Liberal Theory

 

Comment on Organizing Theoretical Schools of Thought and Identifying Sub-variants of theories:   You may have noticed in reading different IR textbooks or listening to different professors that not all classifications of IR theories are the same.  This is not necessarily illogical.  The reason is that you can use different organizing principles to differentiate the theories. I will use examples from realist theory to illustrate this point. First, you can decide to focus more on empirical theory or normative theory.  If you are focused mostly on empirical theory you could emphasize the agent-structure distinction (bipolarity v. skill of diplomats/leaders) or the level of analysis (geopolitics or internal domestic politics) or the unit of analysis (states, alliances, etc).  Secondly, if you decide to focus on normative theory you can focus more on normative goals (seek a power advantage and relative gains v. pursue a balance of power and absolute gains) or normative means (degree to which you emphasize military might, economic clout, diplomacy - all tools pursued by realists)  Finally, both the empirical and normative approaches can be directed toward answering particular questions (e.g. why war? what do about war? or what makes certain states more powerful? how to manage power transitions?).   You can actually develop your own classification of IR theories different than what I present here.  You just have to be careful to specify the basis on which you make your classifications.

 

My Schema for Classifying IR Theories:  I am organizing my schools of IR theory on the basis of normative goals.  Specifically,  I am organizing them around the extent to which they believe that the world can move to a more cooperative world (i.e. move beyond the conflict ridden anarchy described by realists) and their normative descriptions in terms of how this should be accomplished. Based on that organizational schema I include two groups that are not normally brought together: (1) so-called "Neo-Conservatives" (e.g. George Bush Administration, a label I will argue later is a misnomer) and (2) Liberal Pacifists.  These two will be included along with more traditional neo-liberal institutionalists and what I will call "Cultural" liberals  (the book calls them "Constructivist Liberals."  Not all Constructivists are liberals; only those who share the normative liberal beliefs listed below).  Before I get into the distinctions between these four sub-variants, I want to talk about their similarities; i.e. why they are should be placed on the rubric of Liberal International Relations Theory.

 

What All Liberal Theories Share in Common:

I include these four theories under the my liberal paradigm because I believe that they all share many of the same normative objectives (and, we will see, many of the same empirical assumptions). 

 

Empirical Assumptions:   All liberals share in common a few empirical-ontological assumptions. 

 

1. History is Linear and Progressive.   The German philosopher Hegel argued that if you looked back in history you would see that the most fundamental underlying reality of that era was a battle of competing ideas about how best to organize society.  Hegel called the prevailing idea or organizational scheme the "thesis."  But, these earlier organizational schemes or political ideas would be imperfect and these imperfections would inevitably produce a competing scheme or political idea that he called the "anti-thesis." What is interesting is that the clash (often violent) of these two competing ideas would result in a new idea that combines the best of both.  This new idea he called the synthesis.  In this manner, each era of human history progresses toward a better and better scheme.  But Hegel believed that at some point in time the world would arrive at the best possible societal organizational scheme and this dynamic would cease  Hegel called this point the "end of history."  Now political conflict would not cease - war was always possible - but the grand battle over ideas was over. Ironically, Hegel had two very different intellectual progeny who take this linear view of history and develop it differently. (1) Marxists and (2) Liberals.  Both Marxists and Liberals are more utopian about what the end of history would mean.  Both saw the end of all war and political violence.  Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man  has taken Hegel's idea and argued that the perfect political system is liberal, democracy and the perfect economic system is Capitalism.  Therefore, we have arrived at the end of history and "the millenium" (to use a bibical term) has arrived.  Following 9/11 and the War in Iraq Fukuyama gets more cynical about close we are to the End of History but he still holds to a linear view of history.

 

2. Anarchy can be transcended:  The anarchical nature of the world that the realists describe is not only not as dangerous as the realists suggest but it can be transcended.  It is not a permanent human condition.

 

3. Basic Human Nature is Universal and Rational.  Like the Realists and the Marxists, Liberals believe that human nature is universal.  Obviously there are cultural differences and these cultural differences produce different actions.  But, to use Marx's terms, culture is a "false consciousness" that only masks the underlying universal human nature.  Liberals believe that all human beings have the same basic physical and psychological needs.  There are no fundamental gender differences with respect to these needs.

