‘In the light of these ideas about human nature and politics, the Chicago University professor goes onto examining liberalism ‘which he suggests comes in two variants- modus vivendi liberalism and progressive liberalism’. The former, ‘tends to have a minimalist view of how much the state should intervene in the lives of its citizens while progressive liberals favour a more activist government’. Both variants of liberalism then, ‘think differently about the effectiveness of social engineering'. 

Political liberalism has a 'three-pronged strategy for dealing with the possibility of conflict': emphasis on'everyone's set of inalienable rights, purveying of the norm of toleration and a strong state that sits above society and maintains order’.

Professor Mearsheimer then turns his attention to the concept of the nation and nationalism. While referring to the former, he describes it as ‘ the highest level social group of real significance for the vast majority of people around the world’. This blends into the theory of nationalism which' is a theory that explains how people around the world are organized socially and politically’. ‘ Nations avers the good professor, invariably identify with the territory with specific geographic spaces,  which they treat s sacred territory’ [..] with ‘the principal aim being to establish sovereignty over that territory which is inextricably bound with the nation’s identity’.  ‘Sovereignty demands that other states not purposely intrude into its(states) politics which are deeply committed to self-determination’.  The corollary here is that nations want states and states want nations

Liberalism’s incorporation of when liberalism becomes the foundational premise of foreign policy with a focus on inalienable rights and social engineering, what accrues from Professor Mearsheimer's standpoint is liberal hegemony- ‘a highly interventionist foreign policy that involves fighting wars and doing social engineering in countries throughout the world’ with ‘ the ultimate goal of creating a world populated solely by liberal democracies. It will also work to foster an open world economy and build international institutions to deal with both economic and security issues. ‘This logic, according to Professor Mearsheimer, leads straight to regime change’.

Drawing a contrast between a foreign policy informed by liberalism, whose proponents believe that ‘liberal democracies do not go to war with each other’, and a realist one, which maintains that, ‘international politics is a dangerous business and that states compete for power because the more power a state has the more likely it is to survive and  whose corollary is that, ‘international politics is a dangerous business and that states compete for power because the more power a state has the more likely it is to survive’, Professor Mearsheimer posits that, ‘in a self -help and the anarchic world, states must do whatever they can to provide for their security’

To the contrary, liberal hegemony carries costs which, according to Professor Mearsheimer, begin with the endless wars a liberal state ends up fighting to protect human rights and spread liberal democracy around the world. ‘Once unleashed on the world stage, a liberal unipole becomes addicted to war’. The militarization of the unipole short-changes diplomacy, wherein ‘war becomes more likely and harder to terminate once it starts’.  Examples are wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. Moreover, ‘liberalism undermines sovereignty- a significant norm in world politics, creating system instability’.  The other significant cost is that of ignoring geopolitics which is reflected in the Ukraine crisis where, according to the good professor, ‘ taproot of the trouble is NATO expansion, the central element in a larger strategy to move all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West’.

The paradox of liberal foreign policy, according to Professor Mearsheimer,  is that ‘it is likely to end up violating the individual rights and the rule of law that are at the heart of a liberal society’.

‘Liberal hegemony is built around three missions: increasing the number of liberal democracies around the world, facilitating an open economic order and building international institutions’, adds the good professor. But, each of these approaches is flawed: ‘‘The central problem according to Professor Mearsheimer, is the absence of higher authority that can credibly punish states if they disobey the rules. International institutions are not autonomous actors that can force a state to obey the rule when it thinks that doing so is not in the national interest’. Therefore, ‘ in a self- help world, it makes eminent sense to control as large a share of global power as possible’.

