Political Science

Introdcution to Idealism

Idealism in the field of international relations has usually been identified with the perspectives, theories, and methods derived from the Wilsonian tradition. Referring to the ideals espoused by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, idealist perspectives such as liberalism and neo-conservatism assume that there are universal political and economic ideals that humans should aspire for (Macbride & Fraser, pp. 135). In international politics, these ideals are said to be liberty, freedom, democratic systems of representation, free markets, and capitalist trading systems. Certain forms of idealism also see international institutions (economic and political) as ensuring transparency and reinforcing the incentives for states to cooperate (Allison, pp.96-105).

Post-World War II idealism also incorporated some of the tenets of scientific positivism in the hope of first studying and then isolating variables that contaminated the ability of nation-states to cooperate so that such variables could be eliminated over time (Macbride & Fraser, pp. 135). For much of idealism's history, it has been contrasted with realist international relations theory, which sees national ideals as relative and pluralist, derived from an anarchical order of international politics founded on power and an order that cannot be transcended. There are two forms of idealist approaches usually considered in international relations—liberalism and neo-conservatism. This entry discusses these two approaches as well as the relationship between idealism and realism and the political nature of the term idealism (Coates, pp.65-75).

Reflection on Idealist Approaches

Liberalism

Liberalism assumes that while states operate within anarchy, and that states are indeed primarily self-interested, this self-interest lends itself to cooperation rather than conflict. Since the end of World War II, liberal idealism has had three branches. Institutional liberalism posits that international organizations and regimes facilitate cooperation by reducing uncertainty among states and increasing transparency. Some institutional idealists, sometimes termed neoliberal institutionalists or even institutionalists, may not even consider themselves “liberal” in the sense that they would argue that international institutions can facilitate cooperation regardless of the type of domestic political system of a nation-state (Macbride & Fraser, pp. 135). While many liberals would disagree with the “idealist” moniker, they still see certain ideals as universally valid and posit that an international community where those ideals were allowed to flourish would be a much more peaceful and stable one than the unstable one we currently have (Ewing,pp. 255-265).

Neo-Conservatism

Neo-conservatism began as a domestic political movement in U.S. politics, but toward the conclusion of the Vietnam War and thereafter it became an approach to U.S. foreign policy and has now emerged as an approach to international politics. Neo-conservative argues that the United States bears a “special burden” because of its unique status as a nation-state and eventual great power. What has made the United States unique is the moral vision on which it was founded—liberty, human rights, democracy. These are universal principles, unlike those constituting past great power enterprises.

Neo-conservative idealism differs, however, in two major respects from liberal idealism. First, the neo-conservative emphasizes action—in U.S. politics it is sometimes termed movement conservatism. Against threats not only to ...