compare and contrast realism and liberalism essay

Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper

Overview of realism and liberalism.

Liberalism and realism are among the theories that are commonly used in political science in explaining the relations between players in the international political scene. The assumptions of the two theories contradict each other.

While realism is taken to portray pessimism in the relations between states in the international system, liberalism depicts optimism and positivism in as far as the relations and goals of states in the international system are concerned. Realism depicts competition in the relations between states.

According to the proponents of realism, every action in the relation between states is guided by the urge to pursue and promote the interests of a given nation state. Nation states act to safeguard their interest, which implies that the action of any state is geared towards safeguarding the interest of that state.

They care less about the interests of other nation states. On the other hand, liberalism depicts a change in the international scene that aims to enhance interaction between nation states in various aspects of development. Liberalism depicts optimism in the domestic and international affairs.

Liberalism as a philosophy in political economics focuses on the change in policies and legislation in order to promote the development of nation states. Liberalism concerns the search for a means of embracing freedom and openness in the participation of nations in political, social and economic affairs.

Liberalism Vs Realism and the Concept of Power

There exist a substantial number of theories that seek to explore the concept of power in domestic and international relations. Power is one of the key concepts that dictate the relation between states on the international system.

Liberalism and realism are two key theories that depict two pictures that coexist, yet they are different in theory. Realism and liberalism differ in the manner in which they depict power in the relation between actors on the domestic and international scene.

One critical thing about realism and liberalism is that they confide and believe in the need for power by actors Lukes (2005). However, there is a difference in the manner in which the two theories expresses the channels of pursuing power by the actors.

Realism and the comprehension of power

According to Wechsler (2010), realism is a theory that is two dimensional. The theory was advanced in the mid of the 20 th century by Hans Morgenthau. The development period of this theory is critical to understanding the dimension of the theory in explaining the concept of power. The theory was developed at a time when the world was witnessing a vacuum in the balance of power, which was created by the Second World War.

Realism can be comprehended from the 19 th century European politics where power was one of the main issues that brought about conflict between European nations. The 19 th century Europe was characterized by numerous wars and territorial conquests.

These developments entered the 20 th century and developed through the mid of the 20 th century. The balance of power was the key center of friction between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war. The current political developments in international relations, therefore, cannot be separated from the concept of power (Lukes, 2005).

Realism, which is confounded on the antecedents of power by the states, is quite pessimistic when it comes to the issue of power modalities by states. This is backed by the contemporary developments in the international political economy, where each actor uses various tools to consolidate power. Realism believes that power is strongly founded in military dominance of a given state over other states.

The acquisition, exercise and consolidation of military power is the main goal of states, thus most of the actions in relations between states justify the search for power and the need to increase power of states.

According to realism, the recent wars that have been waged by the United States on other states, for example the US war on Iraq and the US war in Afghanistan are forms of actions that portray power through military dominance (Lukes, 2005).

The struggle for power and subsequently war are brought about by the search for power, which is the core dilemma of realism. There are a number of developments that have emerged in international politics, which seem to draw away the linear view about the interest of states. Global politics can no longer be solely explained by basing on a single attribute of power as opined by the proponents of realism (Williams, 2006).

Realistic schools of thought that seek to broaden the attributes of power in international politics include neo-realism, which tries to depict the international system as an interactive system where power is not solely based on military dominance as opined by the realism school of thinkers.

However, the status of anarchy as opined by realists cannot be completely wished away in as far as sovereignty continues to be one of the main pillars that define a state. It is argued that a substantial number of realists have already ascended to the assumption that the status of anarchy is a factor that cannot be ignored in the relations between states (Jackson & Sørensen, 2007).

Liberalism and the comprehension of power

On the other hand, liberalists approach the concept of power from an optimistic point of view. They explain power in terms of the diverse activities that takes place in the interaction among states. Unlike the scope with which power is comprehended by realists, liberalism expands the scale of comprehension of power.

According to the liberalists, power includes other aspects like trade, cultural interaction and cooperate advancements, among numerous other interactions. States obtain power through other means rather than military dominance. Liberalism holds the assumption that power is a broader concept, thus it cannot be based on limited focus as exhibited by realists (Jackson & Sørensen, 2007).

According to liberalism, the power is embedded in what is referred to as the loci of power. This implies that power is gained from different sources and not just only military action. Liberalism embraces openness in the relations between states, which gives states a chance to prosper in the social and economic realms. Nation states today compete in other fields apart from military power.

This is spearheaded by the efforts of governments and international bodies, which see the creation of a favorable environment for the advancement of economic and social interaction. There is an increase in social and economic cooperation between states today. This cooperation opens most states to advancement in the social and economic realms, thereby implying power for states (Jackson & Sørensen, 2007).

A substantial number of countries in the world today have gained power through the pursuance of economic goals. Such countries are said to have taken advantage of the open international markets to advance trade. Examples of such countries are found in the South East Asian region. The basis of the power of these countries is the ability to advance in trade and economics.

It can, therefore, be said that there is an agreement on the issue of the exercise of power between the realism and liberalism. However, the difference comes out in the manner in which each theory expresses the pursuance of power of nation states (D’Anieri, 2012).

Liberalism Vs Realism and the International System

The international system is best understood through the exploration of the systems theory. According to this theory, the international system is comprised of actors; states. The interaction between states is controlled by the interests of states.

Both realists and liberalists present their arguments concerning the nature of the relations that take place in the international systems. Such actions are fostered by the interests of states and the approach that is taken by each state when relating to other states in the international system.

Realism and the comprehension of the international system

Realism embraces anarchism in as far as the definition of the international system is concerned. The main actors in the international system are states. Realists believe that the states are independent actors, which act to protect their interests through the application of rationality. As they interact, each state seeks to attain a survival position.

This justifies the question of interest in the relations between states in the international system (Waltz, 2000). The role of other players is drawn away by realists. However, the contemporary theoretical development depicts the advancement of the complex systems theory, which appreciates the existence of other actors in the international system.

While other players are drawn into the international system, they do not depict a significant change in the comprehension of the international system by realists. Realists believe that the other actors in the international system, in as much as they claim to be independent, act to safeguard and promote the interests of states in the international system.

The development of other actors like the international bodies is done by states. States are guided by interests when fostering the establishment of international organizations. An example is the United Nations, which is often seen by a substantial number of anti-western states as a tool for promoting the interests of the United States and other western allies (Harrison, 2013).

Liberalism and the comprehension of the international system

When it comes to the concept of the international system, liberalism seems to differ with realism in terms of what is seen to be the actors in the international system. According to liberalism, the international system is comprised of a large number of actors, thus nation states are just actors in the international system (Harrison, 2013).

Liberalism attempts to bring out the functional differentiation of the actors in the international system. Value is given to each actor in the international system. This differs with realism, which attributes the functions of the non-state actors to the influence that is drawn from the states. One thing that can be noted in the contemporary international system is that the non-state actors are quite critical in the international system (Sørensen, 2006).

Examples are the World Organization, which plays a critical role in liberating the global trading environment. The role of a body like the United Nations Organization can no longer be overemphasized (Harrison, 2013).

However, the issue of power and control in the international system is the main undoing factor in the advancement of liberalism arguments. The question that is often asked concerns the level at which the international actors can be detached from the states.

