Realism and Neorealism Essay Example

B. de Mesquita. The interested reader can find information on this subject in this link. It is widely recognized that policymaking is a demanding task for anyone aspiring to become the next president of the United States of America.

Individuals seeking the presidency are presumed to possess a great sense of duty, as there is no other explanation for voluntarily undertaking the weighty responsibility of formulating and approving policies that will impact countless Americans. This encompasses policies that will transform tangible aspects of the United States, including environmental laws. Along with domestic issues, there is also pressure surrounding international policies and relationships. Moore and Lanoue raise a troubling assumption that prior administrations have not been hesitant to use foreign policy to alter US citizens' perspectives and reduce criticism towards an incapable President. They even suggest that many believe past administrations have utilized force or instigated other nations to rally people together and concentrate their efforts on a new, external adversary.

The realism and neorealism theory of international relations is considered the best approach for explaining the connection between domestic and foreign policies. Moore and Lanoue successfully described this theory, countering the claim that a US president would launch a missile into another country to improve their image or secure another term in office. Realism and neorealism theories are complex and focus on political behavior, including the desire for power and security. According to Ashley Tellis, realism is a tradition that assumes every geopolitical nation and leader strives for more power and security.

According to a particular theory, every nation must constantly defend their territory, form alliances with others, scheme to

expand or take over land. However, this presents issues as not all nations can accomplish all three. Additionally, this clashes with the just war theory, a topic for another discussion. A consensus among the mentioned authors is that the traditional view of realism needs modification, resulting in the emergence of "neorealism."

Neorealism is an adaptation of “realism” that perceives the world to be more intricate than previously believed. The basic premise is that each geopolitical nation seeks its own self-interest, but neorealists recognize additional complexities. Although a political nation strives for power, it must also balance this with the need for security. As a result, international policies reflect a desire for greater power and territory while minimizing risk to national safety. According to this theory, no political leader would endanger their people.

Although there are many instances in this country's history that contradict this, they will not be discussed at this time. One important aspect of neorealism that is relevant to Moore and Lanoue's article is "systemic-structuralism" (Buzan, et al., 1993), which many experts believe plays a significant role in analysis. In essence, this concept argues that the way nations interact on a global level can be understood by examining a system structure. When discussing neorealism, the name Kenneth Waltz is often mentioned because he improved upon the traditional explanation of why nations go to war.

According to Waltz's "systemic-structuralism" perspective, it is not solely human nature that motivates nations to engage in conflict, but rather the system structure plays a major role. However, this view has received criticism for its limiting approach to placing international relations within a tight framework (as seen in Buzan, et al.,

1993). While some appreciate Waltz's solution to complex international relations, others find it too narrow and restrictive. Neorealism theory will be utilized to further examine the Cold War conflict in the following analysis.

Moore and Lanoue will use the two aforementioned theories to analyze both US domestic and foreign policies, testing these ideas against a foundational understanding of American history and publicly known presidential activities. Their discussion is primarily focused on US policies during the Cold War with the USSR, which serves as an ideal model for supporting neorealism theory.

It can be argued that the advocates of the theory have honed neorealism during the period when the US was in a deadlock with USSR. A reminder of the situation may be necessary for those who have forgotten. Therefore, reminiscing about the past will bring back a period when there were two dominant powers in the world. This period has gone by because in the 21st century, the United States is unequivocally the global leader.

The Cold War didn't simply arise from the size, wealth, and military power of the USSR and US, which included nuclear arms; it emerged from a clash of ideologies. The US embraced democratic principles and free market capitalism while the USSR favored a socialist state based on Marx and Lenin's ideals for equality and worldwide peace. This conflict grew out of the aftermath of World War II, specifically Germany's neutralization and the decline of other European powers such as France and Belgium. As a result, Britain lost its willingness to lead, leaving America in the West and the Soviet Union in the East, resulting in an enormous face-off.

Both countries acknowledged that

a war between them would not result in a clear victor and both deemed the possibility of a full-scale nuclear war unacceptable. As a result, they opted for defensive measures. The principles of neorealism became prominent as the Cold War continued and intensified, with most nations aligning themselves with either Democracy or Communism. Only a few exceptions existed, with many countries including significant parts of Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, and North Korea siding with the Communist faction.

While seeking refuge under the US's protection, neorealism proponents celebrated their theory's efficacy during the Cold War era. Despite heightened security concerns, states resisted the temptation to expand their power, territory, and wealth, averting a potential World War III. However, it is worth noting that the Korean and Vietnam wars also took place during this period, events which neorealism advocates often overlooked.

