The Hypocrisy of Realism

Morgenthau describes political realism essentially as “interest defined as power.” Realism is based on an anarchic state system that is governed on objective laws at the root of human nature. Classical realists assume that humans are greedy, power hungry and resourceful animals acting on the Darwinian platform of hegemonic dominance. The state system, according to Morgenthau’s realist, is effectively governed by actors of power politics who seek soft and hard leverage over other actors to ensure their survival. However, motives always play a key role in policy making; Churchill acted on personal and nationalistic motives in office and before World War I when he switched His Majesty’s Navy to oil power, deepening the power of Great Britain and his pocket. If realists act instinctively and rationally on their will to survive, they are unarguably acting on behalf of their motives or the motives of their people. Morgenthau states, “To search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesmen is both futile and deceptive. It is futile because motives are the most illusive of psychological data…History shows no correlation between the history of motives and the history of foreign policy. This is true in both moral and political terms.” Perhaps policy is determined without regard to morality, but motives are intrinsic in every societal interaction, in accordance with realist perspective which assumes humans are greedy and power hungry.
A tenet of realism is the existence of an anarchic international state system. But within the boundaries of realist thought, this is also hypocritical. The pursuit of dominance in realism negates anarchy. Soft power global dominance to ensure order, protection and survival is the utopia of realist thought. However, the ability of a state to control the global stage through any means (economically, militarily, etc.) is a form of an international system of control: the antithesis of anarchy.