It is evident that power and control of most of the non-state actors is controlled by states. For instance, approximately one-third of the total UN’s budget is financed by the United States. This implies the influence of the US on the organization (Ekeli, 2012).

D’Anieri, P. J. (2012). International politics: Power and purpose in global affairs . Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Ekeli, K. S. (2012). Liberalism and permissible suppression of illiberal ideas. Inquiry, 55 (2), 71-193.

Harrison, E. (2013). Post-Cold War international system . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jackson, R. H., & Sørensen, G. (2007). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches . Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Lukes, S. (2005). Power and the battle for hearts and Minds. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 33 (3), 477-493.

Sørensen, G. (2006). Liberalism of restraint and liberalism of imposition: Liberal values and world order in the new millennium.” International Relations, 20 (3), 251-272.

Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25 (1), 5-41.

Wechsler, W. A. (2010). Clausewitz in space rethinking realism in the 21st century . McGill University (Canada). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 507. Web.

Williams, M. C. (2006). The realist tradition and the limits of international relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 10). Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper. https://ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-between-theories-realism-vs-liberalism/

"Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper." IvyPanda , 10 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-between-theories-realism-vs-liberalism/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper'. 10 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-between-theories-realism-vs-liberalism/.

1. IvyPanda . "Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-between-theories-realism-vs-liberalism/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Comparison Between Theories: Realism vs. Liberalism Research Paper." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-between-theories-realism-vs-liberalism/.

• Realism versus other Theories of International Relations
• Liberalism: History, Ideologies, Justification
• International Relation Theories
• Modern Middle East: Arab Uprising
• Neorealism: Kenneth Waltz ‘Theory of International Politics’
• Critical Assess Trade Relations between the US and EU
• Current International Issues Between China and U.S
• The Impact of U.S. Trade Embargo on Cuba Tourism

Liberalism vs. Realism

What's the difference.

Liberalism and Realism are two prominent schools of thought in international relations that offer contrasting perspectives on how states should interact with one another. Liberalism emphasizes the importance of international institutions, cooperation, and diplomacy in promoting peace and stability. Realism, on the other hand, focuses on the inherent competition and conflict between states, prioritizing national interests and power dynamics. While Liberalism advocates for collective security and multilateralism, Realism argues for a more self-interested and power-based approach to foreign policy. Ultimately, the debate between Liberalism and Realism highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of international relations.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Liberalism and Realism are two prominent schools of thought in international relations theory. While they both seek to explain and predict the behavior of states in the international system, they have distinct differences in their assumptions, values, and approaches. In this article, we will compare the attributes of Liberalism and Realism to better understand their key differences and similarities.

Core Assumptions

Realism is based on the assumption that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or maintain order. States are seen as the primary actors in the international arena, and their behavior is driven by the pursuit of power and security. In contrast, Liberalism assumes that cooperation and interdependence are possible in the international system. Liberals believe that states can work together to achieve common goals and that international institutions can help facilitate cooperation.

Values and Goals

Realism places a strong emphasis on state sovereignty and national interest. Realists believe that states should prioritize their own security and survival above all else, even if it means competing with other states for power and resources. In contrast, Liberalism values cooperation, human rights, and international law. Liberals believe that states should work together to promote peace, democracy, and economic development on a global scale.

Approaches to Conflict

Realists view conflict as an inherent feature of the international system, driven by the competition for power and resources among states. Realists believe that states should be prepared to use force to protect their interests and ensure their survival. In contrast, Liberals believe that conflict can be managed and resolved through diplomacy, negotiation, and international institutions. Liberals advocate for peaceful conflict resolution and the use of soft power to influence other states.

View on International Institutions

Realists are generally skeptical of international institutions, viewing them as ineffective or biased towards powerful states. Realists believe that states should rely on their own capabilities and alliances to ensure their security and advance their interests. In contrast, Liberals see international institutions as valuable tools for promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts. Liberals believe that institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization can help create a more stable and prosperous world.

Role of Morality

Realists tend to downplay the role of morality in international relations, arguing that states should prioritize their own interests and survival above all else. Realists believe that the pursuit of power is a natural and necessary aspect of state behavior. In contrast, Liberals believe that morality should play a central role in international relations. Liberals argue that states have a responsibility to uphold human rights, promote democracy, and protect the environment in their interactions with other states.

In conclusion, Liberalism and Realism offer distinct perspectives on the nature of the international system and the behavior of states within it. While Realism emphasizes power, competition, and self-interest, Liberalism focuses on cooperation, morality, and international institutions. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and scholars continue to debate the merits of each. By understanding the key attributes of Liberalism and Realism, we can gain insight into the complexities of international relations and the challenges of promoting peace and security in a rapidly changing world.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• How It Works
• Affiliate program

Compare and Contrast of Realism and Liberalism

Related essays.

• Ways to Help Children Succeed in School
• The Economic Impacts of Marine Litter
• Psychology, Science or Pseudoscience
• Should Teachers Be Allowed to Carry Firearms in Schools?
• Target Canada Case Discussion Brief

if you have ordered more than 30 pages

Intermediate

if you have ordered more than 50 pages

if you have ordered more than 100 pages

1st time order

for the first time order with code: mywriting15

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

REALISM VERSUS LIBERALISM ASPECTS OF SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE

2017, Malmo

The debate between Realism and Liberalism as the most important theories in international relations is continuing, despite the influence of each other in their evolution to new forms, neo-realism and neo-liberalism. They both have similarities, in the core, considering that both found the international system as anarchy. The state as an essential actor in international politics. Also, they are similar in their vision of human rationality, but they differ in their perception of the nature of human existence, and the role of ethics in politics, as well as in how the state protects its sovereignty, preserving its national security. While realism sees the solution is in the military power of the state, liberalism sees international cooperation, economic exchange and the spread of democracy as a means of preserving national security and achieving prosperity.

Related Papers

Christopher Chao , Kefu Cao

Theories on international system have long formed and evolved even before the appearance of the study of international relations. Two of the dominant paradigms, liberalism and realism, have gathered advocates both inside the government and academia, aiming to set normative standards, explain international events, as well as exert influence on policy prescription. At first glance, judging by the character and doctrine of these two paradigms, a simple conclusion might be drawn that that there are completely opposite and by no means can work together. However, a closer analysis of a recent international event might suggest that the decision made by state leaders will probably take both paradigms into consideration. As this paper will point out, single paradigm, though sophisticated and self-consistent enough, is becoming less capable of explaining international events all by itself. In order to establish a logical order and foster insight on the topic, while discussing the paradigms, the first step is to explain how does each paradigm view the international system, state interests, state power, cause of war, etc. Followed by that, it will be helpful to provide the historical and empirical account, both historical events and writings of scholars before World War 1, of how and why these perspectives come into existence. Lastly, as each paradigm will naturally adopt certain series of policy preferences which meet its criteria, the impact they impose on the behavior of states will be the subject of discussion. To begin with, realists hold the view that the international system is a system of what Hobbes described as a state of war (Hobbes 1904,18). Without an overarching authority to supervise and to guarantee that each actor will act properly, every single actor on the international stage is facing the threat of being attacked and can only rely on themselves. The only way for actors to eliminate such threat is by increasing power, whether by expanding armed forces or forming alliance to balance or counterbalance those who may jeopardize their survival. For realists though, the only power they believe is the power to go into war, and the only valid actors are states with sovereignty and autonomy to act. Liberals on the other hand, are convinced that this anarchical system will not be permanent. In general, liberals hold the idea that the situation of warring states is subject to change, since war is caused by misunderstanding or the lack of institution in the current international system. While liberals emphasize on the importance of international

Alvin AKOKO OTIENO

Martin Ogunbanjo

Most of the history of international relations theory has seen a dispute between Realism and its Liberal rival, with the debate between them being the most long-standing and well-developed. Realism is the dominant theory of International Relations. This is because it provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war which is the regular condition of life in the international system. This is the bold claim made by realists in defence of their tradition, a claim which will be critically scrutinized in this paper. This paper asks whether there is one Realism or a variety of Realisms. The argument presented below suggests that despite important differences, particularly between classical and structural realism, it is possible to identify a shared core set of assumptions and ideas. This paper outlines these common elements, which are identified as self-help, statism, and survival. It stresses that although there are many voices claiming that a new set of actors and forces are c...

