In “A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism” written by J. Ann Ticker, she goes on to discuss the difficulties women may face in International politics when given positions that hold great responsibility and pressure. Naturally it has been believed that women are more emotionally unstable in relations to men. And some of the scholars that Ticker referred to believe this to be one of the main reasons why society may not be in full acceptance of a woman in a position of leadership. In fear that they may not be able to handle crucial situations that demand sacrifices of few or many lives.

            Over time women have been given more and more privileges that have been considered rights to men for decades.  Such as voting, receiving equal pay/employment, and being able to join the United States armed forces. “Today, in the United States, where women are entering the military and the foreign service in greater numbers than ever before, they are rarely to be found in positions of military leadership or at the top of the foreign policy establishment.”(Tickner) There are few reasons that beg the question if our system is using discriminatory practices when it comes to decisions made about distribution of responsibility. However women in the United States have proved to be equally as successful and efficient as men. And in some regards its seems that having a leader with innate compassion amongst other feminine characteristics would prove to be beneficial nonetheless. Furthermore, from the reading, Tickner presents us with the feminist perspective when it comes to international relations. Feminists are said to seek the common moral elements in human aspirations that could become the basis for de-escalating international conflict and building an international community (Tickner). Tickner makes a point that is support to my perspective in essence. Women do have certain capabilities that men do not necessarily possess. And these certain humanitarian capabilities could very well reduce global aggression and could increase international relations with a potentially hostile nation. It is not about gender when it comes to critical decision-making, it is about critical thought ability, and intellectual capacity that the man or woman possesses.

            Morgenthau’s perspective about political realism is interesting and well supported nonetheless. However there are crucial flaws in Morgenthau’s principles that J. Anne Tickner has addressed in relations to the gender inequality that is portrayed in our government. Women are faced with discriminatory practices whether they were intended to be discriminatory or not. This is the exact reason why I agree with Tickner in her critique of Morgenthau’s principles regarding the necessity for male dominance in positions of power both in international relations and domestic relations.   

first blog

            The right to private property as addressed in the fifth chapter of Opello and Rosow is a natural right that is integral to the values of a liberal state.  The basis for this law is to create an environment in which citizens of the state have the means to conduct their lives in whatever way they see fit.  It is meant to help individuals to practice whatever hobbies, occupations, religions, and so on that they wish to be involved in.  As I read though the passage that explained how the right to secure possessions is a crucial part of being given natural rights, I couldn’t help but to consider the ill effects of this concept in practice in our modern times.  For example, the right to bear arms, which is written in our constitution, is directly related to the concept of being able to acquire whatever possessions you want.  This right, which is considered to be a pillar of individual freedom for our citizens has also been seen as a danger to free citizens of the country.

            The right to bear arms was originally instituted as a way of giving citizens the ability to raise a militia and fight.  However, in our time it has become an increasingly dangerous right that in many cases has resulted in civilian deaths.  One of the most striking examples of the risks we face as a country because of the right to bear arms is Sandy Hook Elementary.   In this instance an unstable man was in the possession of a legally obtained gun and used it to kill small children in an elementary school.  The issue we run into here deals with what happens when one person natural right to possession gets in the way of another individuals right to life.

            In Opello and Rosow it is stated that the right to private property and the ability to buy and sell items as we please is a liberal concept that helps to encourage freedom and liberty and most importantly life.  However, in our modern times with the weapons we now have available I believe that by giving certain individuals access to deadly weapons we are in fact taking away innocent peoples right to life.  If through the right to property we hinder peoples right to life, then regulation is necessary to establish safety, because of this I strongly believe that a liberal state that is right-based is ultimately dangerous for its citizens.

            Although citizens of a state should be able to practice most rights that are connected to liberalism, I believe government fails us if it does not help us to keep citizens alive to the best of its ability.  The most important natural right is that to life.  Although I firmly agree with many natural rights that liberal state supports, at some point the government should have the power to take away certain right in the interest of protecting their citizens.

The Tree of Power (First Blog Post)

In our most recent discussion of power as it applies to states, it has been shown that the abstract concept of power has many different forms of existence. Whether in agenda setting, or persuasion, to honest and simple hard military power, states and individuals are capable of wielding powerful influence. A frequent discussion made possible by these distinctions, however, is which form of power is most effective. Arguments can be made on all sides, with many different ideologies and worldviews determining one form power to be superior to others. While Realists argue in favor of strong militarily dominant hard power, and Constructivists point out the tenets of soft power in relation to other states, a crucial element is left out completely, one which shatters the legitimacy of all previous arguments.

Power, for its expansive terms, definitions, and properties, is a homogenous mixture. Hard power, soft power, cultural power, economic power, regardless of what words are used to describe them, are merely branches stemming from a single root. This is not to say that everything learned about the many forms of power is null and void, but simply that there cannot exist one form of power in a state without the presence of others. Hard power and soft power, for example, are stemming from the same tree and cannot be separated or ignored. Therefore, when we talk about the power a state wields, while it is entirely possible that one form of power may exist in greater quantities than others, it is imperative to realize that all forms of power are still present at any given time.

