NEWS: Live Traffic Feed
Monitor the live traffic to Political Cartel and see where the visitors to this site come from.
I fear the Tea People may be the architect of their own demise.
The Tea Party is a strange mix of libertarian ideals and neoconservative thought peppered with Ronald Regan. I think there is much to be said for reaching back in time and idealizing any person; but I am more concerned that the small tent politics will subvert the movement.
1) Small Government. By far the most expansive claim by the Tea people are that government has run amuck. Currently the main focus is the spending. Obama is heartily criticized, but not Bush? It is a bit puzzling considering the assumption of debt and the necessity of economic ruin requiring spending. If we look across the world, there are countries infusing monies into the economy because experts are saying it is required. But given the benefit of the doubt, that it isn’t political, I can’t reconcile how the Tea’s wish to accomplish this goal. Clearly bailouts and stimulus bills will be short lived, but I am talking long term objectives. What exactly should we cut that would substantially reduce our debt burden?
In preface to my second point I suggest watching a BBC special, The Power of Nightmares, which explains the rise of the neoconservative; it is real not a fiction. Second, how is this small government politics squared with a state with nearly 50% of federal taxes being spent on defense (rather offense). The logical libertarian would say it needs to be slashed. The reasonable person would not deprive the other 50% which entails public goods, but I assume this is what is on the chopping block?
The point being that military growth and smaller social governance would lead to a dangerous mix. Seeing as Sarah’s speech was loaded with aggressive foreign policy, the only conclusion is that we need to increase military and decrease social spending.
The benefit of the doubt is that we would reduce both, it is not articulated and simply a conjecture. Otherwise, I see this as dramatic posturing of smaller government a facade. A rationale person would be aghast if they were told we must increase military and reduce social programs; but not the neoconservative.
2) Drill here, Drill NOW! Our natural resources were touted as the solution to the energy crisis. Obvious concerns are the A) environmental protection of wildlife, B) cost of extraction, like shale oil or deep ocean drilling, C) the amount of resources actually available for extraction, D) increased dependence on fossil fuels when monies could be used for clean energy development, E) pollution & global warming. In sum, while there are areas that may be developed, many are unfeasible for a host of reasons.
Even if certain fears are quelled like the costs or environment, there are not enough resources to power the nation – only a few percent addition on the yearly average of consumption. The reason this ”debate” (and moniker) is not covered because it is foolish on its face.
3) Health Care Reform. I recently sat down with a Tea family that believes health care is ruined by lawyers. So I asked a simple question, if torts are ruining the system, what percentage of costs do you think it comprises? It was a trap and before the responded I knew I had won. The numbers started flying: 30% , 45% , maybe 60%… the most reasonable was 25%.
I engaged the death blow. The CBO projects that the total cost of litigation amounts to 2% of total medical costs. In fairness, the Health Lobby (people with something to gain from tort limits) raise this to 5%.
The numbers show that tort litigation is a drop in the bucket of health costs. Plus, they do actually help people. Now moving to a personal story to illustrate why the tort system is not evil:
A close family member of mine suffered malpractice from a drug that caused a seizure. Only a few years after his retirement he became entirely dependent. Mentally partially alive but physically dead. Living for two decades afterwords; the costs were extremely high, it would have bankrupted the entire family. Under a tort cap we would have suffered. I refuse to play social Russian Roulette and let families become further devastated. I will pay the extra 2% for full tort protection. Adding a cap on liability will not reduce fraud only hurt those who need help.
To think of it another way, doctor gives medicine that causes a blood clot in your 18 year old kid. Now instead of going to college they can stay home with you all day as you feed them through a straw. Don’t forget it also requires $70,000 worth of a medical expenses a year – barely covered. After the cap of $250,000 is burned through and you enjoy personal bankruptcy, you turn to the government and they provide you with basic necessities. Ultimately costing the tax payer and raising taxes for everyone. One way or another a disability will be paid for; let’s do so with less anguish. Oh, also your kids’ life is gone through malpractice, but who needs a pain and suffering award anyway – you get to spend lots of time with them now!
I am personally sickened when this talking point is used for political points. At any rate, under full scrutiny this erroneous logic cannot hold. I suggest the Tea Party abandon this line as the risk of looking inept is great.
