Politics Among Nations

Morgenthau declares that his theory of international politics is “empirical” and “pragmatic” instead of “abstract.” Also, he writes that any theory of international politics must address the two major schools of modern politics. One school is based on the idea that politics involves “universally valid abstract principles” (3), the fundamental goodness of humanity, and the belief that problems can be addressed by spreading knowledge and political reforms. The other school, political realism, argues that universal moral values do not exist—at least none that can be completely enacted in the real world. Instead, this approach argues that politics are shaped by an “objective” human nature and that navigating such dynamics requires parsing apart people’s self-interest and rival agendas.

Next, Morgenthau lays out six principles for political realism. He first asserts the existence of a universal and unchanging human nature, arguing that such an understanding has to be approached through reason.

The second principle asserts that politicians act out of self-interest in order to safeguard their own power and that politicians can only be judged by their actions and their capacity to carry out actions, not by their “motives” and “ideological preferences” (5). The author argues that because such politicians are limited by “concrete circumstances of time and place,” they draw “a sharp distinction between the desirable and the possible” (8). Still, Morgenthau admits that politicians can act irrationally because of outdated social systems and beliefs, malicious and deliberate political efforts to impose a fake reality, a denial of harsh political circumstances, and in order to exploit an unstable situation.

To elaborate, Morgenthau writes that the “traditional concepts, institutions, and procedures” in international politics have broken down (8). This is because the old international order originating in the 19th century, when multiple governments were on more or less equal footing, has given way to the Cold War era, in which global politics is dominated by two superpowers: the Soviet Union and the United States. Even this framework represents a rational reconstruction of the international order, but irrational events still occur when the new Cold War order clashes with the remnants of the old international order.

Morgenthau argues that any international problem can be overcome with “well-meaning, well-financed, and competent efforts” (9). In his view, a rational assessment of political realities can provide a basis for understanding relations between nations while acknowledging the gap between ideal and actual foreign policy.

The third principle is “interest defined as power” (10). Citing President George Washington and the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, Morgenthau argues that interest and power are universal factors in politics. However, interest can change according to historical circumstances. Morgenthau defines power as “anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man” (11), including social power. Yet despite his belief in universal principles, Morgenthau also argues that a radical change, such as the end of nation-states, is possible in the future.

The fourth principle asserts that although foreign policies can have moral weight, it is often a challenge to balance moral action with “successful political action” in international politics (12). Furthermore, political actions must be judged according to moral principles, such as the principle of liberty. States should consider the political consequences of moral decisions while also avoiding moral judgments that could harm the states’ own interests and survival. Overall, states must aim for “prudence,” which Morgenthau defines as “the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions” (12).

The fifth principle is that the moral goals of a single nation do not reflect universal moral principles. Morgenthau provides the example of believing that God favors all nations equally versus believing that God favors one nation over all others.

The sixth and final principle holds that other “standards of thought” such as ethics, law, and economics do exist but should be regarded as separate from politics (14), especially in the context of foreign-policy dilemmas. Morgenthau gives the example of the Soviet Union’s 1939 invasion of Finland, during which Britain and France were legally correct to consider attacking the Soviet Union in Finland’s defense; however, this action would have also risked British and French power and national interest at a time when both countries were also threatened by Nazi Germany. Yet Morgenthau contends that foreign policy can follow both political realism and the principles from another standard of thought. For instance, Morgenthau presents the example of Britain defending Belgium during World War II as both politically and morally correct.