 

4. Culture and Ideology Matters:  Culture and ideology matter in two senses.

•  The extent to which they satisfy basic human needs and how efficient they are. Most political and economic systems thwart those basic needs.  Only Liberal Democracy and Capitalism will meet those basic needs.  Once human beings in any culture are exposed to liberal democracy and capitalism they will choose these systems because rationally they are the best choice. 

• Culture and Ideology as Elements of Soft Power: Realists did not predict the dramatic, largely peaceful transformation of Eastern Europe from Communism to Liberal Democracy and Capitalism because they ignore the importance of culture and ideology.  Ideas matter.  What Joe Nye calls "soft power" is very important in world influence.  If a state has a reputation for promoting human rights (peacefully) and the economic well-being of other states and not selfish exploitation - it will have an influence on other parts of the world beyond its military might.

 

5. Logical Positivism is the Correct Epistemology:  For most liberals this is obvious and non-controversial. I will argue that certain constructivists (e.g. Alexander Wendt) can be liberals. Many Constructivists totally reject logical positivism.  But not all totally reject it. If you read Constructivist-Liberals like Wendt carefully they do not totally reject logical positivism. They do reject the notion that concepts like anarchy, or national interest have objective meaning in and of themselves.  Instead, these concepts acquire meaning.  But Wendt and other Constructivist-Liberals believe that the meaning that exists in a particular point in time (e.g. the perception of anarchy in a particular historical era) can be observed.

 

Normative Goals:  All Liberals share the following normative goals:

 

1. Promote Liberal, Democratic World:  All Liberal theories seek the spread of liberal, democratic values to ALL countries and ALL international institutions.  There are two reasons that all liberals seek this goal: (1) Kant's Democratic Peace thesis - liberal, democratic states do not fight one another.  Therefore, the more you broaden the liberal, democratic sphere the more you spread peace. (2) Francis Fukuyama argues that Liberal Democratic States meet the individual, psychological needs of mankind in a way that no other political system can.  Living in a Liberal, Democratic State fills an existential-psychological need.   The principles of "liberalism" and "democracy" are closely connected but not synonymous.  States must have both elements.

• Democracy: I will use Abraham Lincoln's classic definition of democracy - i.e. "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."   It assumes a free press and free debate on policy.  It assumes competitive political parties that compete in open and fair elections (Zimbabwe's "democratic elections" would obviously not qualify).  It assumes a peaceful transition of power and often implies the need for political compromise to achieve majority consent on policy choice and candidate selection.

• Liberal: First of all, I am referring to liberal in the classical liberal sense, that is, in the manner that John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Rousseau, etc. understood the term not as modern liberals (Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton) might understand it.  Classical liberals were very concerned that governments might threaten individual freedom to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property as Locke would have it).  The reason that this must be appended to democratic policies (decided by policy preferences of the majority) is so that the inalienable individual rights of the numerical minorities are not threatened in the process. A key conundrum in setting up a new democracy is how to maximize the will of the majority while still protecting the individual rights of the numerical minorities.  The protection of individual rights can be enforced by institutional mechanisms (separation of powers, checks and balances), legal restraints (bill of rights), and finally, and most importantly, widespread societal, cultural values of tolerance of diversity and an acceptance of the need to compromise.   You can see the importance of the liberal attitude in Iraq where the majority Shii'a would run roughshod over the rights of the Sunni by "democratic" means if they could.

• Democratic Peace Thesis: All liberals accept the notion that established liberal, democratic states do not fight one another.  Following is the logic of the Liberal Democratic Peace Thesis:  Some of this comes from Immanuel Kant (who really spoke of republics not liberal, democracies).  Kant's ideas have been expanded by contemporary scholars such as Michael Doyle and others.

  1.      "Cannon Fodder Can Vote":  In a democracy, the ones who would die – or sacrifice their sons/daughters - are the ones making the decisions.  They will be much more cautious than elites isolated from the personal costs of war who send other peoples sons and daughters to fight. This was one of Kant's own major rationales.

  2.      Shift from Guns to Butter: Liberals believe that autocratic governments often seek war in order to expand the individual material wealth and prestige of the elites.  When you shift to a liberal, democratic government the focus will shift from guns to butter to coping more with the day-to-day needs of the common people.  Kant made this point as well.