4) God. Why is being an American exclusive from having a relationship with god? This reliance on a higher power is a bit scary. Are people truly willing to supplant their own logic for a divine emotional response. The word god was mentioned so often in Sarah’s speech that I can only assume that it becomes a party pillar.
Realistically, what this will do is alienate a vast swath of people who may have similar views but are timid on this excessive religion. Particularly young people. Younger people now as opposed to prior generations are different. Take for instance pot usage. Contrast the image of the 1960’s to current and you would suspect that usage then was a lot higher… Well it is not. Similarly, the religiosity of teens and young adults is at a far lower degree than it used to be.
Aside from being at the wrong end of a trend, the invocation of god is offensive and presumptuous particularly to highlight difference between political parties. Let the issues defend on the merits, no person has any idea of the contemporary will of god, but the assumption is that we strive for a more progressive place.
__________________________
In Sum, the Tea Party has not found its political ground yet. In fact, if this is truly the platform, I would be wary about opening up to the public. Sarah last night (I Think) was unaware not only CSPAN was covering the event, but CNN, FOX etc… The problem is that extolling these views in public opens up a great weakness. Moderate Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Democrats, could crush the Tea Party with a campaign of basic logic.
Likely, it is just the far right exercising its political disenchantment. Every tea party person I have known has been a Republican.
The grounding of the Tea Party is very tenuous. The arguments are largely incoherent under scrutiny and appeal to the jingoist. These people applauding Sarah are not Libertarians as they so often claim, rather they fit the definition of a neoconservative. They are the antithesis of Libertarian thought:
____________________________________
Update 1: Perhaps I have read into this entirely wrong. I approached this as an issue based battle but really it may lend itself to a Tea Party hijacking. http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/02/07/the-begining-of-the-end-sarah-palin-hijacks-the-tea-party-movement/. With this in mind, it is reasonable to see why several arguments do not make logical sense.
Update 2: “The Tea Party movement is now almost completely unrecognizable from what it was a few short years ago. It came to prominence in 2008 when the Libertarian Party of Illinois planned to hold an April 15, 2009 anti-tax “Boston Tea Party” in Chicago. In February 2009, the idea grew after CNBC personality Rick Santelli, speaking from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, criticized the Obama administration’s tax and economic policies and urged Americans become Tea Party activists.”
“In fact, the idea began as the Boston Tea Party in 2006. It was founded by a group of former Libertarian Party members who criticized the party for its “abdication of political responsibilities,” declaring that “Americans deserve and desperately need a pro-freedom party that forcefully advocates libertarian solutions to the issues of today. The Boston Tea Party opposed statism at all levels. “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/subverted-tea-party-movement-told-to-embrace-republican-platform.html
Update 3: Republicans in North Dakota are planning one of the party’s first organized efforts to capture some of the energy and enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement, an experiment that nervous party officials around the country will be watching with hopeful anticipation.
North Dakota Republican Chairman Gary Emineth is one of the organizers of what is being billed as a “Take Back Washington” rally and town hall meeting on Feb. 12 in Bismarck, N.D., with Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, an outspoken conservative, as the keynote speaker.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/05/n-dakota-republicans-aim-to-tap-into-tea-party-ene/
update 4: The Atlantic:
After his speech, a middle-aged female delegate with a twang stood up and said, during the Q&A, “All the media types are asking us why we’re here. Here’s what I say. We’re all here for a little R&R — revival and revolt. If you’re not a Christian, and a person of faith, you just can’t understand what we’re doing!!” She got a standing ovation.
I think the MSM is missing the real focus of this movement. We keep describing the tea-partiers as fiscal conservatives. But this is patently untrue on its face.
They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/christocrats.html
update 5 : I think it has become clear was is going on:
“Anyone who remembers the Ron Paul Tea Party fundraisers understands where this started. It was the true classical liberal Republicans who began using the Tea Party theme as a throwback to the original Sons of Liberty who actually made the Revolution happen” . Good luck RP people, your cause has been hijacked and stands for nothing more than the far right Republicans. It is truly a shame that this movement has once again been subverted.
When you look around the global arena, who stands out? It certainly isn’t nation in Europe, Africa, or South America. There are really only two legitimate superpowers that harbor the necessary military and economic might backed by a sizable population: America and China. And, in case you’ve been sedated by the lofty peace rhetoric of the 1990s – frequently preached by the Anglo-Saxon West – let me burst your optimistic bubble. Security is the game and power is how you play.
