The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Henry L. Stimson Letures)

John Mearsheimer is one of the clearest thinkers in international relations and foreign policy. He makes a cogent, comprehensive argument for why the effort to spread liberal democracies throughout the world is a losing business that saps resources, has a terrible track record and endangers our liberal democracy at home. He breaks foreign policy strategies into three key categories: realism, nationalism and liberal hegemony. By identifying these categories, he is able to address each one independently and argue convincingly that realism and nationalism always win out over liberal hegemony. There were very few points in the book where I could see Mearsheimer was clearly overlooking a simple truth or counterclaim. This meant that as a reader, counterarguments came slowly and only as a result of considerable thought on my part. That's what I like! and what I think we need as a country: well-considered discourse on these subjects that matter for our national security and ability to flourish as a nation. I bet you will find the same. I highly recommend the book.

Reading through halfway, I find this book on international relations compelling and easily understandable. It compares liberalism to realism and nationalism, and the means to adapt accordingly.

Statesmen craft foreign policy based on political ideology. This book examines nationalism, realism, and liberalism, demonstrating how various combinations of these ideologies shape a state’s external behavior. The only blemish is the author's casual execution. The text bears the hallmarks of a first draft, consisting of repetitive elements that are only loosely connected.

This book was an amazing read for many reasons, three of which I will detail. First, it nicely summarized the competing theories of international relations. It's impossible to know what one is for or against, or how one's views fare against competing theories, if he doesn't know the content and underlying assumptions of the major theories. I learned a lot about the competing theories of international relations from this book. Second, Mr. Mearsheimer made a strong case for his position: namely, that liberal internationalism has failed (and is bound to fail) and that realism provides a better template for international relations that will have better results. Third, Mr. Mearsheimer's writing is clean, clear, and crisp. Reading this tome was not only educational, but enjoyable. While I did not agree with everything in the book (I agreed with much of it), I walked away much more educated on international relations and, in particular, what a "realist" approach looks like. This book will be a starting point on the subject and an important work for years to come. If I could give it 6 stars, I would!

Author perfectly describes tension between liberalism and nationalism. After the overview elaborates on falures of libaralism in intenrational politics and why it must be replaced by realism. Eventhough, the author presents american perspective and does not revere to problem of the europeization, which was succesful in many ways, his book is great pick for anybody.

I really enjoyed the approach and development of the three basic isms of the book: liberalism, nationalism and realism. My eyes were opened to new horizons. Mearsheimer deals with each ism and how the three interplay and clash in national and international politics, how both liberalism and nationalism thrive in national politics but fail in international political relationships, which is where realism becomes the only successful approach to the relationships between nation states, mainly because of the cultural differences of the nations. Darnell Clevenger, author of The Shootings at Echo Creek High

The Party is over for the Neocons and "Neo- Liberals? It might be America has been using it's vast power to impose social engineering upon the world. The new reality is a lot of countries are getting tired of it. Yes the world is getting tired of the liberals backed by the powerful Military industrial complex want the world to be as they want it to be. Thus, we have Trump Brexit ect. ect. The author contends it is just reality. Neoliberalism has pushed to far. China, Russia and other have had enough. People no longer will accept it. They can't stand b.eing pushed around much longer. Trump getting out of wars and perhaps even NATO is just a kind of a new reality

If you are a practitioner of public policy and diplomacy, this book is worth reading. Some may find the pages provocative or controversial, but Mearsheimer provides convincing and thought-provoking narrative on why foreign policy based on progressive ideals face significant challenges, particularly when working with or against illiberal states. Whether you agree or disagree with his premise, I recommend taking time to study this book to understand this perspective and help propel foreign policy moving forward. Mearsheimer makes clear that we in the U.S. can be our own worst enemy because of our idealism and desire to improve the human condition through ideals centered on individual rights. This is deeply ingrained in our psyche and has led to our relative success as a nation-state. It seems natural then, that we would want to export our model of governance to others so they may share in our prosperity and, to simplify, make the World a better place for all of us. This belief has driven the U.S. to pursue policies from a liberal hegemonic standpoint that has led, unfortunately, to more involvement of the U.S. in military conflict. While the U.S. is not necessarily alone in this foreign policy perspective, shared to some degree with fellow Western liberal democracies, our history with individual rights differs from some of our European partners who went through a relatively long imperialist phase that colors their traditions and beliefs to some extent. Mearsheimer's early chapters cover this somewhat to set the stage for his views on exporting liberal ideals. With the rise of China as a Great Power competitor, Mearsheimer believes we should reassess and recalibrate our approach to avoid the pitfalls of trying to force liberalist ideals on nationalist and realist schools of thought that are likelier to have larger influence on human behavior in most countries. Perhaps this is a sensible thing to do as the competition for influence increases. Mearsheimer warns, however, that should the U.S. find itself as a lone superpower again in the future, liberal hegemony is bound to failure and cautions a return to this strategy.