  3.       Competing Pluralistic Groups Harder to Mobilize: Some recent scholars (e.g. Cliff Morgan) have argued that the institutional checks in a democracy (separation of powers in a Presidential Democracy or the necessity of multi-party coalitions in Parliamentary Democracies) produce greater caution because you have actors with different points of view in government and it is harder to mobilize a large number of the different actors in the government to go to war (given the risks and high economic and personal costs) than to mobilize one autocratic clique.

  4.      Shared Ideology: This point is made by Constructivist-Liberals as well as Rational-Liberals.  The rational liberals argue that autocratic states sometimes fought to spread their ideology and religion.  Obviously, if you share ideologies you have no reason to fight. The Constructivist-Liberals approach it slightly differently. All constructivists focus on identity and perceptions of the identity of the other.  If you believe that you, as a liberal democracy, are a peace-loving people then you will perceive all liberal-democracies as peaceful like yourself.

  5.  State and Global Norms of Tolerance and Compromise:  As noted earlier, a liberal democracy requires widespread societal acceptance of diverse points of view and the notion that political differences must be resolved peacefully and through compromise.  A corollary is that following the loss of an election the party that loses will peacefully surrender power to become the "loyal opposition" and the party that wins the election will not consolidate all power.  The argument here is that these internal norms of tolerance and compromise, once learned, are translated to external norms between states. This is a sort of bottom-up (or agent) approach. Constructivist-Liberals would put it slightly differently.  Constructivists argue that perceptions of identity and interest are not given from the start but these evolve as a product of "symbolic interaction" with others. The more that liberal democratic states successfully and peacefully operate with one another the more this perception of mutual identity and interest takes hold.  Moreover, according to Alexander Wendt, a Constructivist-Liberal, every era has a prevailing "zeitgeist" or collective perception of how states can and should interact with one another.  Anarchy is not a fixed, objective phenomenon but it is based on the consensus view of what it means. States operate accordingly.  This is a sort of top-down view (emphasizing more of the structure). Wendt argues that we are evolving to progressively more liberal, tolerant norms of behavior because we perceive "anarchy" as less threatening.  I classify Wendt as a Constructivist-Liberal because it is obvious in his work that he sees this transformation as not only positive and desirable but also a natural progression.

 

2. Promote Universal Human Rights.  Because human nature is universal (we all have the same basic physical and psychological needs), liberals believe that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator (or perhaps evolution) with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Liberals believe that we have a moral imperative to promote human rights around the world.  As we will see, liberals differ fundamentally on how to promote those human rights and they may differ on exactly what some of these rights are but they believe that human rights are not Western inventions imposed through cultural imperialism on the developing world.  Everyone, everywhere is entitled to basic human rights.  Some writers labeled as Feminists are really just liberals who want to extend the same rights and privileges that men have enjoyed to women. 

 

3. Promote Economic Interdependence, Free/Fair Trade, and Global Capitalism:  The so-called "Manchester Liberals" of 19th century England argued that the more states traded with one another; the more economically inter-dependent they became, the less likely war would occur because of an economic incentive for both parties to avoid the economic disruption of war.  For a time, World War I totally discredited this idea (the United Kingdom and Germany traded with each other more than any other states).  But the idea has been resurrected after World War II.  The idea is central to the logic of the European Union that started with coal and steel cooperation between France, Germany, and others in Western Europe.  More recently, it has been advanced by other liberals such as Thomas Friedman in books such as The World is Flat.  An important corollary is that states must avoid trade barriers such as tariffs because these only produce trade wars and ultimately pull the entire world into global depression such as happened in the 1930's.  So a major goal of liberals is what has been labeled "free trade" (or a minor variant "fair trade').  The liberal objective is to increase economic interdependence.  Major economic liberals such as David Ricardo argued that states will gravitate toward their "comparative advantage" (e.g. export manufactured goods, export raw materials, export economic ideas, or banking services, etc) and this will serve the entire world.  In contemporary terms, "outsourcing" is good.  To facilitate the best operation of this practice, international institutions (e.g. World Trade Organization) are necessary to ensure equal compliance by all parties.  Now we will see that there is a division among liberals about the relative importance of the goal of promoting human rights and the goal of promoting free trade.  Some liberals believe that if the WTO only focuses on reducing trade barriers and measures such as GDP it can facilitate economic exploitation.  These liberals call for "fair trade" that would place a higher priority on wages and working conditions for those states whose comparative advantage is cheap labor.  Still, even the "fair trade" liberals believe that increasing economic interdependence is a positive development because it produces more global wealth and it reduces the probability of war.  All liberals believe in the market as the dominant economic mechanism to set prices, wages, production goals, etc. 