By way of a conclusion, Professor Mearsheimer, wraps up his thesis by,’making a case for restraint’ and suggests that, ‘ the United States should jettison its grand ambitions of liberal hegemony’ and that ‘Washington should adopt a restrained foreign policy based on realism and a clear understanding of nationalism limits a great power’s room to manoeuvre’. The good professor adds that, ‘ although realism is not a formula for perpetual peace, a foreign policy informed by it  will mean fewer American wars  and more diplomatic successes than will a policy guided by liberalism’

 The thesis adumbrated by Professor Mearsheimer, is a compelling one and well worth the times, defined by fluidity, flux and ‘ unknown unknowns’. From this perspective, the Chicago university professor is offering eminently useful markers and signposts for America to navigate a complex, uncertain word through the tenets of nationalism informed by or complemented by realism. The chain of causality from ‘liberal hegemony’ to endless , costly wars and the attendant disorder and instability is breathtakingly perfect in that it is almost impossible to probe for cracks, so to speak, in the good professor’s thesis which is defined by a range, depth and breadth of scholarship that is holistic incorporating political theory, and political philosophy, history, international relations theory and praxis, all underpinned by vigorous analysis.

But there are some obvious issues with the overall thesis as well.  For example, Professor Mearsheimer appears to hold culture and identity thereof as given, immutable and static. But history suggests this is not the case. The notion of nature versus nurture abounds in real life. If both culture and by extension identity are malleable, then this has implications on nationalism which is neither organic nor original but is in the nature of a construct conceived both prosaically and is a product of modernity. There then is no boundary on nationalism, culture and identity – all are permeable, porous concepts. If this assertion holds then states’ identities can also change over a period giving short shrift to a foreign policy informed by realism and nationalism. On the terrain of system and structure, Professor Mearsheimer's hope, banking on China’s rise to check or wither United States unipolarity and thereby liberal hegemonic reflexes is fraught: it conveniently ignores the Thucydides trap which roughly holds that a rising power can become a challenger to the dominant state which can lead to war.

Moreover, while it is true that there is no such thing as an international community at the aggregate level, but the European Union was and is a construct that comes close to being one where a veritable security community exists and in accordance with democratic peace theory, general peace obtains. Last but not the least, if and when there is no sensitivity to human rights abuses and violations, under the shield of sovereignty, the world will become a dark, Hobbessian world where, among other things, there can potentially ensue bottoms up challenges to the international system and structure and thereby the status quo (read the balance of power) which Professor Mearsheimer, so wants to maintain and preserve can fray and fritter. All in all, ‘The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities’ is a great read, informed not only by incisive scholarship but also gravitas and sobriety- attributes that are sorely missing in the American political and even global landscape contemporarily. The book must lead to some soul searching and, in the process, create a middle ground and synthesis between realism and liberalism. Either, on its own, carries great perils and pitfalls, especially for a powerful state like the United States.

About the Author(s)

 

 Syed Basim Raza,  an MPhil scholar at the National Defence University Islamabad. He completed his Master's degree from NUML Islamabad.

Liberal Values

States, in order to promote liberal values and foster international peace, adopt liberal policies. However, John Mearsheimer in “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” opposes this liberal claim by asserting that the promotion of liberal values involves interference in the matters of other states which can undermine international peace leading to more conflict and wars.

Liberals also believe that liberalism will bring an end to the balance of power politics as claimed by Francis Fukuyama, but Mearsheimer, while repudiating this peaceful ideal approach, maintains that states in a bipolar or multipolar world are mainly concerned with their own survival due to the anarchic system, which makes the balance of power inevitable, a view also upheld by the realists. This eventually makes the dream of liberals to establish peace and promote liberal values, an impossible dream.

Theory of Politics

Laying out his basic theory of politics, the author of “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” explains the different major aspects that are of eminent importance for understanding a political theory. His basic assumptions about human nature are that humans have limitations on their ability to reason and they are social animals to their core.

After carefully analyzing the educational, religious, economical, philosophical and legal aspects of reason, he reaches a conclusion that while reason helps us in understanding the political world, this help is limited and it does not provide us with answers to fundamental questions. Being social animals, the aspect of social interaction is the prerequisite for humans to live, grow and develop critical faculties.

Another influencing aspect of Mearsheimer’s political theory is culture. Despite the fact that culture can be rejected or changed, it is still a strong unifying force that keeps a society intact and brings consensus amongst the individuals of a social group. Besides, political institutions and politics amongst the social groups (intra-group and inter-group politics) also play a very vital role in Mearsheimer’s theory of politics.

