Suchergebnisse

A full understanding of political realism is needed, Kenneth Thompson writes in the preface of his recent study, "if American statesmen and scholars are to advance public understanding and awareness of the realities of international life and close the gap between what leaders feel and do and what the people imagine they do. Therefore the central aim I have had in mind is a careful explication, first, of the origins of political realism as an approach to American foreign policy, and, secondly, of its implications for the major unsolved problems of America's relations with the rest of the world" (p. vii).

Almostevery period of crisis and decision in American history has produced writers on political affairs who have championed a "realistic" approach to the study of human and social problems. Convinced that successful political action must proceed from man "as he is," such writers have been persistently and profoundly suspicious of theories which, they believe, are based either upon faulty assessments of the actual nature of the individual or upon visionary estimates of his potentialities. It is the opinion of these analysts that the nature of man is irrevocably fixed in its partially depraved and partially irrational career—a constant, as it were, among the myriad imponderables entering into the social equation. Thus it has long been a significant part of their method to attempt to discover in the experience of the past a coherent theory of limits applicable to contemporary political society. Eager to profit from the experience of other generations with the perennial problems of government and politics, they have generally displayed little tolerance toward those who would flaunt rationally grounded political experiment in the face of the practical lessons of history. Such combination of pessimistic analysis and resort to the experience of the past—Political Realism —has played a crucial role in the history of political thought in America.

The ethical-pol'al problem of the nat'l interest is discussed through the writings of Niebuhr, Morgenthau & Kennan. Niebuhr stresses the dangers of extremes of attention to nat'l self-interest, but sees its inevitability in any policy, whereas Morgenthau & Kennan deny the application of any criteria for directing or judging policy other than those derived from state necessity. They hold that the nat'l interest is a more reliable guide to intelligent policy than principle, but their views concerning principle diverge: Niebuhr's response to them is in the form of complex dialectic where some principles correct the excesses of others. To him morals & politics, individual ethics & group ethics can be found in a wholeness & unity; an idealism beyond self-interest & a realism that uncovers pretence. IPSA.