Foreign policy is often analyzed through seemingly competitive lenses. On the one hand, idealism seeks to understand the motivations of and the cultural context in which foreign policy makers carry out decisions. On the other hand, realism portrays states as unified actors, relentlessly and rationally pursuing their own security interests. Historians view the relationship between these two major lenses as inherently antagonistic. One focuses on intangible, amorphous ideas, while the other focuses on fixed realities of a state’s particular situation. However, more careful analysis leads a different conclusion. American foreign policy has often been shaped by idealism and realism working in tandem.
One major example of idealism and realism working …show more content…
Stalin had to protect the Soviet Union against a revival of German and Japanese power. He understood very well the geopolitical implications of a unified Germany and wanted to prevent consolidation of German power. However, Stalin also needed ideology to justify his geographical concerns. He defended Marxist-Leninist ideology, and sought to prevent capitalist encirclement of the Soviet Union (Leffler 80). To justify the creation of Soviet buffer zones, he had to approach the situation from an ideological perspective as well. Truman had to do the same. He saw the Soviet Union in primarily ideological terms, as an expansionist, totalitarian power (Leffler 82). However, aspects of his thinking bear similarities to realist thought. He advocated U.S. expansion across the globe to prevent the U.S. from becoming an isolated, “garrison” state (Leffler 82). The Cold War likely would not have unfolded as it did without this mix of idealism and realism employed by both major …show more content…
The US interest in Vietnam originated with realist concerns. It was thought that if all of Vietnam would fall to communism, it would act as “domino,” spreading communism to the rest of Southeast Asia and threatening U.S. interests in the region. Once again, realist concerns were complemented with ideological concerns. Kennedy and Johnson worried that a communist victory in Vietnam would damage the U.S. image abroad and incite conservative criticism of a Democratic administration (Lawrence 68). Kennedy had won the election on the premise that he would fight communism globally, garnering wide support from the American
One major example of idealism and realism working …show more content…
Stalin had to protect the Soviet Union against a revival of German and Japanese power. He understood very well the geopolitical implications of a unified Germany and wanted to prevent consolidation of German power. However, Stalin also needed ideology to justify his geographical concerns. He defended Marxist-Leninist ideology, and sought to prevent capitalist encirclement of the Soviet Union (Leffler 80). To justify the creation of Soviet buffer zones, he had to approach the situation from an ideological perspective as well. Truman had to do the same. He saw the Soviet Union in primarily ideological terms, as an expansionist, totalitarian power (Leffler 82). However, aspects of his thinking bear similarities to realist thought. He advocated U.S. expansion across the globe to prevent the U.S. from becoming an isolated, “garrison” state (Leffler 82). The Cold War likely would not have unfolded as it did without this mix of idealism and realism employed by both major …show more content…
The US interest in Vietnam originated with realist concerns. It was thought that if all of Vietnam would fall to communism, it would act as “domino,” spreading communism to the rest of Southeast Asia and threatening U.S. interests in the region. Once again, realist concerns were complemented with ideological concerns. Kennedy and Johnson worried that a communist victory in Vietnam would damage the U.S. image abroad and incite conservative criticism of a Democratic administration (Lawrence 68). Kennedy had won the election on the premise that he would fight communism globally, garnering wide support from the American