==Why am i reading this book? I want to understand his argument on why Liberalism is a delusion in international relations.== [[International Relations]] #international-Relations #realism #nationalism #liberalism #book #politics A major theoretical statement by a distinguished political scholar explains why a policy of liberal hegemony is doomed to failIn this major statement, the renowned international-relations scholar John Mearsheimer argues that liberal hegemony, the foreign policy pursued by the United States since the Cold War ended, is doomed to fail. It makes far more sense, he maintains, for Washington to adopt a more restrained foreign policy based on a sound understanding of how nationalism and realism constrain great powers abroad.It is widely believed in the West that the United States should spread liberal democracy across the world, foster an open international economy, and build institutions. This policy of remaking the world in America’s image is supposed to protect human rights, promote peace, and make the world safe for democracy. But this is not what has happened. Instead, the United States has ended up as a highly militarized state fighting wars that undermine peace, harm human rights, and threaten liberal values at home. Mearsheimer tells us why this has happened. --- My Notes - Liberal Hegemony is a policy where a state promote democracy values in the world. Believing that liberal democracy is good for the world. Every individual has inalienable rights. - US promote that because post WW2, it has been unipolar world. No other states to challenge it. - Involve in more wars. Interventionist in other states. - It is incompatible with Nationalism and Realism in International Relations - The main objective is about survival. Thus when there are more than one great power, it get trap into "balance of power" dynamics. They say it is democracy in speech but realist in practice. - The View of human nature - Principle 1 - people want a good life, but everyone got a different definition of what is a good life. Thus conflict on that. - Principle 2 - Human are social beings. Tribal. Groups increase survival. - Shaped by history. Culture, that reinforces identity and definition of Principle 1. ---- # Chapter 3 Political Liberalism Political Liberalisms (stresses on the importance of inalienable rights, tolerance, and the need for state to maintain public order) come in two variants - Modus vivendi liberalism (Minimalist view of how much government should be involved) - Individual freedom without government interference - Progressive Liberalism (Activist government) - Also believe in rights that call for the government to help its citizen. - All individuals have right to equal opportunity. Require social engineering. - Generally in politics, it is progress liberalism that has won in real world influence, because the world is complicated, and the modus vivendi liberalism's lasissez-faire approach cannot govern. ## The foundation of political liberalism I wonder if individualism came because of liberalism. Before it came , people in the west are also collective and social? *John Locke, one of liberalism’s founders, describes the state of nature as “a state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection.1 This emphasis on individualism represented a radical break with the writings of premodern political philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Machiavelli, and Plato, all of whom assumed that humans are naturally political or social beings.* Individualism is a new word. Nothing like that happened before in the past. As Alexis de Tocqueville put it, “Our ancestors had no word for individualism, a word we have coined for our own use because, in their time, there was no individual who did not belong to a group or who could consider himself to be entirely alone.”2 Nor did these “ancestors” think that all individuals should be seen as equals. They thought that some men are born with superior talents and thus deserve to rule the less capable.3 ## Ability to reason. Reason alone does not dictate how people think about life's big questions but is subordinate to sentiments and socialization. In short, even when people have reasons, not everyone agree ## The Liberal Formular for maintaining order. Three pronged strategy. 1. Emphasise that everyone's set of inalienable rights includes the right to life, - have rights to choose whatever life they deem good for themselves. 2. Purvey the norm of toleration. Tolerate other people difference, and rights to choose. 3. A strong state that sits above society and maintain order. "Max Weber: state holds a 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory' Thomas Carlyle, Liberalism is "anarchy plus a constable" [[What is the difference between Republicanism and Liberalism]] **Interesting that a purely liberal state do not have emotional bonds? No core? How about American, they seems to be proud of their country to fight for it.** A purely liberal state is soulless: it creates few emotional bonds between citizens and their government, which is why it is sometimes said that getting people to fight and die for a liberal state is especially difficult.14 **Liberalism just give individual lots of freedom, "live and let live?". Don't quarrel over issues that cannot be resolve.** Liberalism has a pacified political life by emptying it of much of its meaning. Or as Stephen Holmes puts it, liberalism seeks "to remove from the public agenda issues that are impossible to resolve by either argument or compromise." **John Locke, Adam Smith believe that government should not interfere with market. Let the "invisible hand" guide the market. Thus capitalism and liberalism go hand in hand.** There are actually more politics in liberal states, compare to authoritarian states because everything already decided. In Liberal states, it's about which faction in the society have the power to write rules (which deal with first principles) ## Liberalism's Paradoxes On Tolerance - There are not tolerant towards factions (even if substantial number of people hold that view) disagree with the system and want to overthrow the regime. They also believe that liberalism is the more superior system, and is intolerant towards other regimes in the world. Contradiction at Liberalism' Core - Universalist strand - every individuals on the planet have rights, must respect the rights of others. Discourage violent behaviour - Particularist Strand - Everyone can't always agree on issues, sometimes can get violent. (This is the limits of reason argument, agreement on first principles) Therefore, which is domaint? Both ? I am thinking that the liberalism ideas are very idealistic and hopeful, in a world when people uses reasons and come to a shared common conclusion of what is good.. and they are tolerant, there is happiness. But in real life, people are not that tolerant, is it due to lack of trust? OK i read the chapter on Liberalism. There are many branches, different variants of Liberalism, that view that individual have rights, how much states should be involved. In reality, there are certain social engineering in practice. Utilitarianism view individuals as social beings, and states give rights to them for the collective good. Can take away rights too when no longer useful.