Two major theories in politics are liberalism and realism. The tradition of liberalism believes that there are many actors with varied interests, with wealth being a common interest. Liberalists believe that there will be conflict when actors cannot agree on an interest, however, they keep an optimistic outlook on the possibility of cooperation. They view war as being costly and traditionally oppose it; valuing trade as a way to promote cooperation and peace. They believe that the world is not anarchical, following sets of norms and rules that govern the international system. The tradition of realism, on the other hand, believes that the world is anarchical so that states must provide for their own security. They believe that conflict is constant;
…show more content…
While both liberalism and realism have their strengths and weaknesses, I believe that the best guide that our national leaders would be liberalism. I do believe that power is a common interest for actors, however, I feel that realism puts too much emphasis on this. By assuming that power is the main interest, they neglect the fact that there are various other interests an actor might have. With liberalism, they recognize that actors have various interests that can play into their actions. The tradition of realism is too quick to use force when it comes to interactions with other countries. Liberalism recognizes that war is costly, with both money and lives, and that it is best to try for cooperation before resorting to war. Liberalism also stands out as a better guide for world leaders because of its promotion of trade. I believe that trade is a great way to promote cooperation and peace because it gives us the opportunity to view and interact with different cultures. With these types of interactions, we can see that we hold the same, or similar, values as many countries. We can also see what other countries value differently from us, which can help us better ourselves in our interactions and cooperation with other …show more content…
Throughout the article, the balance of power is often mentioned when paired with offshore balancing. Offshore balancing would benefit the US because we would spend less time promoting democracy everywhere and more time on improving ourselves as a country (Mearsheimer). I agree that offshore balancing is a smart strategy for us to use. However, unlike the article, I believe that there can be a good balance between liberalism and offshore balancing. It’s true that the US spends a lot of time and money promoting democracy; and as stated earlier in the article, I believe that the amount of effort and money we put into the promotion of democracy can go against the liberalist theory. If we put a little more effort into deciding our stance on international affairs when taking profit into consideration, we will inevitably spend less money and possibly bring some of our troops home. Spending less money and less troops on unnecessary and unprofitable war, will allow us to spend the money and troops more wisely; in doing so, we would have more power which is what realists want. We need to make decisions that will benefit our country while still cooperating with other countries. In that way, offshore balancing and liberalism can have more balance with each
While both liberalism and realism have their strengths and weaknesses, I believe that the best guide that our national leaders would be liberalism. I do believe that power is a common interest for actors, however, I feel that realism puts too much emphasis on this. By assuming that power is the main interest, they neglect the fact that there are various other interests an actor might have. With liberalism, they recognize that actors have various interests that can play into their actions. The tradition of realism is too quick to use force when it comes to interactions with other countries. Liberalism recognizes that war is costly, with both money and lives, and that it is best to try for cooperation before resorting to war. Liberalism also stands out as a better guide for world leaders because of its promotion of trade. I believe that trade is a great way to promote cooperation and peace because it gives us the opportunity to view and interact with different cultures. With these types of interactions, we can see that we hold the same, or similar, values as many countries. We can also see what other countries value differently from us, which can help us better ourselves in our interactions and cooperation with other …show more content…
Throughout the article, the balance of power is often mentioned when paired with offshore balancing. Offshore balancing would benefit the US because we would spend less time promoting democracy everywhere and more time on improving ourselves as a country (Mearsheimer). I agree that offshore balancing is a smart strategy for us to use. However, unlike the article, I believe that there can be a good balance between liberalism and offshore balancing. It’s true that the US spends a lot of time and money promoting democracy; and as stated earlier in the article, I believe that the amount of effort and money we put into the promotion of democracy can go against the liberalist theory. If we put a little more effort into deciding our stance on international affairs when taking profit into consideration, we will inevitably spend less money and possibly bring some of our troops home. Spending less money and less troops on unnecessary and unprofitable war, will allow us to spend the money and troops more wisely; in doing so, we would have more power which is what realists want. We need to make decisions that will benefit our country while still cooperating with other countries. In that way, offshore balancing and liberalism can have more balance with each