Very first sentence isn't even true, unless by "elites" you are excluding academia.
FP academia is dominated by realism. Neoconservatism and other forms of internationalists who cannot successfully defend thesis work go to D.C. where they are safe from intellectual shredding.
FP academia is dominated by realism. Neoconservatism and other forms of internationalists who cannot successfully defend thesis work go to D.C. where they are safe from intellectual shredding.
The only real debate is between offensive and defensive realism. For instance, Max and the rest of his Neocon crew push ideas that are based on flawed assumptions, such as "the democratic peace theory."
He's calling a debunked theory a "foreign policy consensus."
He's calling a debunked theory a "foreign policy consensus."
In order to make the democratic peace theory work in "Grasping the Democratic Peace," which is one of many reasons why it is shredded by realists, Bruce Russett created a limited definition of what constitutes a "war."
As you might've guessed, it was designed to fit the theory.
As you might've guessed, it was designed to fit the theory.
Other democratic peace theorists have tried to offer alternative explanations where Mr. Russett failed.
After years of realist scrutiny, the only "consensus" is in their hope for it to be true. But they couldn't even agree or tell you what makes it true.
Like a thesis should...
After years of realist scrutiny, the only "consensus" is in their hope for it to be true. But they couldn't even agree or tell you what makes it true.
Like a thesis should...
They are wrong because the assumptions themselves are wrong, e.g. what causes security competition, whether prosperity removes competition and the power of institutions to discourage states from injecting self-interest into their strategy.
It's a Kumbaya theory and it's a joke.
It's a Kumbaya theory and it's a joke.