The recent $6.4 billion arms agreement by the U.S. to Taiwan is one small illustration of the type of game that the U.S. and China play. Although this relatively minor quibble isn’t like to start a world war, China’s response shows that U.S. meddling within its sphere of influence (or, in this case, its backyard) is not something that sits easy with Beijing. In fact, it really pisses them off. At the 46th Munich Security Conference, the Chinese representative gave a rather confrontational response to the recent U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, stating:
Of course the Chinese government and the people have to react. It is within its sovereign right to do what is necessary. I think the Chinese people and the government of every region should feel indignant about this thing… We have one fifth of mankind. At least we deserve a chance to express our views on how things should be run in the world.
Sure, this could simply be fiery rhetoric, but it probably isn’t. As indicated, if the deal goes through China will respond by sanctioning certain U.S. companies related to the arms sales industry (whatever that means). What’s more significant though is that the U.S. seems to be playing with fire at the least opportune time. Quibbling between China and the U.S. over Taiwan is nothing new. However, what is new is the relative shift in power. Never has the U.S. been so confrontational with China when its fortunes seem on the decline and China’s future so promising. The roles have been somewhat reversed. China really does account for 1/5 of earth’s entire population and is on pace to take the reigns as global economic leader within the next 50 years. Generous forecast say that by 2040 China will account for 40% of the world’s GDP, dwarfing the U.S.’s measly 14% (more conservative estimates say a little above 30%). Add this to China’s somewhat unsettling latent power capabilities and the result is a prospective hegemon. One characteristic of a hegemon, or a potential hegemon, is their ability to project their powers outside of their immediate spheres of influence.
China, to no surprise, is perfectly capable of such feats. In addition to its comments about feeling indignant about the U.S. selling weapons in their backyard, the Chinese representative made known that the Chinese government would block any new UN sanctions leveled against Iran and would continue to work on a deal to import uranium for enriching. At first glance, such moves may appear as insignificant great power bickering. But there is more to it than than first meets the eye. As I remarked in an early post of mine about U.S.-Iran-China relations there is the inkling of a nascent Cold-War style international structure underneath all the fuss amidst Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Perhaps what’s most interesting in all of this is the emergence of a post-Cold War balance of power structure. What goes often unmentioned in discussions about Iran is their recent energy deals with eastern European and Asian states – and not the minor players either. Powerful states such as Russia, China, India, and Pakistan have enabled Iran to continue to develop despite the shaft its received from the West (primarily the United States) by making energy deals to boost its economy and further distance itself from reliance on energy from Western states or Western-based corporations. Most pointedly, these states have made it explicitly clear that they don’t intend to cease or alter the conditions of their deals with Iran because of U.S. pressure.
Much like they have in the past, the U.S. and China will compete for power in a zero-sum international vacuum. As China begins to assert itself as a competitive global power it will challenge U.S. hegemony on several fronts, Taiwan and Iran being two examples out of many. How the game plays out and what moves each player chooses to take are unclear. However, there is one thing that is nearly certain. The notion that the U.S. and China can peacefully coexistence without stinging each others nerves is more of a pipe-dream than a reality. Neither power is likely to defer to the other’s control over their regional spheres of influence and both are likely to engage in a Cold War-like bipolar struggle.
Lofty rhetoric and kowtowing aside, the bottom line is we don’t trust them and they don’t’ trust us. It’s a security dilemma. It’s been this way since 1648. It will be this way in 2048, granted the good Lord don’t come a knockin’, horses and all. CFR fellow Elizabeth Economy’s recent blog post nicely summarizes the real characteristics of U.S.-China relations, and it’s nothing knew under the sun.
There is nothing new here. We are merely witnessing the reality of the U.S.-China relationship, which is marked by almost no trust, a weak foundation of real cooperation, and a lack of shared values and commitment to true compromise.
Bismarck ain’t dead ya’ll, and Kissinger isn’t a ruthless baby killer. They simply understood the uneasy and always volatile relationship of nations. It would behoove (that’s pronounced be-hoooove) everyone to understand that.
President Obama announced in the State of the Union that he wants to end the military’s controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. For Obama’s base, it has been a long time since they have had one of their pet issues addressed. Health care reform has dominated – some say hijacked – Obama’s agenda for the past year. Obama’s approach to DADT shows that he didn’t learn the political lesson that he should have from his health care fiasco.