 

All liberals believe that capitalism (in some form) is the most efficient, productive way to organize economic activity.  All Liberals believe that if North Korea and Cuba would move away from their state socialist systems they would see much better economic conditions for their people in the same fashion that the PRC did as it has moved away from a Communist economy.  There is a disagreement among liberals over two things with respect to capitalism. 

• First, how much should the Government play a role in regulating the market and equalizing the results of market activity? This is the debate between Laissez Faire capitalism (hands off) with little or no government regulation, low taxes and low social services versus "market socialism" with significant government regulation, higher taxes, and higher social services.  You can see this debate in contrasting the US (closer to the Laissez Faire end) and Sweden (closer to the market socialism end).  Note, however, that the differences between Sweden and the US pale between the differences between Sweden and North Korea or Cuba.  Liberals accept a market economy.

• Second, there is a debate about the extent to which capitalism naturally leads to liberal, democracy.  Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Democracy argues that once a state adopts a capitalistic system it will inevitably evolve into a liberal, democracy.  The PRC is still not fully a capitalistic system but it is clearly evolving in that direction.  Certainly the PRC is far from a liberal, democracy but freedom of speech and press are slowly increasing.  Friedman would argue that economic imperatives (free exchange of ideas for new products and unrestricted access to the internet) are necessary to continue to compete as a state evolves from simply copying products from other states to creating their own new products.  Other Liberals, e.g. Paul Samuelson and Thomas Friedman, would argue that it is sometimes possible for a state to be very advanced in it capitalistic economy and not so advanced in its liberal democracy (Singapore).  Analogous to the debate on fair trade v. free trade, these liberals believe that international organizations such as the WTO and the G-8 should broaden their mandate to promote liberal, democracy and not just fair trade.

II. Variants of Liberal Theories: So far we have discussed the things that all liberals have in common with only brief discussion of some internal debates concerning capitalism.  However, liberals disagree on other issues as well.  We will focus on three key differences other than the attitudes on capitalism and free trade:  (1) utility and ethics of military force and conditions for using force; (2) relative importance of key actors in the global system; (3) means of accomplishing goals of promoting liberal, democracy, global capitalism, and human rights.

Liberal Institutionalists:  There are two variants of Liberal Institutionalists: (1) Classical Institutionalists and (2) Neo-Liberal Institutionalists.

•     One of the oldest schools of thought among Liberals were the Classical Institutionalists.  This is the group that Realists sarcastically labelled as "Idealists" to differentiate them from their own real-life objectivity. Classical Institutionalists agreed with the Realists that anarchy was a fundamental problem and largely real but the believed the solution was relatively simple. The goal was to create international organizations and a body of international law that would provide a peaceful mechanism for the resolution of disputes.  Classical Institutionalists thus tend to put a heavy stress on International Law and Writing the Constitutions for New International Organizations.  Ultimately, Classical Institutionalists/Idealists believed that nation-states would disappear to be replaced by an over-arching global government.  However, this would take place in stages.  With respect to military force, until you reached the stage where all nation-states has disappeared, it might be necessary to use military force as a last resort to thwart an aggressor nation-state. This is the notion of "Collective Security" was first ennuciated with the League of Nations.  If a state threatened aggressive action against another state, the first course of action was diplomatic protest.  If that did not work, then economic sanctions could be imposed. Finally, if all else failed, the International Organization would act collectively to use military force to counter the aggressor.  Note that it could never be unilateral action by one or a few states but required the formal authorization by the appropriate organ of that International Organization (e.g. authorization by the UN Security Council).  So Classical Institutionalists did believe that force might be necessary but it would be increasingly a rare occurrence as International Law was strengthened and as nations surrendered more and more of their soverignty to the international organization and as economic interdependence strengthened the power of economic sanctions.

