Realism

The Realist school of thought in international relations studies is notoriously diverse, but practically all Realists are likely to agree with Mearsheimer on this point. If any particular doctrine distinguishes Realism from other schools of thought, it is probably this emphasis on power (Morgenthau 1948: 5; Pangle and Ahrensdorf 1999: 13). Therefore, the contemporary United States of America offers an instructive case study for Realists of all descriptions. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the United States of America possesses staggering quantities of power by any index one can reasonably apply. This case study is provocative, because contemporary Realists have not been parti-

cularly effective at anticipating America’s policies or their consequences. Perhaps increasing the irony, America’s leaders have used their power more energetically than leading Realists considered wise. Nevertheless, Americans may be grateful to note that, as of 2008, the United States has also proven more successful at preserving its power than those influential Realist thinkers considered likely. Readers may decide for themselves whether America has remained a superpower because of its leaders’ policies or in spite of them. This chapter reviews contemporary Realist writings on America’s position in international politics and draws on the works of one of their intellectual ancestors, Niccolò Machiavelli, to offer an alternative explanation of recent US policy. Although contemporary Realists have a mixed record of accounting for America’s

experience with supremacy, the classic works that inspired the Realist tradition remain insightful. The proto-Realist Niccolò Machiavelli lived approximately five hundred years ago in Florence, but he stands out for his success at anticipating the issues the United States and its leaders have faced in the twenty-first century. Machiavelli succeeded in large part because he was willing to think about politics in ways that contemporary Realists have rejected for their alleged lack of methodological rigour. Machiavelli sympathized with people’s will to shape their political environment, he remained acutely conscious of the fact that people exercise this will in the context of specific historical circumstances and he was willing to consider the ways in which this exercise relates to all other aspects of human thought and experience. The Florentine’s method is a poor technique for formulating general theories, but it appears to be an effective approach to understanding human affairs.