ABSTRACT
A perennial question in the study of politics is just exactly who we are as political animals, and what we characteristically do when we interact. Is Homo politicus essentially driven by power and primarily constrained by force, or are we creatures of a more social inclination, potentially persuaded by good arguments and constrained by norms and a sense of justice? Of course the answer is both – though scholars of politics have tended to emphasize the former even as the role of argument in our domestic and international relations has grown. The role of political argument in world politics is ubiquitous, consequential, and increasing over the longue durée. Gradually displacing the role of brute force coercion, the increased importance of political argument, its institutionalization, is one of the most significant changes in world politics over approximately the last 350 years. These claims are obviously opposed to the conventional wisdom, and in an era that is threatened by weapons of mass destruction, they might seem willfully blind. Yet it is vital to put political argument in context and brute force coercion in its place: if brute force sometimes trumps argument, it is not for long, because arguments must be deployed in the mobilization and maintenance of brute force.