Although the US and USSR never directly engaged in battle, their allies encountered one another. In relation to the "wag the dog" phenomenon allegedly practiced by past US presidents, neorealism is clearly applicable. However, it is an inventive and extreme interpretation of neorealism that could potentially contradict the theory. The premise behind "wagging the dog" is when a US president resorts to drastic measures to save the country from internal strife and issues, creating an international incident to shift focus away from domestic problems and motivate people to rise up against a common enemy.

The notion of this being an application of neorealism is disputed due to several objections. Firstly, it contradicts a fundamental principle of neorealism which prioritizes the state as the main actor rather than a charismatic political leader. Secondly, launching an unprovoked attack on another

nation could endanger peace treaties and agreements established with other countries. Thirdly, attacking a foreign country, irrespective of its size, does not guarantee a swift surrender and may lead to retaliation. Even small Arab nations can respond creatively by hijacking a US plane and killing all passengers if they cannot afford more overt forms of retaliation like using cruise missiles.

Neorealism asserts two fundamental tenets: nations will establish alliances and weaker nations will align with the more dominant faction against the US. This begs the question of whether allied nations will lend support to a smaller nation. Further objections arise from this premise. Firstly, it is difficult to conceive that a US president would not recognize the impropriety in the unfounded killing of hundreds of individuals, even if they belonged to the opposing faction. The bombing of an Arab state will not intimidate government critics or cause them to forfeit their autonomy. Hence, critics of the ruling party will likely question the reasoning behind such an attack, and if the president is unable to explain convincingly, his administration’s credibility is at stake. Secondly, attacking a vulnerable or radical Arab state and violating established rules of engagement will evoke international censure.

Creating an international incident to divert attention from domestic problems presents many objections. Firstly, it will demonstrate that the US is only pursuing selfish interests, which will not neutralize but rather rally forces to aid the enemy. Secondly, bombing a small nation will reinforce the propaganda of radical Arab extremists that the US is an evil regime. Finally, the US cannot afford to make more enemies. Therefore, testing the hypothesis of "wagging the dog" has

significant implications.

To this argument, Moor and Lanoue concur, as discussed below. Additionally, the article demonstrates the effectiveness of neorealism in the Cold War conflict. Moor and Lanoue also assert that the state's importance surpasses the personality of its leaders, and foreign policy should serve the purpose of establishing better international relations rather than improving domestic affairs. The authors' hypothesis received consistent results, suggesting that the state will utilize all resources to gain an advantage, particularly during the 1950-1980 Cold War. Therefore, US presidents will prioritize protecting the country's international reputation rather than winning a re-election or preserving their presidency.

Realism and Neorealism theories in international relations aim to clarify the reasons behind the behavior of geopolitical nations. From examining Europe's wars alone, one can observe that it is human nature to crave power, territory, and wealth. The selfish ambitions of individuals in authoritative roles can be predicted easily, as power tends to corrupt. Those in positions of power are driven to seize more authority and maintain it for a prolonged period, often through alliances with others. This description may be viewed as too simplified by some.

Another examination of history shows that not every leader is oppressive and not all societies aim to conquer other territories. It is inaccurate to assume that everyone is inclined towards aggression and violence, and as a result, it is necessary to rethink the notion of an inherent desire for self-interest. In the era of the Cold War, a fascinating concept emerged - an upgrade from traditional "realism" - known as "neorealism."

According to a new theory, there is a valid need for power and security, but geopolitical nations strive to balance

the necessary activities in order to achieve these diverging goals. States will only go to war if they know they are powerful and secure enough to do so, as going to war involves risking what they already have in order to gain more power and wealth. This concept strongly supports neorealism, which seeks to explain the behavior of certain states, such as the US, which has the resources and firepower to conquer smaller states but has refrained from global domination since World War II. Furthermore, neorealists argue that the relatively peaceful state of the planet during the Cold War serves as evidence that all nations must recognize the need for a bipolar division of power.

The neorealist theory asserts that the world's nations will fall into a bipolar arrangement with two major nations on opposite sides of the battlefield. All other nations will carefully align themselves with the least powerful side to avoid creating an overly powerful force that could dominate the world. This predictable behavior leads neorealists to argue that the state always acts in the interest of the state, and leaders understand that risky decisions could jeopardize both national security and global stability. Some critics take this theory to extremes, suggesting past US presidents made decisions based on it. They contend that a beleaguered US president would not hesitate to shape foreign policy that rallied Americans to a shared goal.

According to this theory, George Bush initiated the War on Iraq while his approval ratings were declining rapidly. Moore and Lanoue's study was able to demonstrate the principles of neorealism theory and its implications. The study concluded that even political turmoil within the presidency

cannot lead to the creation of foreign policy that diverts attention from domestic issues and shifts it to the international arena. The president is unlikely to risk national security just for personal gain, which is a strong affirmation of neorealism's belief that nations tend to play it safe and not take excessive risks in the structural system of international relations.