Garland,
You're right in that the labels are divisive and that they don't mean what they used to. However, if it makes you feel any better, "realist" and "idealist" are just terms used in foreign affairs / international relations to describe an ideology. They don't refer to any real definition of the words themelves, but try to describe the differences in the philosophies of each "party." Realists tend to see the world as a place of compromise and they view international relations through a lens of how to ensure a nation's success by accumulating and applying political power. Idealists tend to look at the world of international relations through a lens of ideals, morals, and principles - in the purest sense, placing then above pragmatism. Try to think of the terms more as "industry jargon" than anything else.
Aseepish -
Nicely done. Regarding Kissinger, what's your opinion on his aproach (and overall viewpoint) that stabilization of power was essential? It certainly didn't bring any peace in his time, and it may have created a lot of the enemies we're fighting now. However, I still believe that concessions need to be made, even in the name of temporary alliances from time to time. I've always thought Kissinger was soemthing of an enigma in that he built his philosophies around (basically) what Truman out out there, but the way he promoted those policies made them stick realy up until this current administration. Was he right? Does "Kissinger doctrine" apply today as it did back then? What do you think?
|