This line of thinking comes into conflict most with Realist thinkers like Morganthau, who, in his essay Six Principles of Political Realism argues that states look at the international world through the interest of power. For all his talk of power and security, however, Morganthau recognizes military force as the only credible form of power needed in an international system. While this may appear sensible to Realists believing in international anarchy, it outright ignores the branches of power that go into supporting military force. Without economic power, and a degree of political goodwill, a military cannot be properly sustained. This, couple with the lack of soft power necessary to persuade countries to allow this military force to operate outside of its own borders, reduces Morganthau’s hard power approach to international politics to an angry hermit kingdom baring a stark resemblance to North Korea.

Liberalism, for all its many improvements on the tenets of Realism, also does not successfully grasp the concept of power existing as an interconnected tree. Liberals believe in far more than hard military power, focusing an economic interdependence, democracy, rationality, and the concept of absolute, as opposed to relative power. Though a great deal more refined than their Realist cousins, Liberals have succeeded only in hinging their entire way of thinking upon a single, fragile notion. While it is easy, and certainly tempting to assume that all states will act rationally and reasonably, time has proven this to be untrue. A sword in the hand, or a coin in the purse, so to speak, are both powerful tools in the hands of a rational state, but instantly crumble when logic fades.

While it is too much of a reach to declare Constructivism, with its principles of state identity and recognition, to be the most accurate of the three worldviews, it is worth noting that its recognition of something beyond military or economic power puts it ahead of its competitors. Constructivists understand the presence of soft power and the idea that agenda setting is another form of power. By doing this, and by not discounting the previously discussed tenets of power, Constructivists most fully recognize the concept of the Tree of Power. There are many ways a state may show power, and the utilization of one form may be aided or hindered by another. It is important that, in order to maintain its identity, a state attempt to find a balance in its branches of power to ensure that one does not become too dominant over the others.

There exists an ancient parable in which a group of blind men attempt to describe the look of an elephant through touch. Each man, feeling a part of the elephant, does his best to explain what kind of animal is before them, only to be rebuked by the others who then claim that they can better describe the beast. In the end, the men realize that only through collaborating and putting their collective knowledge together can they truly ‘see’ the elephant.

The same parable can be applied to the concept of the Tree of Power. While each school of thought attempts to rationalize and describe what power is, and thereby, determine how a state ought to approach the issue, none realize that they are all correct, yet incorrect at the same time. Only through collaboration and combination can the truth be finally revealed. Power is not like a breed of dog, different in size and shape depending on countless factors, but is instead like a tree. Just as a tree consists of many different branches and leaves, only to be joined together at its roots, so too is Power a collective whole that exists because of the inseparable sum of its parts. 

First Blog Post

Of the three main theories we have so far discussed in class: liberalism, constructivism and realism, realism is the theory that I have found the easiest to critique. My biggest critique on realism is its oversimplification of the term power in relation to international politics. In addition to this, it seems that realism relies too heavily on the past to indicate the present and future in international politics. Both of these problems can clearly be seen in realist Hans Morganthau’s essay “Six Principles of Political Realism.”

            Morganthau’s second principle deals with precisely how realism regards international politics, and provides the reader with a lens through which realist thinkers view and consider matters of international politics. Morganthau states, “It [realism] sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as economics, ethics, aesthetics, or religion.” The only major factor not separated from politics in this quote is military force or security of states. Beforehand, Morganthau states that realists look at international politics through the “interest of power.” However, this quote basically states that when thinking about power, economics, ethics, and religion should not be brought into the equation at all. Simply taking what we have learned about power so far in lecture and discussion into account, this view seems to be highly simplified if not downright invalid. We have broken power in international politics into two categories, hard and soft power. Hard power, meaning concrete power of one state over another, can be in the form of economic or military power. Soft power, on the other hand, such as persuasion and trendsetting, are completely ignored in this definition of power. The fact that realists only consider one aspect of hard power a real factor in international politics shows very plainly the shortcomings of realist thinking.

            Morganthau is also noticeably convinced in both his first and second principles of realism that history is a good indicator of the future and present, and should be a serious factor in predicting the outcome of a certain event in international politics. Speaking about an officials’ history in making decisions, Morgnathau says, “That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps that a statesman-past, present or future- has taken or will take in the political scene.” Constructivism offers an almost direct contradiction of this line of thinking, one that I would be much more inclined to agree with. In class we learned that constructivism argues history is contingent, and outcomes of a certain situation in international politics depend completely on the situation at hand, and not how a certain leader has conducted themselves in the past or how a similar event turned out in the past. Therefore, constructivists concede that predictions are very difficult in international politics, whereas realists seem convinced that they can accurately predict a situation based on the history involved. I certainly agree with the constructivist viewpoint here, history is not an all-powerful indicator in international politics; situations and contexts are ever changing.

            In conclusion, I am still not entirely sure which of the three main theories I consider the most valid, but I certainly disagree with realism much more than the other two. Simply having been familiarized with liberal and constructivist schools of thought forced me to view Morganthau in a completely different light than when I first read the article. In my opinion, realism thinking is behind the current times when applied to international politics.