The Liberal Perspective - Instructional Web Server

IMPORTANT NOTE AND DISCLAIMER. My lecture notes are posted
strictly as a convenience to students. Be advised, moreover, that my notes are
not a substitute for the regular class sessions, but a supplement. As notes,
moreover, the writing is extremely “informal” and, in places, (intentionally)
ungrammatical. For the most part, too, I do not provide citations of material,
including direct quotes. Because of these limitations, DO NOT USE THESE
NOTES AS A QUOTABLE “SOURCE” FOR YOUR RESEARCH.

- Professor Lim

The Liberal Perspective

• note on terminology: liberalism, idealism, cosmopolitanism all have the same
intellectual origins …

• Western society—and increasingly global society—is founded upon liberal principles

• (political) liberalism, to put it in the simplest terms, is respect for and recognition of
individual rights …or as one scholar puts it, “It is a philosophy based on a belief in
the ultimate value of individual liberty and the possibility of human progress.
Liberalism speaks the language of rationality, moral autonomy, human rights,
democracy, opportunity, and choice, and is founded upon a commitment to principles
of liberty and equality, justified in the name of individuality and rationality.
Politically this translates into support for limited government and political pluralism”

• important point: we all take these idea for granted today, but if we go back in history
(and if we look at many societies right now), we can see that this wasn’t always the
case

• the easiest contrast is with feudal times: during feudalism, individuals did not have
rights per se; all were subject to the rights of the sovereign or King; in modern liberal
democracies, by contrast, sovereignty lies in the individual, not in the state as such

• additional point: feudalism was an extraordinarily powerful (belief) system, the
remnants of which are still in evidence today in the West and other parts of the world;
yet, feudalism—and all it entailed—is essentially dead today (consider how royal
families have virtually no direct political or economic influence anywhere …

• the death of feudalism, it is important to note, reflects two of the principle elements
of liberalism: (1) the possibility of human progress; and (2) the fact that ideas
matter—or have real power—in human society (discuss this point)

• another assumption of liberalism that needs to be emphasized from the beginning:
those societies and states that embrace liberalism are qualitatively different states that
do not … what this might mean with regard to questions of foreign policy?

• simple answer: liberal states are more peaceful and more cooperative than illiberal
states …in this regard, a world composed exclusively of liberal states will be a
more peaceful, cooperative place …it is possible to imagine that a liberal world
will be a world with war

• to put it in slightly technical terms: liberal theory treats the domestic
circumstances of states as crucial variables in explaining their international
behavior … in other words, liberals assume—unlike Realists—that what goes on
inside states has a fundamental impact on how they behave internationally …

• basic principles of liberalism

1. belief in rationality, defined in (a) instrumental terms (the ability to articulate and
pursue one’s ‘interests’ [same as realism]; and (b) the ability to understand moral
principles and live according to the rule of law

2. liberals value individual liberty above all else (e.g., “Give me liberty or give me
death”) … again, note how different this is from realism

3. liberalism has an optimistic or progressive view of human nature; this does not
mean, however that liberal necessarily view human nature as essential good (more
accurate to say: “potentially good”) …

4. liberals emphasize the possibilities for human agency …again, quite different
from realist, especially neo-realist, assumption

5. liberals do not view the division between the domestic and international as
fundamental and/or eternal
a. division may well exist, but various economic, social, political, and
technological processes are eroding the lines between the two;
b. global embrace of liberal beliefs and practices transcends national
boundaries, which creates potential for universal community of
humankind

• as I noted, the general assumption about rationality is same as realism, but there is a
key difference: realists believe that the environment created by anarchic international
system makes it rational for states (as rational decision-makers) to constantly prepare
for and sometime engage in war. By contrast, liberals believe that, in a situations
where people have the capacity to make decisions in a democratic manner, it is
irrational to engage in war and conflict; conversely, liberals believe that war is
rational only to a small segment of any society – the elite

• note: liberals don’t disagree with realists completely

• but, to understand/make sense of the difference between two views, it is critical to
think about the deeper assumptions each has about the environment in which
rational decisions are made

• here’s the key difference: in assumption about the importance of individual liberty,
liberals are saying this: the aims of the state, as do the aims of the individual, go
beyond security to the protection and promotion of individual rights

• you should recognize that this is critical claim, since it challenges an essential part
of realist argument (about the fundamental importance of national survival) …

• question: at the domestic level at least, is it true that the protection and promotion
of individual rights given the highest priority in liberal democracies?

• point to consider: historically, not really true …think how individual rights in
Western democracies have historically been limited to certain groups …until very
recently, in fact, non-whites, the poor, and women were systematically excluded
…this raises two important questions …

• first, how could this practice be justified?

• second, why did the practices of exclusion eventually break down in most
countries?

