Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BARACK OBAMA, REALIST.
As The contrast between Hillary the realist and Obama the idealist only works because of the haziness of the concept of "realism." Used popularly, of course, "realism" usually means, simply, realistic. People can be realists about anything from love to the use of steroids in sports.
But in international relations theory, "realism" actually means something quite specific. Realism holds that the world is anarchical, that states are always out to maximize their power regardless of their rhetoric or internal composition, and that if one country becomes too powerful, the others will gang up on it no matter how well-intentioned it is. Canonical realists including John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Waltz, Samuel Huntington, Barry Posen, Robert Pape, and Stephen Walt all opposed the Iraq war, and they all prioritize solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the best way to ameliorate America's terrorism threat.
Today's Democratic Party is overwhelmingly a party of realists. And in the current presidential race, realist positions are most often espoused by Obama. This is why Zbigniew Brzezinski, the foremost realist statesman in the Democratic party, is advising Obama, not Clinton. Look at the breakdown: Richard Clarke, Bruce Reidel, Robert Malley -- all prominent realists, all Obama supporters. Clinton has more idealism-oriented people such as Richard Holbrooke, Martin Indyk, and Michael O'Hanlon, who all supported the Iraq War or strongly favor Israeli actions against the Palestinians. Her initial support for the Iraq war and her positions on talking to hostile foreign leaders and on nuclear weapons have much less attraction to realists than Obama's. Obama is not a by-the-book realist by any means, but of all of the contenders for the presidency, he is the closest thing.
This isn't just intellectual gossip; it points to what the candidates' respective foreign policies would look like. Dershowitz writes, "When I cast my vote, I look not only at the candidate but at who is supporting him or her. Elections empower not only the winning candidate but the constituencies that helped to elect that person." I couldn't agree more. And from that perspective, Barack Obama's idea of a more restrained American foreign policy is looking a bit less naive than his critics think. Almost realistic.
--Jordan Michael Smith
COMMENTS (5)
I agree with Prof. Dershowtiz-- look at who supports whom. However, as Alan Dershowitz is a prime example of the used-to-be liberal who has become an apologist for truly reprehensible positions, I have to say finding out he supports Sen. Clinton is NOT a plus for her.
With friends like him, she needs no enemies.
Posted by: Jake | February 12, 2008 4:33 PM
Exactly. Yet Clinton is still widely seen as stronger on national security -- not to mention John McCain. If Samantha Power were more well known, Obama's dismal poll numbers on foreign policy would be better (one hopes in vain).
Posted by: plum | February 12, 2008 4:34 PM
By way of example, Samantha Power -- mentioned above -- wrote "A Problem From Hell" about the concept of genocide as a crime against humanity in US foreign policy. One of Power's conclusions in that book -- to be incredibly super-reductive about it -- is that we should stop promising to stop every genocide with military action, because what happens in practice is that we don't do that, which means we are reluctant to label a genocide as such and don't take even the intermediate steps short of military force that we clearly ought to take (e.g., sanctions, arms embargoes). I'm not sure that's quite "realism" in the foreign policy argot sense of the word, but it's certainly something short of wooly-headed naivete about the way the world works.
Posted by: alkali | February 12, 2008 4:37 PM
If Hillary is such a "realist on foreign policy," then how the hell did she think that voting to let George W. Bush have the authority to invade Iraq would lead to something other than George W. Bush using the authority to invade Iraq?
Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2008 7:51 PM
And re: Dershowitz's line, "When I cast my vote, I look not only at the candidate but at who is supporting him or her. Elections empower not only the winning candidate but the constituencies that helped to elect that person."
So, when I look at Hillary Clinton, I see someone who is relatively attractive to people who would keep us in Iraq indefinitely, people who would get us into more wars for no apparent reason or gain, people who would put their thumbs on the scale of justice for Israel every time, and people who think that torture should be the legal and official policy of the United States.
Constituencies like those don't belong in power.
They belong in prison.
Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2008 8:06 PM