Hans Morgenthau
POLITICAL POWER AS A MEANS TO A NATION'S END:
International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aim, power is the immediate aim. Regardless of goal, they will need power if they want to make a difference using international politics. It does not follow that every action a nation performs with respect to another is undertaken with a consideration of power. Not all nations at all times are to the same extent involved in international politics.
THE NATURE OF POLITICAL POWER: FOUR DISTINCTIONS:
Power is one's control over the minds and actions of others. Political power refers to the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large. Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. The extent political power alters behavior is dependent on three sources: the expectation of benefits, the fear of disadvantages, and the respect or love for men or institutions. It can be exerted through orders, threats, the authority or charisma of those in office, or any combination. Distinctions must be made between power and influence; power and force; usable and unusable power, and legitimate and illegitimate power.
One who advises a president on U.S. foreign policy can influence the president's decision-making, but has no power over him while a president can impose his will on the latter through the authority of his office, the promise of benefits and the threat of disadvantages.
When violence becomes an actuality, it signifies the abdication of political power in favor of military power. In international politics, armed power as a threat or a potentiality is the most important matieral factor making for the power of a nation: it substitutes psychological relationships with physical ones where the stronger always prevails.
Only a nation acting irrationally would use its nuclear power.
Legitimate power as distinguished against illegitimate power. Power exercised with moral or legal authorities must be distinguished against naked power. Legitimate power likely more effective than illegitimate power. There has been a tendency to reduce political power to the actual application of force or at least to equate it with successful threats of force with persuasion. Whatever the material objects of foreign policy, such as the acquisition of sources of raw materials, control of sea lanes, or territorial changes, they will always entail the control of the actions of others through influence over their minds. War about altering the opponent's mind to yield to the will of the victor.
There is a distinction between economic undertakings done for their own sake and a state deliberately seeking to control the economic choices of another nation. In the latter case, policy is to be measured against how it serves the larger power objectives of the controlling state.
THE DEPRECIATION OF POLITICAL POWER:
The struggle for power is universal and nothing liberals or Marxists can say will change that. Drive for power more than an institution hoisted upon man: it is an elemental bio-physical drive through which society is created: drives to live, propogate, and dominate. Domestic and international politics are both struggles for power modified only by the different conditions under which the struggle takes place.
TWO ROOTS OF THE DEPRECIATION OF POLITICAL POWER:
The philosophy of international relations which dominated the nineteenth century and holds considerable sway today and the particular political and intellectual circumstances which have determined the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world have depreciated the role power plays in international politcs. The rise of the middle class meant the end of an autocratic and aristocratic system of government and the naked use of force entailed by both in foreign policy: indirect economic ties now compelled nations to arbitrate, or so was thought. The United States, given it unqiue anti-colonial tradition, its isolation from the power centers of the world, and the humanitarian pacifism and anti-imperialism of its politcal creed signaled, to Americans anyway, a break from the ways of the past.
THE SCIENCE OF PEACE: CONTEMPORARY UTOPIANISM:
Scientific utopianism offers an alternative to the perennial wisodom of the rationalist approach. It starts with the aumption that the world is thoroughly accesible to science and reason that it contains in itself all the elements necessary for harmonious cooperation of all mankind. Law must apply the precepts of free trade and harmonious interests to thoe areas where they do not apply spontaneously. Since all men are rational, sooner or later they must meet on the assumption that all can be solved through a forumla acceptable to all. The benefits of commerce and peace being so obvious, conflict is merely the product of ignorance and error. Political history becomes a succession of scientific problems capable of scientific solutions, but most unreasonably handled by an ignorant and impassioned humanity. Conflicts are not political problems to be solved temporarily, but technical ones for which reason will find one correct solution.
What they want is simple, rational, mechanical, what they have to deal with is complicated, irrational, and incalcuable. So they rely on abolishing war as the object of ending conflict. But war are caused by all kinds of things that have their roots in the human heart. It is also rooted in the human heart the desire to try to reform a complex world, meaning this stuff will stay around.
