The majority believe that most presidents are realists. However, sometimes the line between realism and idealism is blurred. For some presidents, we cannot exactly tell whether they fall into the category of realists or idealists.
A typical idealist president in American history should be President Woodrow Wilson. From his Fourteen Points, we can get a clear idea about his understanding of world politics. However, what was irony was that the US refused to join the League of Nations, and it finally turned out to be a failure, and the second world war followed.
To a large extent, world politics is mostly operated, or we can put it as controlled, by realist politicians. They may act less aggressive than they actually are. They may promote mutual benefit and cooperation, while at the same time they launch wars against each other for their own national interests.
Why? Why politicians would do things that are opposite to what they say? As far as I am concerned, they are trying to build up a good image in the public, to wipe up support for their actions. In other words, they want to gain legitimacy.
So, I doubt whether it necessary to draw a clear line between realism and idealism.
Comments (1)
Just because the league of nations was not ratified does not mean that President Wilson was less of an Idealist. All treaties in the United States must be ratified (approved) by the U.S. Senate. This is where the League of Nations failed, Wilson was never able to fully convince the U.S. Senate to ratify the League of Nations. Simply because the United States did not join the League of Nations does not mean that Wilson was less of an Idealist. And even still I do not think that any president can fully adhere to either realism or idealism and because they are academic theories and as such it may be impossible to fully conform to all their points in practice.
Posted by Mitch | July 26, 2007 6:55 PM
Posted on July 26, 2007 18:55