hopeful that mankind could defeat the scourge of war. This hypothesis gives the most effective clarification to the condition of war what is the normal state of life in the universal framework.
.A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession” (Introduction). This platform supported what is called the “American system”, which was largely based off of the ideology of Alexander Hamilton, an infamous early American figure whom supported a stronger, more centralized national government. This ideology included ideas such as protective tariffs, and a nationalized central banking. D’Lorenzo believed that with these men, whom have had these ideas on how to run the United States of America, would easily influence Abraham Lincoln. To D’lorenzo these ideas would get in the way of a total free market, and reminded him more of Imperial Europe than the United States that the Founding Fathers wanted to create (one based on as much economic freedom as possible).
Were enlightenment and absolutism ever suitable? Lonnie Johnson answered that question by stating “[they] may appear incompatible in theory, but they were compatible in practice”. Peter the Great, Maria Theresa and Joseph II were the living proof of Johnson’s affirmation. Enlightened despotism, also known as enlightenment from above, was implemented by these rulers with the main objective of obtaining more power by securing the economic and educational improvement of their subjects. In contrast with Joseph II, Maria Theresa and Peter the Great did not considered themselves enlightened rulers.
John Lewis Gaddis. “We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History.” Gladdis highlights the meaning of containment and explains what would be necessary to “keep peace while preserving the balance of power.” In addition, Gladdis really goes into deep detail about the Marshall Plan and what it did. Gaddis states that the Marshall Plan had a purpose of, “creating an American sphere of influence… one that would allow those within it considerable freedom. Gaddis discusses that the United States seemed to fall short when it came to running a big empire, and that the “idea of autonomy was implicit in the task of restoring European self confidence.” Furthermore, Gaddis describes how the Soviet Union did not have good control over its empire well. He provides
By this comment, Eisenhower makes clear that cultural inheritance lays the foundation for one’s civilization. It is the backbone of a society, and helps us prosper. Without the preservation of art, a civilization’s culture will be diminished. Eisenhower and Hitler both share a wish for protecting art from war, but Hitler’s wish is much more sinister. Hitler, like Eisenhower makes his motive clear in the first couple of lines.
Both philosophers are realists and both identify the need for a ruler. Throughout the examination of the philosophers, both Machiavelli and Hobbes have identified similar theories about political power, however have different views on how the sovereign should behave, methods on becoming and staying in power, as well as his duties when it comes to the people. I personally believe that Hobbes approach and motive behind his theories is more beneficial as the main purpose is to protect society while Machiavelli’s approach motivated by self-interest and creates a corrupt ruler. Machiavelli and Hobbes both support the idea of a sovereign however have very different views on how the sovereign should behave. The