• Neo-Liberal Institutionalists: This is far more dominant in academic circles now than Classical Institutionalism. Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane are prominent writers here.  A key difference is the focus on self-interested rational action to create and strengthen institutions.  Economic necessity will drive states into more and more economic interdependence.  The horrible threat of a nuclear war or even a conventional war with modern weapons will induce states to sign more and more arms control agreements.  The creation of formal institutions and formal rules reduces "transaction costs" and hence makes it easier for states to cooperate and surrender sovereignty. Another difference is the belief that nation-states do not totally need to disappear (though they would still surrender a significant degree of sovereignty overtime).  And the surrender of sovereignty will occur very gradually and only as the states come to see it in their interest to do so.

Cultural Liberals ("Constructivist" Liberals):  In sharp contrast to the liberal institutionalists are what I will call the Cultural Liberals.  For them, the institutionalists place much too much stress on formal international institutions and formal legal agreements.  It is not that these formal institutions and formal rules are not important it is just that they come at the very end of the process and they are more the products of a transformation rather than the instruments of the transformation.  To way to transcend anarchy is not to create international institutions or write new laws it is to more of a cultural, perceptual change. In Wendt's words, "anarchy is what states make of it."  Increasingly, as informal, international norms of cooperation emerge then anarchy is transformed to a more benign phenomenon.  Norms change and as they change the world changes.  Slavery, long accepted, is no longer accepted.  But the laws against slavery were the product of a transformation of cultural attitudes toward slavery.  Dueling was once commonly accepted practice among societal elites. Now it is relegated to gang warfare.  Cultural norms changed.  Also, cultural liberals place much greater stress on political transformations within states.  The way to peace is to utilize indigenous groups to lobby for human rights and democracy in their own countries.  The internet can be a radical agent of change because of the power of disseminating ideas.  Francis Fukuyama is a cultural liberal because he looks to the spread of liberal, democracy and capitalism as people throughout the world become aware (through the internet, travel, the media) about these ideas and see that they meet their basic needs.   Cultural liberals put a lot of stress on non-governmental organizations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Open Society, Doctors without Borders, and trans-national social movements (e.g. women's movement) and local women's groups as the real agents of change.  Not nation-states and not the UN or WTO.

“Power” Liberals (also called “Neo-Cons”)    I believe that the term "neo-conservative" is a misnomer because the conservative of any stripe is a realist.  You go to war for your own national interests you do not go to war for your own national interests you do not go to war to stop genocide or promote human rights.  There is a cynical view that Bush's real interests were realist in nature but he sold them to the American public in liberal terms "stop genocide and promote democracy."  I am going to take the Bush administration's explanation at face value because I believe that there were at least some in the administration (Paul Wolfowitz for example) he actually believed it.  Scott McClelland's recent book argues that many in the Bush administration did believe in promoting democracy in Iraq.  So  I am arguing here that there is another strain of liberals that seek to promote liberal, democracy by military force.  Germany and Japan did not become the liberal democratic states they are today by evolution instead they were totally defeated in military conflict and then the US engaged in a decades long process of occupation and nation-building - including rewriting their respective constitutions. Today Germany and Japan are thriving liberal, democratic capitalistic states.  Woodrow Wilson "make the world safe for democracy" JFK & Reagan are some of first Presidents to articulate the power liberal point of view - but George W. Bush is one most associated with it. On September 17, 2002 - the Bush National Security Council issued a new strategic doctrine to guide US National Security Policy during their administration.  The Doctrine had following components: (1) US should promote Liberal Democracy and Human Rights using realist means.  Heavy focus on importance of use of military force and economic leverage to promote liberal democracy and laissez faire capitalism abroad. (Note:  power liberals do not give equal priority to all parts of world; here learn from realists that it is more important to promote liberal democracy and capitalism in parts of world vital for geo-political (realist) reasons to US interests). (2) Unilateral action – does not have to be authorized by Security council.  United States should “lead” world and impose “hegemonic stability” on world.  US should play role of global policeman. In order to accomplish - US should seek to continue to  build military might and capabilities so that it will not be challenged. (3) Post Sept 11 Specific: No Distinction Between Terrorists & "Host States" (justify attack on Afghanistan - Iraq? if terrorist link) (4) In world with terrorist groups and WMD - can't use deterrence - must strike first.   Bush called in "preemptive" strike.  Perhaps this is true in Afghanistan - NOT in Iraq - this really preventative war (something that Hobbessian Realists have favored for some time).  