• first question: the only way to legitimize practice of “limited liberalism” was to
create parallel ideologies that could justify the contradiction of liberal states doing
illiberal things (both at home and abroad) …in this regard, we can see racism and
sexism as ideologies designed to overcome this contradiction …

• creation of parallel ideologies is actually quite telling … for if the ideals of
liberalism weren’t so fundamental, there would be no need to create
justifications when these ideas were not being upheld

• in this regard, one might say that the question of national security is simply
another justification for limited liberalism …however, like other justifications,
it too may eventually be exposed for what it is …

• second question (why did the practices of exclusion eventually break down in
most countries?): to make a very long story short, we can say that ideological
justifications simply became too hard to sustain over time …the contradictions
too apparent … moreover, economic and political changes, gave hitherto excluded
groups opportunities to challenge and question contradictions …

• liberals look at this and say: if the contradiction of limited liberalism could not
ultimately survive at the domestic level, it cannot ultimately survive at the
international level …it may be a very slow process, but it is a process that will
eventually come to fruition, and when it does, the world of international politics
will change …

• we can already see signs of this …consider emergence of global discourse on
human rights and democracy … the idea that all peoples—regardless of
nationality or ethnicity—are entitled to the same basic rights (i.e., human
rights)…this has become a powerful discourse, which some argue, is changing the
nature of international relations

Variants of Liberalism

• important to understand that liberalism is a very broad school –includes a number of
variations that, while similar in origin, are very different when it comes to policy
implications …with this in mind, let’s just look briefly at two of the major variants:
Liberal internationalism and neo-idealism

• Neo-Liberal Internationalism ... in some respects, this perspective has emerged as
the biggest challenge to Realism in the post-cold war era …

• based on the assumptions that representative, or liberal or democratic, governments
are less likely to go to war …

• basic idea of neo-liberal internationalism is reflected in the “democratic peace thesis”

• essentially argues that liberal states have created a separate peace (among themselves)

• note that this thesis raises more question than it answers, since its clear that liberal
states will still engage in war when their interests are threatened; also, from historical
perspective, does not explain why liberal states were the main aggressors (period of
imperialism)

• still it is a thesis with a great deal of empirical support

• one internationalist whose work needs to be emphasized is Francis Fukuyama

• F’s argument is important not so much for the originality of his ideas, but for the
political implications of his perspective …in essence, F. has made the case not only
for liberal ideas, but for the superiority of American values and practices …this, in
turn, has helped lay the basis for exporting liberalism, if necessary, by force

• much of what American leaders do today, in fact, is premised on the belief that
American values and practices not only should be accepted by the rest of the world,
but must be accepted

• the forced acceptance of American values and practices is pursued in a number of
ways, including military force …but less obvious methods are also used, one of the
most important of which is conditionality

• what is conditionality? …based on the developing world’s need for financial capital:
in return for a loan from the IMF or other IFIs, recipient country must be willing to
enact significant economic and political reforms domestically … these reforms are
ostensibly designed to create strong domestic environment, but are also primarily
geared toward turning developing countries into liberal economies …

• another form of policy: economic sanctions, withholding of economic aid, access to
markets, etc. …

• it’s for this reason that many scholars and political activists have been highly critical
of liberalism … many see it as little more than American neo-imperialism …contrast
this to the position of neo-idealists

• Neo-Idealism

• neo-idealist continue to share the basic liberal commitment to the idea of democracy
and individual rights, but they disagree with liberal internationalists on the best way
to create more democratic world …

• we can see these differences most clearly in respective views on globalization:
internationalists generally see globalization as a good thing and support efforts by the
US and West to push globalization forward …yet many neo-idealists see a Western-
dominated globalization as the real danger

• more generally, they understand globalization as a very sharp two-edged process:
while it may bring certain benefits, it can also bring clear dangers, especially to long-
standing communities

• for this reason, neo-idealists tend to have a much more comprehensive approach to
democratization …

• they argue, for example, that lasting peace can only occur if democratic reforms takes
place at all levels of domestic, international and global society: thus, not enough for
states to democratize, but international institutions must also be democraticized ...
IMF, UN and World Bank

• also believe that democratization efforts not be limited to states … global social
movements must be brought into the picture (since GSMs represent the views of
citizens across borders)

• in this sense, no justifiable reason to limit IR to nation-states: people must be allowed
to participate in the global decision making process, for states, no matter how
democratic, can easily pursue goals at variance with the interests of its citizens

• in short, neo-idealist advocate creation of global civil society ...

• another critical difference: neo-idealists do not agree with liberal internationalists that
global capitalism is a force for good—that market forces are the ultimate

manifestation of freedom and democracy …thus neo-idealists would also argue that
markets themselves must be democratizied

• in sum, neo-idealists recognize that the world is an extremely unequal place: some
countries are tremendously wealthy, while others barely survive; tremendous
disparities also exist within countries … unless these disparities are resolved,
democracy will never have a firm foundation …unlike marxists, however, neo-
idealists operate on the premise that markets can be democratized

• Mandelbaum Reading

• So where does Mandelbaum’s article fit into all of this?

• Answer: probably somewhere in between …

• M. clearly subscribes to liberal beliefs … as he puts it, “Peace, democracy, and free
markets are the ideas that conquered the world”; at the same time, he does not believe
that any one country—including the United States—has the power to do much to
further these ideas in a concrete manner

• thus, the title of his essay, “The Inadequacy of American Power”

• he bases his argument not just on the logic that using force to impose peace,
democracy, and free markets is unworkable, but also on the idea that, in the post Cold
War era, the United States does not have the political will do so

• discussion of public goods …definition: something that benefits everyone regardless
of whether they contribute to the cost of producing it …e.g., clean air and water,
national defense, good roads, etc.

• domestically: problem is resolved through the state’s ability to coerce contributions

• internationally: there’s no counterpart to the federal government/state, which means
that the creation of international public goods (like peace in Europe and Asia, nuclear
nonproliferation, access to Persian Gulf oil) is shaky

• the only way around this is when there is a highly uneven distribution of power and
wealth and when there is a clear threat to the established order