Owing to the notion that all social groups have a tendency to expand, which is a reason for the global anarchic system, they might face impregnable barriers or hurdles during this course. He concludes his theory of politics with the remark, “The great isms of liberalism, realism, and nationalism do not operate in a state of mathematical abstraction: they work the way they do because humanity is the way it is.”

Political Liberalism

Taking up the concept of political liberalism, the author goes back to the basic ideals of liberalism defined by John Locke and the emphasis on individualism. Maintenance of order and reduction of conflicts is managed by the political liberals using a three-pronged strategy i.e emphasis on everyone’s rights, tolerance, the need of the state in case tolerance fails, and a very strong emphasis on the promotion of the economy that makes liberalism very alike to capitalism.

Amongst the major paradoxes of political liberalism, tolerance is one of the very prominent ones. Liberals are very intolerant towards the threats to their ideals and other political orders. The other eminent paradox is that liberalism at its core contains both a particularist and a universalist strand.

The author then defines modus vivendi liberals as those who believe in individual rights without state interference. Explaining the different aspects, he asserts that modus vivendi liberalism is somewhat of a pessimistic theory of politics. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, think that a state if need be, must interfere in social problems and do some social engineering.

It is more relevant than modus vivendi and this is why Mearsheimer cares to explain in detail the two types of progressivism which include unbounded progressives (Fukuyama, Pinker, and Dworkin) who think that liberal ideas are very well nurtured and matured that they can guide humans towards consensus. Bounded progressives such as John Rawls think differently and believe that no set of truths is available but liberals are sensible enough not to fight over their differences.

Progressivism outran modus vivendi and has been very prominently relevant in US governments both with Republicans and Democrats. The three major forces behind the triumph of progressivism are the industrial revolution, nationalism and a strong military need for peacetime.

Mearsheimer, however, does not consider liberal idealism and utilitarianism as part of political liberalism since utilitarianism differs in essential ways from political liberalism due to its disregard for inalienable rights etcetera and the same for liberal idealism, for they believe that humans are social animals.

Nation-States

Enlightening the concept of nations, the author quotes Benedict Anderson who has described a nation as an imagined community since there exists communion and horizontal comradeship. Before the consolidation of nations, the membership of people was identified in the terms of dynastic realms, where people were divided as either the elites or the ordinary people, who combined into a single nation based on a common language and shared interest, thus diminishing the class difference and promoting equality amongst the community members.

Culture, national pride, historical myths, shared common territory, and sovereignty are the features that distinguish contemporary nation-states from ancient social groups. A nation needs a state for exercising its right to self-determination and survival. In multi-national states, minorities, in order to preserve their culture and language and to prevent exploitation of their people, resort to the urge of having their own state.

Nationalism based on homogeneity amongst the population helps the state to nurture a large patriotic military, meet economic ends and to make governance effective. Nationalism negates the liberal theory of universal individual rights since it emphasizes an equal set of rights only for people living in one nation. Despite the differences, liberalism and nationalism can coexist, as evidenced by the presence of a large number of liberal nation-states with thick-cultured and tolerant multinational societies.

Liberal Foreign Policy

Mearsheimer carefully observes the case of a powerful state adopting a liberal foreign policy i.e liberal hegemony. Rights lie at the heart of liberalism and the best way to guard these inalienable rights is by converting every country into a liberal democracy; for that matter, a liberal power will always intervene in other states’ matters militarily, and will never back off from doing all sorts of social engineering.

The case of such policy starts with the liberal assumption that it will bring eternal international peace, as in a world full of liberal democracies, there will be no war. Liberals are very inclined towards bringing a regime change in order to protect rights abroad, facilitate peace and safeguard liberalism at home.

Realism, according to the author, has been and will be relevant for centuries to come whether in the domestic or international realm. Despite the fact that realism is a particularist theory in its essence and that there is no place for rights or international community in realism, there exists a strong relationship between realism and liberalism.

For liberal hegemony to be a foolish foreign policy that leads to failed wars and failed diplomacy is a bold argument made by the author. Nationalism, a strong factor which enhances the resistance to liberal hegemony, can erupt in a viscous manner at the international level for a liberalizer and the resistance may even mold into potential terrorism.

