Why do states do what they do? The realist perspective What is a theory? It is a generalizable collection of coherent and falsifiable propositions that links causes to outcomes so that we can explain…and hopefully predict. Independent variables -> dependent variables. States have primacy as unitary intl. actors (while leaders and even regime types come and go, states mostly have constant patterns of foreign policy over the long run). What, for example, really changes when the US changes leaders? Regardless of regime type, states act rationally (at least in the big picture) and thus predictably Interests = behavior = morals, not the reverse even though it may sometimes look like it (working with Saudi Arabia to build democracy in Iraq… seriously) The key feature of the international system is anarchy, which leads to constant security dilemmas. Survival instincts and the acquisition /use of power thus drive all state behavior The international system is self-balancing and conflict driven; power is what matters, and when it changes states realign their allies, interests, and ideologies What kind of power matters? Almost all realists see power as zero-sum and relative; however, they disagree about the importance of military (short-term) vs economic power (fungible and compounding)

ARGUMENTS WITHIN REALISM Offensive realists vs. defensive realists: The first argue that the US should use aggression abroad to maintain our supremacy… but only when we can win and advance our interests. Neo-realism vs. traditional realists: Bad human nature (traditional) or systemic flaw leads to constant conflict? Can anarchy and the “security dilemma” ever be overcome? Neo-realists argue that state behavior is a product of the international system (which can be changed) rather than inalienable self-interest. Three developments worth considering: Is hegemony (vs. empire) a help to intl. security? Is the proliferation of nuclear weapons a game changer? Will we ever have a world government (Rousseau)? A 200-state world may incentivize hierarchy over anarchy, but most Realists would point to the UN as an example of what the future looks like at best.

SOME IMPORTANT IDEAS ABOUT OFFENSIVE REALISM FROM THE READING ON MEARSHEIMER An interesting aside: Do what you love to do. JM finished in the bottom third of his class at West Point and found his passion in graduate school. Another interesting aside: JM has played the long-game and stayed true to his core beliefs and agenda even when they weren’t popular. He also understands what a theory is, which means being ok with wrong and seeking to understand why. Argument 1: The US shouldn’t spend much time worrying about the domestic make-up of other great and emerging powers. All states will be aggressive because of the uncertainty of intentions (i.e., you never know what your adversaries are thinking) Argument 2: No states are moral (i.e., pursuing higher goods at the cost of their self interest). The appearance of morality and adherence to an ideology are norms that preserve the SQ or that project power. States can and should engage in conflict for demonstration effects. Argument 3: Intl struggle among the great powers is constant. The US should (and does) engage in off-shore balancing, appreciate the “stopping power of water,” and think more carefully about its reluctance to buckpass and bear the costs of free-riding. Argument 4: When the US neglects its self-interest in the short term, it has to do with faults in our political system (Israel, Cuba, & now sharp power)

WHY DO LIBERALS SEE A MORE POSITIVE FUTURE? Anarchy can be overcome through learning liberal norms and interdependence… People are quite good actually, even when they don’t know each other: What really happened after Hurricane Katrina… The ability to interact well—diplomacy and trade—is as critical to long-term state power as the military… and it is more powerful in most situations. Interaction & trade between different societies is good. The “prisoners dilemma” incentivizes learning and cooperation if there is repeated interaction Most “zero-sum” sum games can be made into “positive-sum games.” This is why history works in favor of liberal arrangements over time (not tree-hugging liberal, but classical liberal ideas). Intl. hugs don’t prosper. States aren’t unitary, rational actors. Do sub-state actors/institutions make their states behave differently than they used to? Kant argues that democracies won’t fight…especially each other because too many meaningful actors won’t want to. Taking Hobbes to the next level: Domestic society/inst. building analogies can and are being applied to intl. politics—we are entering into a variety of intl. social contracts that reduce conflict and increase wealth+stability Joseph Nye’s response to John Mearsheimer: The decline of the US won’t be much of a problem because the 20th C was a victory for liberalism and the “universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of governance” (quote is Francis Fukuyama)

DIVISIONS WITHIN LIBERALISM Do democracies really get along with other states? Or just other advanced democracies? The track-record shows that democracies fight a lot, but they usually win. Should we try create as many interactions with thug states and intl. organizations as we can? Liberals assume good ideas will win out. Should the world—or at least—major intl. institutions prefer democratic arrangements in their decisions and membership? The EU shows the limit of this strategy. Interaction appears to work best when advanced, industrial democracies have the upper hand. Whose cultural values matter most in building the intl. community? If we favor liberalism, are we favoring capitalism and western values? Marxists and other “critical” theories argue that globalization is concentrating wealth and power to an unprecedented degree? Should coercion (including removing bad people by force) should be used to achieve a liberal international society?

IS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WHAT WE MAKE IT? (Constructivism) Key ideas: Culture, elites, and ideas drive change and stability in intl. relations just like they do domestic ideas about what is acceptable. Thus, legitimacy and norms are a critical source of power and change… just as important as economic and military power. Think about how power works in your own life (are you most motivated by coercion, reciprocity, or identity?) What is “post modernism”? Can ideas, “discourse,” and norms really shape intl. politics? Nuclear taboo as example. Sovereignty as an example. US domestic vs. foreign policy as an example. Can important, culturally rooted ideas really change all that quickly? Yes: slavery, dueling, racism, sexism, and homophobia The How do “constructivists” see world politics and change over time? The dual nature of humanity is moldable but not inevitably good. Just because ideas can change quickly, will they? What typically makes big ideas about the way the world works change, and is there anything out there that might cause such a revisioning?