The way Obama handled the health care debate turned out badly for him because it angered both sides. Conservatives are upset because many of them are susceptible to exasperated cries of “socialism!” “government takeover!” and “death panels!” Nevermind the reality that the proposal has been compromised to the point where none of the GOP counter-arguments are on point anymore; all these cries are attacking boogie man versions of the proposal, not the one that exists in the physical universe. Liberals are upset because many of them feel betrayed that Obama so quickly caved on issues important to them such as the public option, and they feel like maybe the proposal is almost fully gutted. Nevermind the reality that the proposal will still be a major reform and a major improvement over the status quo. Pretty much anyone who cared about health care enough for it to influence their opinion of Obama is upset.
Gays in the military is another purely Democratic issue, but when Obama decided to take it on, he failed to recognize what his previous political failures meant. From the way the first shots fired in this debate have come out, it seems that this will be another issue that only manages to make everybody angry.
So far, there have been few official developments from the administration. Michael Tomansky from the Guardian said the way that Obama unveiled the proposal was “impressively choreographed.” The right military people stood and applauded when the line came, and the right people said the right things in the next 24 hours in the news. Then the news came that it would take a year or more to study the effect of repealing the policy.
Obama’s approach to the controversial issue is admirable and may pay off. A year long debate in the open could propel gay rights from the closet into the light. Opponents will appear even more backwards as enlightened discourse discredits their old-fashioned thinking. The longer timeframe for debate will allow the country to get on board as a consensus emerges and all the information comes to light. The end result may be even better for the gay rights movement than just ending DADT.
But does that sound like how highly-charged debates go in this country? I think it is at least as likely that the gradual approach to ending DADT will backfire severely on Obama and on the gay rights movement. I picture, instead of information and civil debate on the issue, angry town halls, ignorant tea partiers, and religious backlash. Obama is dreaming if he thinks that a long debate process will convince opponents or independents to join the liberal side. The 1+ year debate on this issue will get ugly and make everyone mad.
Conservatives are already frothing over just the announcement. The words alone are chalked up as additional evidence that Obama is the anti-Christ, or at the very least, “too liberal.” Conservative groups will no doubt use this announcement to rally their troops and raise their funds to propel social conservatives to office in the midterms. We now know that a large portion of the Democrats’ congressional majorities hail from conservative districts and those politicians will be hesitant to support an inflammatory issue like this when under attack from passionate social conservatives.
Liberals are angry too. Emma Ruby-Sachs of Huffington Post, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, and others are complaining about the year-long delay. Ending DADT, they say, should be incredibly easy. Unlike health care, there aren’t a lot of details to be negotiated or studied. You either allow gays to serve openly or not. There also aren’t any new arguments popping up in the debate; it’s the same “social progress” vs. “unit cohesion” debate that we have heard since Eisenhower. Furthermore, the Commander-in-Chief could effectively end the policy with orders against any investigations or prosecutions. Congress could easily amend the UCMJ with a few words. There shouldn’t be any 15,000 page bills on this.
There is no reason why the government cannot immediately suspend Don’t Ask Don’t Tell discharges. There is certainly no reason why they must wait a year to figure out how to stop discriminating against a group of soldiers who will spend every day of that year risking their lives to further U.S. government objectives.
-Emma Ruby-Sachs
Liberals will be even angrier if the year-long debate turns into a spectacle and Obama has to retreat from his original position. The health care debate should indicate to us what is likely to happen here.
The president was right that he needed a liberal issue to reignite the base before the midterms, but his unrealistically optimistic strategy is likely to backfire in the end, and it isn’t good politics. Obama has very little to win on this issue as it develops in this way, but he has a great deal to lose.
Haiku the Supreme Court
Citizens United
The Legalist Trap
Foreign Monies, Business Hacks
Amendment ASAP
Antonin Scalia
Pompous and snobbish
Archaic sounds familiar
Best put to pasture
Clarence Thomas
Meek Clarence Thomas
Textualist sans logic
Scalia; better
Citizens United – Corporate Personhood
Voted McDonalds
Blackwater is serving life
Dell got his license
Citizens United – Fox News
Corporate blackout
Silence eerie, agenda
Watching you Murdoch
Straight from a spoiled 7 year old’s parental manipulation manifesto.
