Morality, Realism, and Foreign Affairs:

CONVENTIONAL WISDOMS has it that realism excludes moral concerns from questions of foreign policy. As is so often the case with conventional wisdom, however, the truth is more complex. In fact, what stands out most about the realist approach to morality and foreign policy is not rejection but ambivalence. On the one hand, realists contend that morals are too subjective a standard by which to judge politics. On the other, they uphold realism as the most moral approach because it promotes stability among international political adversaries. These extremes suggest that realism has a problem with the moral question. As will be discussed below, this problem is manifested in ways that tend to be logically inconsistent, cynical, or implicitiy idealistic. Does it have to be that way? Why should realism have a "moral problem"? What are realist strategies for dealing with moral concerns? Are there realists who seem to grapple with morality and power more effectively than others? To answer these questions, this essay first examines how such cold war realists as Hans Morgenthau and George F. Kennan, solve—or fail to solve—the "moral problem" in foreign affairs. I have chosen Morgenthau because of his identity as the "group leader" of American political realism; after all, it is to Morgenthau to whom we most often turn in order to understand what is meant by the realist approach. ¹ I have selected Kennan because of his outspokenness on the question of morality and foreign affairs. ² The discussion then moves on to Reinhold Niebuhr's approach to international politics, which I call "normative realism." I will define normative realism and then show how Niebuhr avoids the confusion and cynicism that seem to characterize the traditional realist approach to the moral question.