Thinley Dhondup , Thinley Dhondup

Veni Kojouharova

Darcie Lyons-Hutton

Coza Rambuda

Patrick Kyanda

Realism in politics is a philosophy, which tries to observe, shape and predict political relations. It is based upon the assumption that power should be the primary goal of any political act, both in international or the domestic sphere. As far as domestic affairs are concerned, this theory states that political figures must direct all efforts to maximising their power. In the international sphere the nation should aim to maximize its power over other states. Interests should be satisfied by means of a power exercise, and the world is defined by competing powers This theory can be regarded as a prescription to be followed by politicians and states or as a description of current affairs of the state or politician pursuing self-interest. Realism in politics is often defined as a principle of power supremacy, and it has a long history since the dating back to ancient times. It was reflected in Peloponnesian War by Thucydides; by Machiavelli in his writing The Prince; as well as by other outstanding philosophers like Spinoza, Hobbes and Rousseau. Political realism is explained in the following way: “Prior to the French Revolution in which nationalism as a political doctrine truly entered the world's stage, political realism involved the political jurisdictions of ruling dynasties, whilst in the nineteenth century, nationalist sentiments focused realists' attentions on the development of the nation-state, a policy that was later extended to include imperialist ambitions on the part of the major Western powers-Britain and France, and even Belgium, Germany and the United States were influenced by imperialism (Viotti, Kauppi) .” In the second half of the nineteenth century it was found in social Darwinism who argued that social or political growth is determined by a struggle, in which the strongest parties survive (Ahrensdorf ). The underlying difference between social Darwinism and other branches political realism is the adherent of the former state believe nations are destined to rule over other nations, while others believe the that the nation, culture or politician secures their own needs before needs or interests of others. Political realism in international affairs Political realism suggests that international commonwealth is distinguished by anarchy, since there is no absolute world government that could rule with an all-purpose policy code. Since the anarchy does not need a chaotic nature, it allows member nations to enter into trading treaties. Theorists mostly agree with the Hobb’s theory: "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men (Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 'Of Man', and Part II, Ch.17, 'Of Commonwealth, cited in Griffiths, O’Callaghan)." Respectively, without any supreme international force, nations treat each other with hostility or fear, and it damages the system. There are definite contradictions that can be found in the concept of political realism: descriptive realism may be regarded as a true theory or false concept. Even if it is regarded as a true concept, it does not necessarily mean that morality should be excluded from the principles that rule international policy. One of the strong forms if descriptive type of political realism states that states should be self-seeking, that they should build their policy basing upon desired gains of the nation and should not ignore their interests and demands. Simultaneously, “if descriptive realism is held, it is as a closed theory, which can refute all counter-factual evidence on its own terms (for example, evidence of a nation offering support to a neighbor as an ostensible act of altruism, is refuted by pointing to some self-serving motive the giving nation presumably has--it would increase trade, it would gain an important ally, it would feel guilty if it didn't, and so on), then any attempt to introduce morality into international affairs would prove futile (Stern).” The expressive political realism power depends upon the understanding of political reasons, between state diplomats and representatives. The pattern of officers’ relations, their motives and actions is complex. Waltz (date) says that the closed nature of expressive realism includes an oppose scheme that nations do not serve any needs at all, or can serve the needs of others only. The logical value of the three theories resulting from this concept offers that preferring one condition to another is an optional decision, if an assumption is accepted, or not. (Waltz, The present international sphere of nations’ interaction is defined by the lack of supreme power. In the past, wars were a strong argument in support of political realism – there have been more than 200 wars since the middle of the 17th century. This condition seems to have a chaotic nature, and some thinkers are likely to compare it to domestic anarchy, when state government is not able to rule the state: ‘Without a world power, war, conflict, tension, and insecurity have been the regular state of affairs; just as a domestic government removes internal strife and punishes local crime, so too ought a world government control the activities of individual states-overseeing the legality of their affairs and punishing those nations that break the laws, and thereby calming the insecure atmosphere nations find themselves in (Kegley, Wittkopf) ”. At the same time, such comparison leads to a conclusion that the relations between the state and the individuals are alike. This includes the personification of the states and collectivisation of individuals. Some theorists state that the relations between states and the citizens cannot be compared to the relations between the states and the relations of the individuals, and therefore should be differently judged. In addition to the propositions of descriptive realism, there are notions offered by prescriptive political realism, that a nation should follow its own interests and needs independently of the relevant state of international relations. This theory can be divided into various aspects, depending upon the proclaimed interest of the nation and the availability of the resources that would be used to reach desired goals. As far as the national interest is concerned, believers agree that the state should be self-efficient in economical and political sphere, cutting dependency on other nations (The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations, Year). This economic theory has been used for supporting political realism, especially in the 18th century the theorists of political sphere stated that the political power of the nation is reached and supported in the terms of reduced import and increased export only.

Jeffrey Meiser

Liberalism is a defining feature of modern democracy, illustrated by the prevalence of the term 'liberal democracy' as a way to describe countries with free and fair elections, rule of law and protected civil liberties. However, liberalism – when discussed within the realm of IR theory – has evolved into a distinct entity of its own. Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and arguments about how institutions, behaviours and economic connections contain and mitigate the violent power of states. When compared to realism, it adds more factors into our field of view – especially a consideration of citizens and international organisations. Most notably, liberalism has been the traditional foil of realism in IR theory as it offers a more optimistic world view, grounded in a different reading of history to that found in realist scholarship.

Jack Donnelly

Realism and International Relations provides students with a critical yet sympathetic survey of political realism in international theory. Using six paradigmatic theories - Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, the Prisoners' Dilemma, Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes - the book examines realist accounts of human nature and state motivation, international anarchy, system structure and the balance of power, international institutions, and morality in foreign policy. Donnelly argues that common realist propositions not only fail to stand up to scrutiny but are rejected by many leading realists as well. He argues that rather than a general theory of international relations, realism is best seen as a philosophical orientation or research program that emphasizes - in an insightful yet one-sided way - the constraints imposed by individual and national egoism and international anarchy. Containing chapter-by-chapter guides to further reading and discussion questions for students, this book ...

RELATED PAPERS

Tel Reḥov, A Bronze and Iron Age City in the Beth -Shean Valley Volume III, The Lower Mound: Areas D, E, F and G (Qedem 61) Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Amihai Mazar

Addictive Behaviors

Richard McFall

UNESUM-Ciencias. Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria. ISSN 2602-8166

Carlos Parrales

Ahmet Diriker

Turkish Journal of Dermatology / Türk Dermatoloji Dergisi

Hakan Turan

Hana Peloušková

Per Svejvig

Andrei V . Zinoviev

Rabeya Anzum

Proceeding of International Heat Transfer Conference 3

George Nassos

British Journal of Educational Studies

Allen Brent

Francesca F L Luzzio

British Dental Journal

Rohima Khatun

Journal of physics

lisa faradilla

Justin W Vollet

región y sociedad

JESUS LEON GUZMAN

The American Journal of Cardiology

mandeep singh

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Russell Composto

jyoti babar

Game Theory as a Theory of a Conflict Resolution

Amnon Rapoport

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Realism and Liberalism

Please log in to save materials. Log in

• EPUB 3 Student View
• PDF Student View
• Thin Common Cartridge
• Thin Common Cartridge Student View
• SCORM Package
• SCORM Package Student View
• 1 - Lesson Plan: Realism and Liberalism in International Relations Theory
• 2 - Required Readings: Realism and Liberalism
• 3 - Ancillary Materials: Realism and Liberalism
• View all as one page

Lesson Plan: Realism and Liberalism in International Relations Theory

Lesson Plan: Realism and Liberalism

Attached Resources

Lesson Plan_ Realism and Liberalism  

File size 18.3 KB

We need cookies to provide you with the best and original experience. If you do not change your settings, we will consider that you will not mind us sending all cookies to you. Read more »

• Free essays

Compare and Contrast Realism and Liberalism

Realism and liberalism.

An international policy is the core aspect of foreign relations. It is a political activity of the subjects of international law relating to the questions of war, peace, global security, environment, and the attitude to government regulation. The main reasons for the formation and development of international relations are the interests of countries. Thus, international policies aim to tackle questions of human progress and mechanisms of interest’s coordination among the subjects of world politics, prevention, and resolution of global and regional conflicts. However, to realize the position in the international arena and foreign policy, countries employed different theories of international politics. In fact, one of the most common concepts is liberalism. The theory posits that the idea that the best economic system is one that is based on private property and guarantees the freedom of personal initiative of economic subjects. The second well-known theory is realism. The concept holds the idea that the main purpose of international politics is a struggle for domination. Therefore, the basic concepts of international politics are realism and liberalism, which have their specific peculiarities, differences, and similarities.

The theory of liberalism was established in the state system of the Unites States, Great Britain, France, and several other European countries in the second half of the XIX century (Griffiths, 2013). In fact, liberalism is a set of ideological and political doctrines and concepts that are aimed at eliminating or mitigating various forms of state and social coercion, unlimited freedom of enterprise and trade, parliamentary system, pluralistic democracy, and freedom of individuals in all spheres of public life. Moreover, this concept refers to the idea that originates from the period of bourgeois revolutions in XVII – XVIII century. The theory of liberalism was widespread in the XIX century when a number of Western European liberal parties emerged in order to transform society taking into account democratic principles of equality and social justice and humanism (Griffiths, 2013). In fact, political liberalism is rooted in the political and sociological teachings of the Enlightenment, political philosophy of John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and the ethics of legal philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The general ideologists of liberalism are Benjamin Constant, Jeremiah Bentham, and Charles Alexis de Tocqueville (Gismondi, 2008). It is worth noting that the theory of liberalism holds some general aspects of functioning. Apparently, the basis of liberalism is respect for civil rights of every person. The individuals are dependent on the rule of law that secures those rights if they want to freely organize their lives. Thus, freedom of thought is not only a moral precept of tolerance and the rule of law but also the way to the development of human consciousness, which exists only in the competitive environment of free ideas. In fact, civil rights include the right of the private property (Gismondi, 2008). Talking about the liberal policy, initially, it argued for the equality of chances of people, competition and pluralism. Moreover, the followers of this theory maintain free access to labor and capital markets, education, information, and commodity.

Our custom writing service is your shortest way to academic success!

• Expert authors with academic degrees
• Papers in any format : MLA, APA, Oxford, Harvard
• 24/7 live customer support
• Only authentic papers for every customer
• Absolute confidentiality
• Decent prices and substantial discounts

The concept of liberalism is aimed at liberating man from the coercive actions of anonymous institutions and the governments. Hence, it demonstrates the desire to independently lead one’s own life. The next important aspect of liberalism is the striving for the expansion of horizons for people to rule their life and reduction of the role of the state to the required minimum. Moreover, the followers of this theory try to preserve the individual freedoms, provide protection for citizens against violence, and comply with legal constitution. Thus, the concept of liberalism tries to establish rules applicable to all people, while leaving everyone a free choice. Furthermore, the followers of this theory support the idea of a free world market and open culture. For liberals, the human community is more important than the division between foreigners and indigenous people. The liberalism worldview reflects the global society in which exchange, cooperation, a competition of different nations, public associations and culture are based on freedom. Moreover, this theory holds the idea of cooperation in order to develop free world trade and create independent civil societies in developing countries. What is more, the followers of this concept try to provide the liberalization of information technology products, services, currency and capital worldwide. Finally, this theory supports different regional associations (Puchala, 2003).

The main opponent of liberalism is a theory of political realism. It has become the dominant concept in the years of the Cold War and has not lost a value today (Guzzini, 2003). The theoretical origins of this theory are rooted in the ideas of Machiavelli and Hobbes, who regarded politics as a predominance of power. In fact, the followers of this theory believe that politicians should protect the national interest, exercise restraint and adopt the balanced approach to decision-making. Apparently, this is the general morality of the foreign policy from the perspective of realist theory (Guzzini, 2003). In general, the attitude of realism to the morality principles has a relativistic nature. In comparison with liberalism, the followers of realism support the idea that absolute moral values ??do not exist. Furthermore, this theory denies the identity of the particular nation’s morality and universal moral laws. Representatives of this concept believe that it is crucial to subordinate to the achievement of foreign policy goals and the protection of national interests. However, the realist paradigm involves the unconditional priority of politics over morality. Therefore, realists do not consider moral values ??as the foundation of the international order. Moreover, they believe that hopes of liberals for the achievement of the consensus in the world are a moral utopia (van de Haar, 2009). In fact, there are some general aspects of the realism theory. First and foremost, the followers of this concept think that the idea of anarchistic nature of international relations is a natural condition of a world politics. Secondly, this theory provides the idea that the major and significant subjects of international politics are states guided by their national interests.

your 1st order with code start15

for more than 30 pages

for more than 50 pages

for more than 100 pages

Moreover, the interests of one country are always in a conflict with the interests of the other because each side is interested in the possession of resources, which are always in short supply. The third aspect is the conviction that countries are always trying to insure their survival and seeking to dominate (Waltz, 2008). According to the views of the realist theory, the essence of international politics is the struggle for dominance. In fact, the possibility of dominance is dependent on the power of the country, the indicator of which is the ability to influence the behavior of other nations (Roach, 2013). Furthermore, the followers of this theory support the idea that each nation is trying to get the most benefits and advantages of their position, and the only realistic opportunity to insure peace is to find the balance of power between the countries. Due to the concepts of realism, only the threat of force and mutual destruction allows one to maintain stability in the world. Supporters of political realism are skeptical about the possibility of regulating international relations by the law and moral values as in the liberalism theory.

A common aspect of liberalism and realism is the attempt to explain the behavior of political subjects that act in their interests. However, there are some general differences between these theories with regard to international politics. First and foremost, the followers of liberalism focus on a privately organized social groups and businesses. Moreover, the multinational and domestic activities of these groups and companies are important for liberal analysts (Griffiths, 2013). What is more, liberals believe in the possibility of cumulative progress, while realists argue that humanity does not develop throughout history. The other sufficient difference is related to the fact that the followers of liberalism believe that there are more opportunities for the world political cooperation in comparison with convictions of the representatives of realism. Furthermore, the ideas of these two theories have diverse thoughts about the size of excessive conflict, which can be eliminated from the political relations. For example, realists believe that relations between nations are already reaching the Pareto efficiency. In contrast, liberals assume that only international institutions can bring the bilateral relations to the Pareto efficiency if countries lost their ability to pursue their interests (van de Haar, 2009). Finally, realists are confident in a thought that military institution is the general kind of power. In contrast, liberals are convinced that military force is not sufficient branch of power. The followers of liberalism are confident that the economic and moral powers are more considerable than a military institution.

TOP Top 10 writers

Your order will be assigned to the most experienced writer in the relevant discipline. The highly demanded expert, one of our top-10 writers with the highest rate among the customers.

In fact, both aspects of these theories have a reasonable explanation for international politics. In my opinion, the theory of liberalism provides a stronger explanation for international politics. In fact, this position has some significant advantages because liberalism is closely examining how alternative governing strategies will work in practice and how can institutions protect human rights before the disastrous actions of the power holders. In contrast to realism, liberalism seeks the development of international political relations. Despite all of the shortcomings, liberalism helps people to understand the importance of international politics cooperation and the establishment of institutions, even within the fundamental constraints that are imposed by the world capitalism and the international political system (van de Haar, 2009). In fact, liberalism encompasses the ability to influence the future, thereby inciting people to seek the best theories and improve the understanding of international politics. Therefore, the theory of liberalism appeared as the antidote to fatalism and a source of the correct explanation of international politics aspects.

Consequently, the theories of liberalism and realism have some specific similarities and striking differences in their general aspects. In fact, liberalism supports the thought that people rights and free international relations are the general factors of international politics. Moreover, the realist theory provides a position according to which the struggle for dominance and world balance are the primary concepts of international politics. In my opinion, due to the progressive and fundamental aspects of liberalism, this theory insures a stronger explanation for international politics.

READY to ORDER?

Save time and let professionals work on your academic papers!

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Realism and Liberalism in International Relations

Updated 13 November 2023

Subject Politics

Downloads 43

Category Government ,  Literature

Topic International Relations ,  Literature Review

The Key Maxim: The State as the Leading Actor in Global Relations

The key maxim is that the state is the leading actor in global relations. However, the state also requires the contributions of other actors, which can be agents of the country. Therefore, the states have a wide range of agents that serve on its behalf in different global scenes without inevitably disclosing whether they are agents or principal. Various theories such as realism and liberalism tend to explain the role of states as the principal actors in world politics (Lawton, Rosenau & Verdun, 2018).

Realism: A Description of the Human Condition

Realism can be described as a description of the human condition irrespective of what others viewed as cynical kind of that view (Burley, 2017). Realists’ expectations on international politics suggest that the global arena is revolutionary in nature due to deficiency of a coordinated authority system that occurs in nation-states. In addition, they hold an opinion that the center of social reality is the cluster with the focus that the persons are merely creating blocks of that social clusters unlike the prominence positioned on the persons by the liberals (Goldthau & Sitter, 2015). Additionally, realism thinks the power of supremacy is security and the primary foundation of all enthusiasm.

Liberalism: Nationalistic Universalism

On the other hand, liberalism proposes that nationalistic universalism offers an opportunity for a nation to enforce its standards and valuation of actions upon other states. Essentially, this is contrary to the realism, which views the state-nation as the final point of reference in terms of political actions and loyalties (Teson, 2018). Nevertheless, realists view this as a problematic exploration. The opinion is due to the nature of human who is continually in a state of mistrust and fear. Therefore, if harmony is to occur in anarchy, an individual should be entirely rational, and he/she should have the capacity to assume that all people are too. The concept held by the realists suggest that there cannot be accord or harmony in the global arena as individual nations tend to prioritize their national interest instead of general interests for all (Doyle, 2018).

The Role of Individual Nations in Pursuing Their Interests

Meanwhile, for a nation to realize its interest, it depends intensely on her form, capabilities, and means such as cooperation to advance that interest. Therefore, individual countries appear to pay close attention to the interests that benefit them first without considering the needs of other members in a group (Gilpin, 2016). In addition, individual nations lack confidence that other people in the group will maintain the original agreement.

Sovereignty and Universalism

On the other hand, a nation is considered a sovereign entity. The critical impression of sovereignty indicates the principle foundation of authority is the community or society. Importantly, liberalism implies that nations in global arena require providing their sovereign status for some type of universalism because there is no supra authority in global political platform influencing the sovereignty of a particular states-nation (Cohn, 2016). For this reason, the liberalism holds the view that a nation may surrender part of its sovereignty to a more powerful institution in the global market.

The Realist Perspective on Sovereignty

Nevertheless, the realist proposes that no ethical principle validates the state-nation conceding some level of sovereignty to a higher body in the global scale because such is unattainable (Baylis, Smith & Owens, (Eds.) 2017). The core bulk of the laws of comprehensive legislations hold its presence to the power of the individual countries. Therefore, individual nations should try to strengthen their capabilities based on the status of other countries (Teson, 2018). The realists argue that the constant conflicting circumstance in the global arena is due to the never-ending pursuit of “human lust for power” instead of the interpretation of conceding of sovereignty.

The Significance of Cooperation in Global Relations

According to cooperation principles, both liberalism and realism have a similar view on the significance and importance of cooperation among states-nation in global relations. Nonetheless, they differ on how such collaboration can remain sustainable. The realists claim that it is challenging to attain or maintain cooperation and such efforts are reliant on state powers. Furthermore, mistrust and dishonesty usually characterize the international politics (Lawton, Rosenau & Verdun, 2018). It is a maxim that the majority of the institutions created to mitigate in the concerns of global relations are fragile and primarily controlled by countries that are more influential in global politics.

The Role of Interdependence

In the case of the United Nations, five countries have veto powers in the Security Council. Therefore, the resolutions of the UN are mostly overruled by such powerful nations. In addition, sanctions introduced by the body become unsuccessful since several parties in the council are unable to agree on what is thought to be an interest of member state (Doyle, 2018). Therefore, no member could advance in his ambition for power without paying soliciting support from other co-members. In this regard, harmony needs whole distinctiveness of interest, especially in global politics. However, in such arena, common interests are limited.

Interdependence and its Challenges

Liberalisms argue that in order to attain stable political relations in the global scene, the interdependence of states-nation should be promoted. Fundamentally, interdependence influences the world politics and traits of states (Baylis, Smith & Owens, (Eds.) 2017). Nevertheless, the actions of the government of the state-nation equally affect the arrangements of interdependence. The key stream of interdependence as viewed by the realist is that it does not merely imply that states-nation engaged have some kind of mutual benefits. The failure of this structure of interdependence is that countries engaged could acquire more than others based on their strategic position on a particular circumstance or issues. The fundamental aspect of interdependence is to assist tighten the impact of cooperation, but in many situations, in areas where there are no similar benefits, states-nation will continuously select to act on what they think will be in their interest (Lawton, Rosenau & Verdun, 2018). Moreover, the realists believe that military instead of non-military engagement will occupy the leading position in this area and highlight non-military interaction amongst nation-states due to politico-military consequences.

The global political order mainly influences the actions of the nation-state. Realists argue that a nation’s powers should be strengthened as opposed to ceding sovereignty to an international institution. Therefore, they tend to encourage the individual state to pay close attention to its interests before those of other nations (Baylis, Smith & Owens, (Eds.) 2017). On the contrary, liberalism advocates for the need to concede some part of their sovereignty to global institutions to meet shared interests or goals.

Baylis, J., Smith, S., " Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.

Burley, A. M. S. (2017). International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda. In The Nature of International Law (pp. 11-46). Routledge.

Cohn, T. H. (2016). Global political economy: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Doyle, M. W. (2018). New thinking in international relations theory. Routledge.

Gilpin, R. (2016). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Goldthau, A., " Sitter, N. (2015). A liberal actor in a realist world: The European Union regulatory state and the global political economy of energy. OUP Oxford.

Lawton, T. C., Rosenau, J. N., " Verdun, A. C. (2018). Introduction: Looking beyond the confines. In Strange Power: Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy (pp. 25-40). Routledge.

Teson, F. (2018). A philosophy of international law. Routledge.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Seven Theories for Why Biden Is Losing (and What He Should Do About It)

By Ezra Klein

Opinion Columnist

It’s not Joe Biden’s poll numbers that worry me, exactly. It’s the denial of what’s behind them.

Among likely voters, Biden is trailing Donald Trump by one percentage point in Wisconsin and three points in Pennsylvania. He’s ahead by a point in Michigan. Sweeping those three states is one route to re-election, and they’re within reach.

Still, Biden is losing to Trump. His path is narrowing. In 2020, Biden won not just Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He also won Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. Now he’s behind in those states by six points, nine points and 13 points in the latest Times/Siena/Philadelphia Inquirer poll. Have those states turned red? No. The same poll finds Democrats leading in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. The Democrats are also leading in the Senate races in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

National polls find Democrats slightly ahead of Republicans for control of Congress. The “Never Biden” vote now looks larger than the “Never Trump” vote. The electorate hasn’t turned on Democrats; a crucial group of voters has turned on Biden.

Last week, the Biden team appeared to shake up the race by challenging Trump to two debates. One will take place early, on June 27. The other will be in September. Biden’s video was full of bluster. “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020,” he said. “Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.”

Biden, it seemed, was calling Trump’s bluff. He wanted the fight. But Biden wants fewer debates, not more. On the same day, he pulled out of the three debates scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates for September and October. He rebuffed the Trump campaign’s call for four debates. “I’ll even do it twice” is misdirection. He’ll do it only twice.

This is bad precedent and questionable politics. Debates do more to focus and inform the public than anything else during the campaign. Biden is cutting the number of debates by a third, and he’s making it easier for future candidates to abandon debates altogether.

Strategically, it’s easy to see why a candidate in the lead wouldn’t want to blow his margin on a bad debate. That’s why Trump skipped the Republican primary debates. But Biden is behind. He needs opportunities to prove to voters that they are wrong about him. He needs opportunities to persuade them to ditch their nostalgia for Trump. He could have had three chances or four, maybe more. Now he has two, and only one will come after Labor Day, when it matters most.

Biden, in other words, is continuing to run like a candidate who is winning rather than one who is losing. He and the Democrats need a theory of why he’s trailing in the polls and what to do about it. Here are the most obvious:

The polls are wrong. This appears to be Biden’s view. “The polling data has been wrong all along,” he told CNN this month. Axios reports that polling denial is pervasive in Biden’s campaign.

There are two things to say about this. The first is that it’s false. Even as pundits predicted a red wave in 2022, the polls showed Republicans falling short, and they were right. “The polls were more accurate in 2022 than in any cycle since at least 1998,” FiveThirtyEight reported .

The second is that, to the extent polls have been wrong in recent presidential elections, they’ve been wrong because they’ve been biased toward Democrats. Trump ran stronger in 2016 and 2020 than polls predicted.

Sure, the polls could be wrong. But that could mean Trump is stronger, not weaker, than he looks.

It’s the media’s fault. As a member of the media, I’ve been hearing this one more often. Biden made the case himself at the White House Correspondents Dinner. “I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horse-race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake,” Biden said.

It’s always the case that the media could be doing a better job. But as an explanation for Biden’s poll numbers, this doesn’t hold up. In April, NBC News released a national poll breaking the race down by where respondents got their news. Biden led by 49 points among voters who relied on newspapers. He led by 20 points among voters relying on national network news. In the slightly archaic-sounding category of “digital websites,” Biden led by 10 points. If the election were limited to voters relying on the kinds of outlets Biden was scolding, he would win in a landslide.

But Biden is behind, and here’s why: Among voters who rely on social media, Trump led by four points. Among voters who rely on cable news, Trump led by eight. Voters who get their news from YouTube and Google favor Trump by 16 points. And voters who don’t follow political news at all favor Trump by 26 points.

It’s a bad time to be an incumbent. As my colleague Paul Krugman notes , Biden is more popular than the leaders of peer countries like Canada and Britain. This may just be a bad time to be an incumbent.

But is that true in the United States? The midterm elections of 2022 were widely expected to be a disaster for the incumbent Democrats, and yet they survived just fine. Democrats are polling well in Senate elections. Morning Consult, a polling firm, tracks approval ratings for all 50 governors, and it found no evidence of a broad anti-incumbent mood. In January every governor, save Mississippi’s Tate Reeves, was viewed more favorably than unfavorably by his or her state’s voters.

Nor was there obvious anti-incumbent fury in the Times/Siena poll. Fifty-seven percent of surveyed Pennsylvania voters approved of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s performance, and 25 percent disapproved — a net approval of 32 points. Bob Casey, the state’s senior senator, had a net approval of 18 points. Biden’s net approval was negative 22 points.

Polls are not showing an anti-incumbent mood. They’re showing an anti-Biden mood.

Voters are angry about rising prices and high interest rates. In the Times/Siena poll, 21 percent of voters said the economy would drive their vote, while 7 percent said inflation was their top issue. By contrast, immigration was the top issue for 12 percent of voters, abortion was the top issue for 11 percent, the war between Israelis and Palestinians was the top issue for 2 percent, and crime was the top issue for fewer than 1 percent.

Prices are the most common explanation for Biden’s troubles. But Democrats performed — and polled — well in 2022, when the economy was in far worse shape than it is now. And Biden’s numbers aren’t following the pattern we’ve seen with other recent presidents.

Voters turned on Ronald Reagan during the 1981 recession but rewarded him for economic recovery in 1984. High unemployment decimated Democrats’ congressional majorities in 2010, but even a sluggish recovery was enough for Barack Obama to poll ahead of Mitt Romney in May 2012.

Biden’s recovery is stronger than what either Reagan or Obama saw. In 1984, inflation was higher than it is now, unemployment was higher than it is now, and the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was above 13 percent — almost double what it is now. In May 2012, unemployment was over 8 percent; it’s 3.9 percent now. Yet Biden is polling worse than Reagan and Obama were at this point in their re-election bids.

Voters think Biden is too liberal. The Biden administration has worried about shoring up its left flank, particularly since the war in Gaza. But the Times/Siena poll found that while Biden is losing only 2 percent of his “very liberal” voters from 2020 to Trump, he is losing 16 percent of his supporters who described themselves as moderate and conservative.

Tacking to the center is an old move in politics, and it’s long been core to Biden’s identity as a politician. You can find video on C-SPAN of Biden, in 1995, coming out in support of a constitutional amendment to keep the federal budget balanced. That’s a horrible idea fiscally, but it reflects instincts Biden used to have about how to win over more conservative voters.

In 2020, Biden ran as the moderate alternative in a Democratic primary contest in which Bernie Sanders led many of the polls. Biden vocally opposed ideas like defunding the police. But after the primaries, Biden welcomed the left into his coalition and his government. On the substance, I prefer the Biden of 2024 to the Biden of 1995, but the shift might have cost him a political identity that was once central to his success.

I found myself last week watching Trump’s May 1 rally in Waukesha, Wis. Most of it features his constant stream of overstatement, false nostalgia, wild braggadocio and barely veiled threat. But the tenor changed when Trump turned to abortion. Here he swung suddenly to the left of his base. The goal, he said, was “to get abortion out of the federal government. Everybody wanted that. That was uniform. Then about 10 years ago, people lost their way. They started talking about — how many months?”

This is Trump’s pivot on abortion. Unlike other Republicans, he’s saying the goal wasn’t, and isn’t, a nationwide abortion ban. The goal was to let states decide for themselves, and now they can.

“There are some very conservative states that voted a very much more liberal policy than anybody would’ve thought,” Trump said. “Very liberal policy, a couple of states. I won’t mention, but a couple of states really surprise people. But basically, the states decide on abortion. And people are absolutely thrilled with the way that’s going on.”

Thrilled? The one time you can hear the crowd boo Trump is during his abortion spiel. But he doesn’t back down. I don’t know if Trump’s effort to run to the center on abortion will work, but he’s definitely going to try, even if it offends his base. Is there any issue on which Biden is doing the same?

Voters think Biden is too old. This is the one that worries me most. Polls routinely find that majorities of as much as 70 to 80 percent think Biden is too old to be president. Fears about his age crested after the special counsel’s report questioned his memory. I argued then that Democrats should consider nominating another candidate at an open convention. But Biden gave a zesty State of the Union in which he seemed livelier and, frankly, younger than he had in years. That quieted his doubters, at least for a time.

But Biden has good days and bad days in the campaign. His State of the Union was strong. His recent interview on CNN was weaker. A lot of voters see him only through the occasional clip, and particularly if they’re getting their news through social media or YouTube or TikTok, they’re seeing a lot of clips from his worst moments.

Biden’s age also shows up in the absence of great moments ricocheting across social media. If you compare his interviews and speeches with those of Obama or Bill Clinton before him — or especially with the Biden of the 2012 vice-presidential debate or the 2016 convention — his slippage as a campaigner is clear. Communication skills aren’t everything, but they aren’t nothing, either.

The optimistic take is that the bar for Biden is low and a strong debate performance or two will win him an unusual amount of support. The pessimistic take is that a lot of voters have concluded that Biden isn’t up to the job. Democrats have been telling them they’re wrong, but telling voters they’re wrong is a good way to lose an election.

Biden has some months yet to prove otherwise. The June debate will be his best opportunity. Doubts about age are really doubts about capability, and all Biden needs to do is persuade enough voters that he is more capable than the erratic criminal defendant across the stage, who turns 78 next month. But if the debate goes poorly or if Biden’s numbers deteriorate further, Democrats will need to decide between a Biden-Harris ticket that is very likely to lose and an open convention .

Democrats need to redefine Trump. “Biden is not running against God,” as Bernie Sanders put it. “He is running against Donald Trump.” A year ago, Democrats were pretty confident that as the possibility of a Trump presidency came closer, voters would realize what they were risking and come home to Biden. That looks less likely with each passing day.

The mistake Democrats keep making about Trump again and again is to assume that the rest of the country will see Trump as they see Trump. But Trump won in 2016, and he came scarily close in 2020; absent the pandemic, he might well have been re-elected.

What Democrats want to do in 2024 is run against the threat Trump poses to American democracy. “Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time, and it’s what the 2024 election is all about,” Biden said on Jan. 5, in the speech that kicked off his re-election campaign. But it’s not working. Or at least it’s not working well enough.

There are other ways to run against Trump: He cut taxes for rich people and tried to cut Medicaid for poor people. He cut funding for the police before a crime wave and got rid of the National Security Council’s pandemic preparedness group before the coronavirus hit. He told the oil companies to give him a billion dollars because they’d get preferential treatment if he’s re-elected. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, took $2 billion from Saudi Arabia to fund his private equity firm. Trump’s flagrant violations of democratic norms and basic decency often overshadow the banal ways in which he governed, or let others govern, in cruel, stupid and corrupt ways. Right now, the Biden campaign has much more money than the Trump campaign; it should be using it to redefine Trump in the ways that matter to the voters they need.

Biden is right about what he said on Jan. 5: Preserving democracy is the most urgent question of our time. But that means doing what’s necessary to beat Trump, even if it’s not what Democrats want to do to beat Trump.

What I fear Biden’s allies will do is deny the polls until Democrats wake up, as they did before, to the shocking news that Trump won. That would be a sin against the cause they claim as sacred. The first step toward winning is changing course when you’re losing.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Ezra Klein joined Opinion in 2021. Previously, he was the founder, editor in chief and then editor at large of Vox; the host of the podcast “The Ezra Klein Show”; and the author of “Why We’re Polarized.” Before that, he was a columnist and editor at The Washington Post, where he founded and led the Wonkblog vertical. He is on Threads . 

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs

By more than 2 to 1, americans say medication abortion should be legal, table of contents.

• Other abortion attitudes
• Overall attitudes about abortion
• Americans’ views on medication abortion in their states
• How statements about abortion resonate with Americans
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views on the legality of abortion, as well as their perceptions of abortion access. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,709 adults from April 8 to 14, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology .

Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a national right to abortion, a majority of Americans continue to express support for abortion access.

About six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This share has grown 4 percentage points since 2021 – the year prior to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe.

The new Pew Research Center survey, conducted April 8-14, 2024, among 8,709 adults, surfaces ongoing – and often partisan – divides over abortion attitudes:

• Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, with near unanimous support among liberal Democrats.
• By comparison, Republicans and Republican leaners (41%) are far less likely to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. However, two-thirds of moderate and liberal Republicans still say it should be.

Since before Roe was overturned, both parties have seen a modest uptick in the share who say abortion should be legal.