“Just say no!” To everything. Do it until you get everything you want. Say it as loudly and obnoxiously as possible. While at it, throw in bunches of political innuendo, apocalyptic rhetoric, fears about death panels, and refer to the President as the Anti-Christ Socialismo. Repeat ad nauseam. Never once even feign compromise. Be bulwark and intractable in your repudiation of anything other than mainstream Republican ideas and policy. In short, be a huge uncompromising dick. Violators be damned – literally.
This strategy makes (or will make) America nearly ungovernable. It thwarts any possibility for genuine negotiation and compromise. It emphatically shoves a fat log into the political turbines.
Is it politically immature and potential harmful to the general health and standing of the U.S.? Yeah, duh. But, as far as political strategies go, it’s ingenious. The GOP is holding out for total surrender, and it’s working – for better or worse.
Yglesias recaps the strategy nicely:
[The GOP has] an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.
The GOP. The party of spite. They will win despite because of their bitter spitefulness.
On a side note, although the picture may be a tad bit inappropriate, it was way too cool to pass up. It can be justified insofar as it accurately depicts the Republican mantra of strict obedience to party line. Right?
Unemployment numbers and another Republican Senator. What’s down? Health care reform prospects and Obama’s confidence. What’s dead? Marthy Coakly’s likability amongst Demcocrats and potentially what Ted Kennedy had called the “purpose of his life” – health care reform.
Although it’s still early, I’m willing to bet that there will be a significant number of post-election analysis that focuses on the link between economic malaise and high levels of unemployment and the ability of Scott Brown to galvanize independent voters across Massachusetts. Already, the analysis point to voters’ dissatisfaction with the current state of the economy and the historically high levels of unemployment, particularly in Massachusetts. All throughout the state the Democrats either lost ground in the independent zones or had poor turnout in the traditionally Democratic areas.
Well, this type of public reaction doesn’t surprise me. However, the fact that the political about-face happened in Ted Kennedy’s home state in a special election for his position seems a bit mindbogglingly. But perhaps it isn’t. There are two reasons for this seemingly abrupt change in the political landscape.
One, as I pointed out several weeks ago, the historically high level of unemployment won’t be tolerated for long, and is a serious political-economic thorn in the Democrat’s side. The inability of the Obama administration to stave off massive unemployment due to an undersized stimulus bill and negligence towards government jobs creation has set them up for defeats such as this one. I didn’t expect such a swift and decisive reaction, but then again the unemployment rate in Massachusetts reached 9.3% last September – the highest rate since 1973 (the current rate is 8.8%). Such high levels of unemployment are bound to produce political repercussions. Hungry people don’t stay hungry for long. The Massachusetts voters’ pocket book speaks louder and more decisively than President Obama and the Democrats could ever hope to.
Second, if case you didn’t already know, Massachusetts already has a near universal health care system. So prods from President Obama to the voters of Mass. to recognize the significance that this election has on the success or failure of health care reform had little impact on the psyche of the voter. As stated in one Times post-election analysis report, “Massachusetts is one of the few states where the benefits promised by the national bill were expected to have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.” Health care is of little importance in Mass., whereas employment has a direct impact and a strong political influence on the minds of voters, particularly the indecisive independents. Why vote to support something that will have little to no impact on you? It may sound crude (and might be cruel), but people in Massachusetts probably don’t care much about the health care reform bill when sizing it up next to their pathetic unemployment check. Can you blame them?
So, the impact of this rather stunning defeat is a stern message the Obama and the Democratic leadership: um… get it together or we won’t vote for you. Although most policy analyst give Obama somewhere around a B – B- for performance, that doesn’t matter much if the Democrats start losing power. Furthermore, the chances that health care reform could seriously die are much more real. Democrats no longer have the filibuster proof 60 votes, and there doesn’t seem to be any sense of solidarity amongst Democratic Congressmen as to whether they could pass the bill before the full impact of Brown’s election is realized, namely the blocking and subsequent defeat of the bill.
Is this election the effect of typical Democratic dithering and political capital squandering instead of party cohesion and action? Is is a harbinger of further GOP gains in the upcoming mid-term elections? Maybe. Regardless, we all know what the central focus of Obama campaign was. I sense Obama’s legacy hanging in the balance.
