Craiglxviii
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 17,781
- Reaction score
- 7,426
- Location
- Cambs UK
- Your Mercedes
- 970 Panamera Turbo; W221 S500L AMG Line, C215 CL500, W251 R350L AMG Line, plus several more now gone
I've mentioned Realism before, and it's two flavours- minimal and maximal.
I've also mentioned Liberalism, and it's need for order.
The following two short essays- not my words- are an attempt to put some of the fundamental issues surrounding Brexit in context. Today I've heard Hilary Benn on the "no deal is better than a bad deal" topic- this post will attempt to address that point.
The UK (and US) varies between Minimal & Maximal Realism as its world view, based largely on our global position for three centuries.
Europe tends towards Liberalism.
As with the following essay I have bolded out a few sentences to reflect my original point.
I've also mentioned Liberalism, and it's need for order.
The following two short essays- not my words- are an attempt to put some of the fundamental issues surrounding Brexit in context. Today I've heard Hilary Benn on the "no deal is better than a bad deal" topic- this post will attempt to address that point.
The UK (and US) varies between Minimal & Maximal Realism as its world view, based largely on our global position for three centuries.
Europe tends towards Liberalism.
As with the following essay I have bolded out a few sentences to reflect my original point.
Some time ago, we looked at Realism, the world picture that largely drives US policy. I thought it would be interesting if we also looked at its rival world picture, one that is very common in European decision-making circles. This is the theory of international relationships known as Liberalism. I have to make some points here. Firstly, Liberalism is not used here in the sense that its used in most other circles. Here, it is simply a label that is attached to a specific theory of how nation-states interact. Secondly, what we are going to look at is a theory of how nation states to relate to each other as part of an international system. It is not a policy or a strategy but a world view whose implications, if accepted, determine strategy and policy. Finally, we are looking at practical applications of theory here. The discussions and arguments are not those that will be heard in the academic confines of a University political science course. In fact, this discussion bears about as much relationship to a University Polsci course as meatball surgery in a MASH unit does to theoretical biochemistry.
In earlier discussions we have seen how Realism sees the world as being a pyramidical structure in constant conflict with nations competing against eachother to improve their standing with regard to their neighbors and, eventually, the world. We have also seen (too briefly) that Dialecticism sees the world as a chaotic and unorganized environment in which nations interact essentially at random, changing eachother and themselves in the process. Liberalism sees the world in a different light again.
One of the basic tenets of Liberalism is that there is a basic human need to search for order and organization in the human environment. This search starts, at its lowest level, with the application of order and organization at the family level. This search is then extended upwards by the organization of families into larger groups, then those groups into communities and those communities into societies. Liberalism then proposes that those societies become nation states. However, Liberalism suggests that the basic human need to provide order and organization to the human environment extends beyond the nation state to international relations as a whole. It suggests that there is an inherent human need of people to see an extension of order and organization into the international arena and that international politics reflect this need. Therefore, according to Liberalism the basic driver of international relations and the primary cause of human interaction is to create a structured, regulated and organized system within which international relationships take place.
Liberalism sees the development of structured and organized systems at every level of human activity as being both natural and good. Thus, the extension of the structured and ordered human relations environment provided by the family to other forms of human relationships is, by definition, good. In this community, we have had many discussions over the gay marriage issue. To a Realist, the instinctive reaction is who cares, if it works it succeeds, if it doesnt it fails and its rightness is determined by whether it succeeds or fails. To a Dialecticist the issue is just another one of the random combination of issues that will turn up, neither better nor worse than any other; rightness is a meaningless concept. To a Liberalist, the principle of gay marriage is, by definition, correct since its extending structure, organization and order to a group of people who were previously excluded.
This perception of there being a basic human need for structure, order and organization and a drive to extend the structured and ordered systems to progressively higher levels of human organizations has profound effects on how Liberalism sees international relations working. Conflict at any level of society is caused by defective organization at that level of society. The very fact that conflict occurs is proof in and of itself that the structure and organization of all the parties to the conflict is flawed. If a party did not have a flawed organization and structure it would not be involved in conflict. From this it follows that any society that is involved in a conflict must be, by definition, in the wrong. Its in conflict so it must be at fault. If it corrects the faults, then it wont be in the conflict any more. Again, this comes back to the perception of basic human need starting with the family. A well-organized, well-structured family resolves any conflicts it has internally. Two well-organized, well-structured families living a neighbors do not have conflicts. Only poorly-organized, badly-structured families break up, only two such families have conflicts with eachother.
Since under Liberalism a constant search for developing an organized, structured and ordered international environment is the norm and conflict between states reflects the structural failures of both parties to the conflict, it therefore follows that there are two ways of ending an international conflict. One is to correct the defects in the societies in conflict. Since a given society can only influence and restructure itself, Liberalism proposes that the first reaction of any society entering a conflict should be to look at itself, identify the faults within itself that are leading to its participation within the conflict and correct those. Once the faults are corrected, it will no longer be involved in the conflict. Other parties to the conflict are irrelevant to its resolution; the solution to any societys participation in a conflict lies within that society itself.
Furthermore Liberalism demands that, since the need for organization, structure and order is a basic human characteristic, it follows efforts to increase their incidence are good; resistance to these aims is, by definition, bad. Since the primary means of achieving organization, structure and order are agreements and formalized arrangements, it follows that all such arrangements are good. In the Liberalism ethos, there is no such thing as a bad agreement; all agreements serve the end of bringing about a structured and organized international environment therefore all agreements are good agreements. The very fact that an agreement is an agreement outweighs any negative aspects to that agreement. It also follows that, to Liberalism any opposition to an agreement is by definition wrong and contrary to the basic demands of human nature. In fact, because Liberalism sees the bringing about of international order and organization by growing webs of agreements as being and expression of basic human nature, opposing such agreements is not just wrong, it is perverse, unnatural and proof of serious flaws in those who adopt that position. To Liberalism the cry Cant we all just get along isnt a joke or ironic; its the expression of a very profound and important truth.
The differences between the world views we have looked at come out when crises develop. To the Maximal-Realism School , a crisis is a challenge which is dealt with by defeating the challenger as quickly and publically as possible. To a Minimal Realist, a crisis is a challenge that is best met by painting the challenger as a would-be hegemon and organizing a coalition against them. To a Dialecticist a crisis is just another random event that should be manipulated in ways that bring about as many good results and as few bad ones as possible. A to Liberalist a crisis is proof positive of flaws in their own society which should be corrected, after which international agreements should be reached that bring about an end to the crisis in question. There is another aspect to this which is rather interesting. To a Realist, those who disagree with them are rivals to be put down if they become threats, to quote the Mafia, its just business, nothing personal. To a Dialecticist those who disagree are just other parts of a random anarchic universe whose opinions may or may not be useful at some time or another. However, to a Liberalist, those who hold opposing world views are denying the very basis of human nature and are evil, perverse and inhuman.
Last edited: