Idealists vs Realists on US Foreign Policy
...rent arguments that contradict both politically and morally. Schlesinger feels that national interest should be the guiding force in foreign policy and without it “there would be no regularity and predictability in international affairs (pg 6).” Alternatively, Osgood argues that America must “conduct its foreign relations in a way that will encourage the kind of international environment compatible with its ideals and interests (13).” Osgood feels that “ideals are as much an instrument of national power as the weapons of war (pg 10).” Also, being consistent with his idealistic principles, Osgood believes that U.S. foreign policy should be used as a means of humanitarian relief and third world development. Schlesinger on the other hand has the realistic approach and thinks the U.S should act in our self-interest and avoid international organizations. Both Schlesinger and Osgood do make notice of their opposition, and rectify their main arguments by denouncing them. In Osgood’s essay he makes reference to the realists and their failure recognize American idealism and its relationship on foreign affairs. He claims, “Rational self-interest divorced from ideal principles is as weak and erratic guide for foreign policy as idealism undisciplined by reason. (pg 10).” Schlesinger though regards idealism and moralism in foreign policy as ending in fanaticism (pg.6). Also, in reaction to Mr. Dooley’s statement about political blunders being caused by ‘moral obliquity’, Schlesinger exclaims, “ If moral principles have only limited application to foreign policy, then we are forced to the conclusion the decisions in foreign affairs must be generally taken on than moralistic grounds (pg 6). ” Schlesinger does make note of the importance of morality though in the end of his essay when he quotes Roosevelt’s statement that “it should be our steady aim to raise the ethical standard of national action just as we strive to raise he ethical standard of individual action (pg 7).” When dealing with foreign nations and foreign policies it would be impossible to keep a country existing is your basing everything on moral standards. It is impossible to resolve all political quarrels peacefully. There is no standard of ethics present throughout the world, and, as much as idealists’ believe the world can have peace, it is impossible to achieve. Countries need to take into account their own needs at one point. Just as Schlesinger argued, there is a difference between the morality of individuals and the morality of a natio...