Pacifist Liberals.  In sharp contrast to the power liberals are the pacifist liberals.  Not all pacifists are liberals.  But those that seek to promote liberal democracy and human rights are liberals.  Totally oppose the use of military force in any context.  Want to accomplish goals of democracy and human rights through peaceful means. (a) greater focus on NGOs and trans-national social movements as the dominant actors (b) greater scepticism about globalization, WTO and free trade.  Want market socialism and institutions that work to mitigate the negative effects of globalization not laissez-faire capitalism ("unfettered globalism").

 C.Theorists:

Liberal-Institutionalists:

1.      Immanuel Kant  Perpetual Peace

Richard Falk Why International Law Matters

3. Joseph Nye, Soft Power the Means to Success in World Politics

3.   Robert Keohane After Hegemony or Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World

Cultural Liberals:

1.    Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man  
2. Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat

Power Liberals:

Charles Krauthammer, various articles http://www.postwritersgroup.com/krauthammer.htm

Paul Wolfowitz, various articles,  http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wolfowitz/wolfowitz.php

Liberal Pacifists:

1. Gene Sharp (Liberal Pacifist) The Politics of Nonviolent Action

2. Lev Tolstoy (Liberal Pacifist), War and Peace

 

Why does War Occur? 

 

Liberal-Institutionalists:

1. Anarchic world with militaristic nation-states

2. lack of adequate liberal international law and democratic international organizations to mediate disputes

3. Need for "collective security" as authorized by International Organization to deter aggression

 

Cultural-Liberals:

1. Lack of Liberal democracy and attitudes of tolerance

2. Economic nationalism instead of free/fair trade

3. Exaggerating danger of anarchy

 

Power Liberals:

 

1. Aggressive non-democratic states

2. Lack of a liberal democratic hegemon with sufficient power to impose peace unilaterally

 

Pacifist Liberals

 

1. Militaristic hyper-nationalism - including in democratic states

2. Violence begets more violence

3. Military-Industrial Complex with economic motives for war.

 

Concept of Just War:

Jus Ad Bellum:  (Just Cause: Just Reason for Going)

1. Just Cause: First = Last Resort + Valid for Self-Defense (Preemption? Prevention?), Collective Security (manipulation by Great Powers for their own interest rather than collective interest), Human Rights (When?)
2. Just Authority:  UN? NATO? Action of State in Self-Defense?  Congress?
3. Proportionality: Benefit of cause worth the cost (utilitarian calculation).

 

Jus in Bello:

1. Proportionality in Particular Battles/Tactics:
2. Combatant/Non-Combatant Distinction  (Intentional Targeting v. Collateral Damage)  MAD consistent with Just War?  Consequentialists v. Deontologists.
3. Treatment of Prisoners & Property.

 

 

    V.     Critique: Utility & Problems: 

 

 A. Critiques of Democratic Peace Thesis:

1.      Historical critiques e.g. War of 1812

2.      Jack Snyder & Problem of Democratic Transition (Democracy w/o Liberalism).

3.      Normative Ideal of Democracy v. Empirical Reality of Pluralism or Elite Theory

4.      Cynical Manipulation by Hobbessian Realists of Pseudo-Democracy & Patriotism for Realist Power Goals.

5.      Clash of Cultures: Liberal Democracy v. Fundamentalist Religions – e.g. Democracy v. Wahibbi Sunni Islam.   Maybe democracy is ultimately not satisfying – because it does not answer big questions about existence…maybe people need religion to answer ultimate existential questions of meaning.

 

B.Critiques of Laissez Faire Capitalism:

1.      Historical Critiques: Germany and UK in WW I.

2.      Capitalism in tension with Democracy in any country.

3.      Spread between have and have nots undermines liberal democracy and human rights.

4.      Free movement of capital but not labor undermines David Ricardo and Adam Smith

5.      Spread of American corporations and American media can create resentment to all things American/Western including liberal Democracy (as confusion occurs between

 

C.Critiques of Just War:

1.      Machiavellian Realist:  Fight when it is not in your interest to fight; can make war more likely + lead to imperial overstretch OR undercut needed military tactics strategy when you need to fight.

2.      Pacifist:  violence only begets more violence.  Just War Theory is also filled with loopholes and a slippery slope logic.