Other states might also resist the liberalizer due to realist motivations and they might have compelling reasons to check the liberalizer’s expansionist and interventionist policy. Mearsheimer clearly states: “…spreading liberal democracy around the world is destined to fail much more often than it succeeds”.

Realism & Nationalism

Realism and nationalism are the building blocks of the modern nation-state system. Realist logic of fear of survival and attainment of large military force due to the undeniable balance of power politics drove Europe to transform into nation-states. Nationalism basically reinforced this realist logic by contributing majorly to cultural coherence, unity, military power and even domestic administration.

Benedict Anderson notes: “Since the end of world war 2 every successful revolution has defined itself in national terms”. Mearsheimer adds that the possibility of a “world state” is remarkably low and even if it happens, it won’t be a liberal state, it’ll have to rule with an iron fist and its stability and existence for a long period of time is questionable so anarchy is here to stay and the great powers have very little choice but to act by the principles of realism.

Liberal Democracy

The formula of liberal democracy to establish international peace can be explained in view of three theories: democratic peace theory, economic interdependence theory, and liberal institutionalism. However, none of these theories is actually workable under international anarchy due to their restricted scope.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic peace theory maintains that liberal democracies don’t go to war against one another taking into account liberal values. However, the core idea of the democratic peace theory is flawed as evidenced by the wars between democracies such as WW1. The democracies have also been involved in victimizing civilians during wars, paying no heed to the human rights which they champion.

Besides, this theory does not explain the confrontation of a democracy with a non-democracy which is guided by a balance of power. Consequently, as long as there is a prospect of war, the focus of the states will remain on ensuring survival and until then the liberal approach cannot supersede the realist logic.

Economic Independence Theory

The economic interdependence theory asserts that economic interdependence between states makes war more costly and therefore rules out any chances of war. However, the author suggests that no prosperity is likely to be achieved when survival is at stake and therefore a chance of a limited war with manageable economic costs is still possible.

Also, the states may go to war expecting strategic and economic benefits in case of victory. Furthermore, economic interdependence itself sometimes fuels tension between states, especially during strained economic times. For instance, the reinvigoration of nationalism in Europe during the euro crisis.

Liberal Institutionalism Theory

Liberal institutionalism, the weakest theory, suggests that rights and duties, stipulated upon the state by the international institutes, prevent them from commencing a war. However, these rules are mostly in line with the interest of powerful states and also the institutes are weak since they lack enforcement mechanisms due to an anarchic system.

According to the liberals, the main aim of institutions is to enhance cooperation, but the author contradicting this suggests that cooperation via the international institutions is only possible when states have overlapping interests since conflicting interests can lead to competition between states which may eventually lead to violence. Therefore, the author, by calling himself a realist, asserts that the state due to an anarchic system and limitations of liberal peace theories have to resort to realpolitik.

Conclusion

Concluding “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” with some predictions and recommendations, Mearsheimer asserts that the US should adopt a policy based on realist ideals and strong consideration of how nationalism limits the manoeuvrability of a great power in the international arena.

There is no doubt that theoretically, realism considers war as a strong tool, but there is enough evidence that suggests that realist scholars show more restraint. Similarly, nationalism is a major factor that presses great powers to adopt a restraint policy and prevents them from intervening in other states’ matters.

As the author predicts, there can be two future scenarios: one that the world will turn to multipolarity with China as a rising power and the resurrection of Russia; in this scenario, the US will have to abandon its liberal foreign policy and adopt a realist policy. The second scenario dictates that if China faces slow economic growth, the US will continue to follow a foreign policy based on liberal hegemony.

Mearsheimer as a communicator is phenomenal and his clarity of ideas and expression has no match. Revolving the book around the relationship between the three great isms; realism, nationalism and liberalism, he beautifully devises the best advice for future foreign policy prospects of the US.

The author’s thoughts on the relevance of realism, and the triumph of nationalism and realism against liberalism, are very practical and their application can be seen demonstrably when one indulges in the International political arena.