It's a fantastic book: theoretically informed, lucidly written with an in-depth analysis.

eccellente

Tentative désespérée de gauche de sauver la politique américaine de qualificatif d'inspiration marxiste.Grande clarté d'exposition, remarquable d'intelligence malgré les limites mentionnéeds

In this book John Mearsheimer states: "Liberal democracy is the best political order. It is not perfect, but it beats the competition by a long shot. Yet in the realm of international politics, liberalism is a source of endless trouble." Then he explores why this trouble has come up again and again to the chagrin of the political elites of liberal democracies. What is liberalism? A political attitude that gives individual rights of freedom a high rank, e.g. the right to property, free speech, and universal human rights that should apply everywhere in the world. Mearsheimer distinguishes two variants: Modus Vivendi Liberalism, which seeks to limit state intervention to a minimum, and Progressive Liberalism, which employs state interventions, e.g. to establish equal opportunities (social engineering). In most liberal democratic states, progressive liberalism has won. However two other "isms" can get in the way of liberalism: nationalism and political realism. Humans are naturally social beings, adapted to life in groups that may compete with other groups. Therefore, nationalism fits human nature better than individualism which just starts from the individual. Nation-states emerged even before the French Revolution with a political participation of the people through the first proto-democratic institutions. Currently, the political landscape of the world consists of nation-states that assert their sovereignty. Realpolitik is what happens between nation-states without considering ideological or moral considerations. It's the view of politics solely from the power perspective: What means does a potential opponent have, what intentions to use them, which alliances are useful, which are not? A nation is defined by its characteristic culture and its its glorified history - the national myth. Normally, it possesses a territory and a state, and its laws apply only within the boundaries of its territory. Liberalism depends on the nation-state as infrastructure but simultaneously stands in an uneasy tension with the idea of the nation, because liberal principles, especially human rights, should apply equally to all people in the world in all states (hard-core liberals would like to dissolve the borders of nation-states altogether). This claim influences international politics of powers with a liberal constitution, especially a great power like the USA. But it's not easy to enforce in a world of nation-states where there's no 911 to call when a nation behaves badly. Of course, there's the UN, but international organizations of this type can't enforce anything against the will of powerful nation-states. An anarchic game prevails between nations. Only about half of the world's nation-states have at least a rudimentary liberal democratic constitution. Large states like Russia and China don't, and therefore liberal states often encounter autocratic states in politics. Then the rules of realpolitik apply. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1989. Liberal democracy, exemplarily realized in the USA, had won. The hope was that soon all states of the world would adopt this successful model, and since liberal democracies don't start wars, peace would follow: the end of history, as Francis Fukuyama's much-quoted article from the 90s was titled. Unfortunately, 35 years later, it doesn't look that way. America has fought three wars during this time (two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan) and significantly intervened in four countries (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran), always with the hope of establishing a liberal democratic order. This hope was disappointed - America's crusade to spread its model of government "went badly awry". John Mearsheimer's attempt at explaining this failure is meticulously crafted in a series of arguments taking care to give conventional wisdom among political theorists their place before he states his own view. His language is crisp and clear, as if to follow Schopenhauer's advice: Use ordinary words to say unusual things. It was a joy to read this inherently consistent account which ends with well thought out recommendations.

I am truly very satisfied with everything I have learned from this author. I highly recommend him