I think it is wonderful that someone as prominent as Steve Walt is now blogging at FP.com. However, I am not sure his description of realism is quite correct.

His description of "realism" is really pragmatism. See the world as it is and make case by case judgments on the basis of the best available evidence.

Realism, on the other hand, is an academic theory that argues international politics are entirely driven by material power. Accepting realism means not just recognizing that democracy promotion doesn't always work, but believing that domestic politics is *irrelevant* to the making of foreign policy. Accepting realism means ignoring the role that culture on the one hand and international institutions on the other play in international politics. It does not actually allow you to make moral judgments about countries, since the policies of countries are, according to realism, not based on their leaders or form of government, but solely on the basis of their material position in the international system. Is this really better than what we had with the Bush administration?

Pragmatism would be a welcome departure from the ideology of the last 8 years. But is the ideology of realism, which is *not* pragmatism, really a better substitute?

Perhaps Professor Walt will take some time to explain why realist thinkers are such lousy predictors of current events.

As he himself wrote in 1998 for Foreign Policy: “The end of the Cold War played an important role in legitimating constructivist theories because realism and liberalism both failed to anticipate this event and had some trouble explaining it.”

This singular blog will make me purchase an FP subscription.

I was throwing up at the thought of Drezner writing for this esteemed publication and then I happened to glance at the other blogs. Thank god I did.

Walt and Lynch were inspired picks. Give the gal/guy behind it a raise.

From Commentary magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
Friday, January 9, 2009

Stephen Walt’s (Selectively) Realist Perspective

Stephen M. Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby, opened his new blog on Foreign Policy’s website promising to bring a realist perspective to the blogosphere. In his first post, published earlier this week, he defines the realist perspective as follows:

"Realists believe that foreign policy should deal with the world as it really is, instead of being based on wishful thinking or ideological pipedreams (see under “Clinton administration”). Realists know that international politics can be a brutal business and states cannot afford to be too trusting, but we also know that states get into serious trouble by exaggerating threats or engaging in foolish foreign adventures (see under “Bush Doctrine”). Realists respect the power of nationalism and understand that other societies will resist outside interference and defend their own interests vigorously."

Well, not surprisingly, there’s one country that Walt systematically excludes from the realist perspective–i.e., one state that isn’t allowed to “deal with the world as it really is.” Check out Walt’s latest “thought experiment” on the war in Gaza:

"…what if Hamas was hiding out among the civilian population of Tel Aviv, and attacking Israel from within? Would the IDF be using massive force to eradicate them? Unless you think that Palestinian and Israeli civilian lives are not equal, what justifies the current policy?"

"Israel is hardly unique in placing a higher value on its own citizens’ lives than it places on the lives of others, and we should not forget that U.S. forces have caused plenty of civilian casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” But that doesn’t make it right, and there are good reasons to question whether it will even be effective in this instance."

So, in other words, Israel shouldn’t operate in reality — rather, it should consider the morality of its actions against a series of fantastical hypothetical scenarios. Naturally, all of Walt’s proposed scenarios end with the same conclusion: Israel acts immorally — both in reality and in the fictitious dimension that Walt has constructed for it. Indeed, Walt has yet to find a single instance in which Israel is justified — or merely acting in its self-interest — in protecting its citizens against terrorist groups through force.

The most interesting aspect of Walt’s work, however, is that he actually believes that these “thought experiments” are expressions of his own objectivity. In turn, Walt is a truly unique realist — one who operates within his own alternative universe.

--Eric Trager

--posted on Friday, January 9th, 2009 at 4:05 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/trager/49892

Professor Walt,

thank you for your interesting insights into world politics.

Can you one day put down your (realist) thoughts with respect to "New World order"- world government perspectives? We have read on this question from A. Wendt. It would be very interesting to have a realist view on the subject.

What do you think about the latest piece of H. Kissinger where he writes that:
"In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.".

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/12/opinion/edkissinger.php?page=1

Hello Dr. Walt and thanks for the opportunity. In your opinion, which international relations theory best predicted the end of the cold war, if any? Many thanks, Anson Bentley, final year student, politics and international relations in the UK