I recently read John Mearsheimer’s book, The Tradegy of Great Power Politics. I knew going into it that it wasn’t going to be a reading I would disagree much with. Mearsheimer is a refreshing read in an age of over-the-top Anglo-Saxon flattery and quixotic statements about global peace and cooperation. Mearsheimer is an ardent realist in an optimistic age. Through his historical evaluation of great power politics, he easily demolishes any hint of truth to the optimistic view of geopolitics.
In his book, Mearsheimer defends his position by evaluating the course of great power politics since the Napoleonic period. His main goal throughout the book is to show how states operating in an anarchical international system consistently follow a realist behavior trend. Driven by a sense of fear and uncertainty and an innate desire to survive, great powers are always seeking to maximize their relative levels of power at the expense of other states with hegemony being the end goal. States only cooperate when absolutely necessary to survive or in order to improve their relative positions of power. An idealist notions of geopolitics that views international relations as a potentially peaceful or cooperative venture run into one major problem: the structure of the system prevents states from ever setting aside their own selfish desire to be as secure as possible vis-a-vis other states. In a world absent of an international governing body, power politics are the choice model, every time.
I want to follow-up on this reading with a brief remuneration of the realist logic, as it applies to the 21st century world order. Obviously, much of my analysis is taken from Mearsheimer’s book. Also, I’ll admit upfront, in case you didn’t know, that I consider myself a realist. I think it’s quite difficult to argue that international politics are driven by anything other than pure power politics. Although things have changed significantly, the introduction of democratic states, the rise in influence of non-state actors, and the increasing importance of soft power, I can’t see how any “idealist” paradigm can stand the assault of history – recent or past.
It’s a common belief in academia, particularly in the West, that international politics underwent a fundamental transformation with the end of the Cold War. The old realist adage that security competition and conflict are the defining features of great power politics came tumbling down with the wall. President Clinton captures this optimistic sentiment the best. In a 1992 speech he declared that “in a world where freedom, not tyranny, is on the march, the cynical calculus of pure power politics simply does not compute. it is ill-suited to a new era.”
Not hardly. I think the inaccuracy of this statement is rather well established. The central claim to this statement is that since the Cold War ended great power politics suddenly vanished and states suddenly gave up their concerns about the balance of power and their desire to maximize their power vis-a-vis other states. This belief and all accompanying justification can be thrown out on its face. The emergence of the 21st century world order didn’t bring about a fundamental transformation of the system’s inherent structure. The international system is still an anarchic structure, and it is this anarchy that drives a state’s behavior. There is no world government or global arbiter to oversee the actions of states and enforce laws. Nuclear weapons, although an outstanding deterrent and great instrument of stability, hasn’t and won’t prevent conflict – even between nuclearized states. In a system void of a central, governing body, there is only one rule: power. In such a system, fear and uncertainty trump any notion of peace and cooperation.
Since the fundamental structure of the system remains unchanged, it’s absurd to think that the behavior of the various actors within it would suddenly alter their centuries-long methods and practices. States still fear one other and seek to gain power at the others’ expense. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent reconfiguration of eastern Europe at the end of the the Cold War certainly caused a major shift in the global distribution of power, but that’s about it. The structure of the international system remains the same: states seek to maximize their relative levels of power at the expense of others, with hegemony as the end goal.
Here we are now, some 18 years after the dissolution of the bi-polar, sometimes hot, mainly Cold War. With the exception of a few misguided ventures into the Middle East and central Asia (no minor events, indeed), why hasn’t their been any great power conflict in the 21st century? Does that mean that perhaps the system did undergo a fundamental change? Not hardly. We’re just experiencing the relative calm that comes as a result of a relatively balanced power system. We’re experience the fruits of a balance of power. Europe remains bipolar, with Russian and the United States as the major powers; Northeast Asia is a balanced multipolar system, china, Russia, and the United States being the principal actors there. Stability in these regions are supplemented by nuclear weapons, the presence of hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces (probably evidence enough to suggests that fear and uncertainty, not trust, still drives state behavior), and the relative weakness of China and Russia. It’s good for now, but it doesn’t ensure everlasting peace – and it certainly doesn’t mean we’ve reached an epoch of peaceful cooperation and renunciation of great power power politics, as some like to believe.
Despite the hopeful optimism, the realist approach doesn’t just share root word with reality, it actually reflects it. As Mearsheimer says, “the real world remains a realist world.” Get used to it.