As in the past, relatively few Americans (25%) say abortion should be legal in all cases, while even fewer (8%) say it should be illegal in all cases. About two-thirds of Americans do not take an absolutist view: 38% say it should be legal in most cases, and 28% say it should be illegal in most cases.

Related: Americans overwhelmingly say access to IVF is a good thing

Women’s abortion decisions

A narrow majority of Americans (54%) say the statement “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” describes their views extremely or very well. Another 19% say it describes their views somewhat well, and 26% say it does not describe their views well.

Views on an embryo’s rights

About a third of Americans (35%) say the statement “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” describes their views extremely or very well, while 45% say it does not describe their views well.

But many Americans are cross-pressured in their views: 32% of Americans say both statements about women’s decisions and embryos’ rights describe their views at least somewhat well.

Abortion access

About six-in-ten Americans in both parties say getting an abortion in the area where they live would be at least somewhat easy, compared with four-in-ten or fewer who say it would be difficult.

However, U.S. adults are divided over whether getting an abortion should be easier or harder:

• 31% say it should be easier for someone to get an abortion in their area, while 25% say it should be harder. Four-in-ten say the ease of access should be about what it is now.
• 48% of Democrats say that obtaining an abortion should be easier than it is now, while just 15% of Republicans say this. Instead, 40% of Republicans say it should be harder (just 11% of Democrats say this).

As was the case last year, views about abortion access vary widely between those who live in states where abortion is legal and those who live in states where it is not allowed.

For instance, 20% of adults in states where abortion is legal say it would be difficult to get an abortion where they live, but this share rises to 71% among adults in states where abortion is prohibited.

Medication abortion

Americans say medication abortion should be legal rather than illegal by a margin of more than two-to-one (54% vs. 20%). A quarter say they are not sure.

Like opinions on the legality of abortion overall, partisans differ greatly in their views of medication abortion:

• Republicans are closely split but are slightly more likely to say it should be legal (37%) than illegal (32%). Another 30% aren’t sure.
• Democrats (73%) overwhelmingly say medication abortion should be legal. Just 8% say it should be illegal, while 19% are not sure.

Across most other demographic groups, Americans are generally more supportive than not of medication abortion.

Across demographic groups, support for abortion access has changed little since this time last year.

Today, roughly six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all (25%) or most (38%) cases. And 36% say it should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

While differences are only modest by gender, other groups vary more widely in their views.

Race and ethnicity

Support for legal abortion is higher among Black (73%) and Asian (76%) adults compared with White (60%) and Hispanic (59%) adults.

Compared with older Americans, adults under 30 are particularly likely to say abortion should be legal: 76% say this, versus about six-in-ten among other age groups.

Those with higher levels of formal education express greater support for legal abortion than those with lower levels of educational attainment.

About two-thirds of Americans with a bachelor’s degree or more education (68%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with six-in-ten among those without a degree.

White evangelical Protestants are about three times as likely to say abortion should be illegal (73%) as they are to say it should be legal (25%).

By contrast, majorities of White nonevangelical Protestants (64%), Black Protestants (71%) and Catholics (59%) say abortion should be legal. And religiously unaffiliated Americans are especially likely to say abortion should be legal (86% say this).

Partisanship and ideology

Democrats (85%) are about twice as likely as Republicans (41%) to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

But while more conservative Republicans say abortion should be illegal (76%) than legal (27%), the reverse is true for moderate and liberal Republicans (67% say legal, 31% say illegal).

By comparison, a clear majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (76%) say abortion should be legal, with liberal Democrats (96%) overwhelmingly saying this.

Views of abortion access by state

About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say it would be easy for someone to get an abortion in the area where they live, while 39% say it would be difficult.

This marks a slight shift since last year, when 54% said obtaining an abortion would be easy. But Americans are still less likely than before the Dobbs decision to say obtaining an abortion would be easy.

Still, Americans’ views vary widely depending on whether they live in a state that has banned or restricted abortion.

In states that prohibit abortion, Americans are about three times as likely to say it would be difficult to obtain an abortion where they live as they are to say it would be easy (71% vs. 25%). The share saying it would be difficult has risen 19 points since 2019.

In states where abortion is restricted or subject to legal challenges, 51% say it would be difficult to get an abortion where they live. This is similar to the share who said so last year (55%), but higher than the share who said this before the Dobbs decision (38%).

By comparison, just 20% of adults in states where abortion is legal say it would be difficult to get one. This is little changed over the past five years.

Americans’ attitudes about whether it should be easier or harder to get an abortion in the area where they live also varies by geography.

Overall, a decreasing share of Americans say it should be harder to obtain an abortion: 33% said this in 2019, compared with 25% today.

This is particularly true of those in states where abortion is now prohibited or restricted.

In both types of states, the shares of Americans saying it should be easier to obtain an abortion have risen 12 points since before Roe was overturned, as the shares saying it should be harder have gradually declined.

By comparison, changes in views among those living in states where abortion is legal have been more modest.

While Americans overall are more supportive than not of medication abortion (54% say it should be legal, 20% say illegal), there are modest differences in support across groups:

• Younger Americans are somewhat more likely to say medication abortion should be legal than older Americans. While 59% of adults ages 18 to 49 say it should be legal, 48% of those 50 and older say the same.
• Asian adults (66%) are particularly likely to say medication abortion should be legal compared with White (55%), Black (51%) and Hispanic (47%) adults.
• White evangelical Protestants oppose medication abortion by about two-to-one (45% vs. 23%), with White nonevangelicals, Black Protestants, Catholics and religiously unaffiliated adults all being more likely than not to say medication abortion should be legal.
• Republicans are closely divided over medication abortion: 37% say it should be legal while 32% say it should be illegal. But similar to views on abortion access overall, conservative Republicans are more opposed (43% illegal, 27% legal), while moderate and liberals are more supportive (55% legal, 14% illegal).

Just over half of Americans (54%) say “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” describes their views extremely or very well, compared with 19% who say somewhat well and 26% who say not too or not at all well.

Democrats (76%) overwhelmingly say this statement describes their views extremely or very well, with just 8% saying it does not describe their views well.

Republicans are more divided: 44% say it does not describe their views well while 33% say it describes them extremely or very well. Another 22% say it describes them somewhat well.

Fewer Americans (35%) say the statement “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” describes their views extremely or very well. Another 19% say it describes their views somewhat well while 45% say it describes them not too or not at all well.

(The survey asks separately whether “a fetus is a person with rights.” The results are roughly similar: 37% say that statement describes their views extremely or very well.)

Republicans are about three times as likely as Democrats to say “an embryo is a person with rights” describes their views extremely or very well (53% vs. 18%). In turn, Democrats (66%) are far more likely than Republicans (25%) to say it describes their views not too or not at all well.

Some Americans are cross-pressured about abortion

When results on the two statements are combined, 41% of Americans say the statement about a pregnant woman’s right to choose describes their views at least somewhat well , but not the statement about an embryo being a person with rights. About two-in-ten (21%) say the reverse.

But for nearly a third of U.S. adults (32%), both statements describe their views at least somewhat well.

Just 4% of Americans say neither statement describes their views well.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Partisanship & Issues

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, what the data says about abortion in the u.s., nearly a year after roe’s demise, americans’ views of abortion access increasingly vary by where they live, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center