E
Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Politics Among Nations
Hans Morgenthau
A Realist Theory of International Politics:
Morgenthau seeks to "detect and understand" the forces which determine political relations among nations and to comprehend the ways in which those forces act upon each other and upon international political relations and institutions. There are two competing schools: one believes a rational and moral political order derived from universally valid abstract principles can be attained due to the essential goodness and infinite malleability of human nature and blames failures of social orders to measure up to rational standards on a lack of knowledge and understanding, outdated institutions, and the depravity of certain individuals and groups. Liberalism trusts education and reform, coupled with the sporadic use of force, to remedy these defects.
Realists see a different world. Though imperfect in a rational sense, the world is the result of forces inherant in human nature. To improve the world one must work with these forces, not against them. The world is inherantly one of opposing interests and conflict where moral principles can never be realized and must be best approximated through the ever temporary balancing of interests and the ever precarious settlement of conflicts. Checks and balances are a universal principle for all pluralist socieites. Historical precedent rather than abstract principles and aims to improve lesser evils than secure absolute goods.
Six Principles of Political Realism:
1. Political realims believes politics, like society, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. One must understand society to improve it. Human nature never changes according to this school, and novelty is not a vice nor innovation a virtue. Realism is testing rational hypotheses against actual facts that gives theoretical meaning to politics.
2. The concept of interest defined through the balance of power pervades realist thinking. Only a balance of power allows a measure of systemic order to be brought to the political sphere. Statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power. This imposes intellectual discipline on the observer and infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics. A realist is unconcerned with motives and ideological preferences. It is impossible to know the real motives of statesmen due to the allusive nature of psychological data and the distortion in data by actor and observer alike.
Many statesmen animated by a desire to change the world for the better end up making it worse. One should judge by outcomes the moral and political qualities of foreign policies. Good motives give assurances against deliberately bad policies, but they do not guarantee moral goodness and political success. To understand foreign policy, one must be aware of the intellectual ability of a statesman and his capacity to turn his understanding into successful action: political qualities of intellect, will, and action.
One cannot deduce the foreign policies of a statesman from his philosophic or political sympathies. Statesmen will distinguish between their official duty and their sympathetic wishes. Personality, prejudice, and subjective preference, as well as weakness of intellect and will are bound to defect foreign policies from rational courses. A theroy of foreign policy founded on rationality afforded by experience is also aware of the defects in men and their judgments by experience.
American politics suffers from mistaken attitudes. When the human mind approaches reality for the purpose of taking action, it can be led astray by four things: residues of formerly adequete modes of thinking rendered obsolete by changing social phenomena, demonological interpretations of reality which substitute evil people for intractable issues, refusing to acknowledge a troubling state of affairs, and reliance upon the infinite malleability of reality.
The structure of international relations reflected in political institutions, diplomatic procedures, and legal arrangements is often at variance with the reality of international politics. While the fomer assume the sovreign equality of all nations, the latter is dominated by extreme inequality. Anarchy exists because the institutions designed to control mankind do not represent the realities of it. Conflict between states will be resolved when certain persons we have control over reduce the problem intellectually and pragmatically.
A demonological approach to foreign policy exacerbates problems, not solves them. This leads us not to acknowledge or cope with reality. Problems lack easy solutions. Rational elements make reality intelligitible for theory. History does not provide us many examples of completely rational foreign policies, theory can. A rational policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits and complies both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success. Foreign policy ought to be rational in view of its moral precepts and practical purposes.
3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but not fixed. Power comprises anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Power covers all social relationships which serve that end, from physical violence to psychological ties. A world transformed will occur through the workman like manipulation of the perrenial forces that have shaped the past, not confronting realitiy with abstract ideals indifferent to laws.
4. There is an inherant tension between moral commands and successful political action. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but must be filtered through time and place. A state cannot let itself perish in the name of those who are in its care. Individuals may sacrifice themselves to liberty, the state has no right to allow concerns of liberty get in the way of successful political action. There can be no political morality absent prudence, that is, without consideration of the political consequences of a seemingly moral action. The weighing of consequences of alternative political actions to be the supreme virtue in politics.
5. Political realism refuses to identigy moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that ogovern the universe. The concept of interest defined as power that saves us from moral excess and political folly. A realist asks "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?
A Realist Theory of International Politics:
Morgenthau seeks to "detect and understand" the forces which determine political relations among nations and to comprehend the ways in which those forces act upon each other and upon international political relations and institutions. There are two competing schools: one believes a rational and moral political order derived from universally valid abstract principles can be attained due to the essential goodness and infinite malleability of human nature and blames failures of social orders to measure up to rational standards on a lack of knowledge and understanding, outdated institutions, and the depravity of certain individuals and groups. Liberalism trusts education and reform, coupled with the sporadic use of force, to remedy these defects.
Realists see a different world. Though imperfect in a rational sense, the world is the result of forces inherant in human nature. To improve the world one must work with these forces, not against them. The world is inherantly one of opposing interests and conflict where moral principles can never be realized and must be best approximated through the ever temporary balancing of interests and the ever precarious settlement of conflicts. Checks and balances are a universal principle for all pluralist socieites. Historical precedent rather than abstract principles and aims to improve lesser evils than secure absolute goods.
Six Principles of Political Realism:
1. Political realims believes politics, like society, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. One must understand society to improve it. Human nature never changes according to this school, and novelty is not a vice nor innovation a virtue. Realism is testing rational hypotheses against actual facts that gives theoretical meaning to politics.
2. The concept of interest defined through the balance of power pervades realist thinking. Only a balance of power allows a measure of systemic order to be brought to the political sphere. Statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power. This imposes intellectual discipline on the observer and infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics. A realist is unconcerned with motives and ideological preferences. It is impossible to know the real motives of statesmen due to the allusive nature of psychological data and the distortion in data by actor and observer alike.
Many statesmen animated by a desire to change the world for the better end up making it worse. One should judge by outcomes the moral and political qualities of foreign policies. Good motives give assurances against deliberately bad policies, but they do not guarantee moral goodness and political success. To understand foreign policy, one must be aware of the intellectual ability of a statesman and his capacity to turn his understanding into successful action: political qualities of intellect, will, and action.
One cannot deduce the foreign policies of a statesman from his philosophic or political sympathies. Statesmen will distinguish between their official duty and their sympathetic wishes. Personality, prejudice, and subjective preference, as well as weakness of intellect and will are bound to defect foreign policies from rational courses. A theroy of foreign policy founded on rationality afforded by experience is also aware of the defects in men and their judgments by experience.
American politics suffers from mistaken attitudes. When the human mind approaches reality for the purpose of taking action, it can be led astray by four things: residues of formerly adequete modes of thinking rendered obsolete by changing social phenomena, demonological interpretations of reality which substitute evil people for intractable issues, refusing to acknowledge a troubling state of affairs, and reliance upon the infinite malleability of reality.
The structure of international relations reflected in political institutions, diplomatic procedures, and legal arrangements is often at variance with the reality of international politics. While the fomer assume the sovreign equality of all nations, the latter is dominated by extreme inequality. Anarchy exists because the institutions designed to control mankind do not represent the realities of it. Conflict between states will be resolved when certain persons we have control over reduce the problem intellectually and pragmatically.
A demonological approach to foreign policy exacerbates problems, not solves them. This leads us not to acknowledge or cope with reality. Problems lack easy solutions. Rational elements make reality intelligitible for theory. History does not provide us many examples of completely rational foreign policies, theory can. A rational policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits and complies both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success. Foreign policy ought to be rational in view of its moral precepts and practical purposes.
3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but not fixed. Power comprises anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Power covers all social relationships which serve that end, from physical violence to psychological ties. A world transformed will occur through the workman like manipulation of the perrenial forces that have shaped the past, not confronting realitiy with abstract ideals indifferent to laws.
4. There is an inherant tension between moral commands and successful political action. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but must be filtered through time and place. A state cannot let itself perish in the name of those who are in its care. Individuals may sacrifice themselves to liberty, the state has no right to allow concerns of liberty get in the way of successful political action. There can be no political morality absent prudence, that is, without consideration of the political consequences of a seemingly moral action. The weighing of consequences of alternative political actions to be the supreme virtue in politics.
5. Political realism refuses to identigy moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that ogovern the universe. The concept of interest defined as power that saves us from moral excess and political folly. A realist asks "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)