How a Realist Would View the Fed's Low Interest Rates and Why Realism is Not Efficient

Response Blog Post #1

It isn't any breaking news to reiterate the fact that the US Federal Reserve (Fed) interest rates are low (between zero and one-quarter percent). The news that has been circulating recently, though, is that these low rates are expected to stay low for a while. They have been low for quite a long time, starting after 9/11 under Greenspan's administration with multiple attempts to revive the economy by making it easier and cheaper to borrow money. The unprecedented response was that the low interest rates led to a new demand for mortgages and home equity loans, which, in turn, led to the housing bubble and the subsequent bubble burst and financial crisis of 2008. Now, in late 2015, with the low rates and implementation of quantitative easing methods bringing an apparent boom to the economy, some question why we still have these low rates in place. There is controversy going on over whether or not it is safe to raise rates. A Realist's standpoint to all of this would likely be indifference, or, he would probably just look on the surface, like many Americans are doing, and give approval to raising the rate. What the Realist probably wouldn’t consider, though, is volatility of the global financial market, namely, the devaluation of the currency in China due to the major market selloff. The Chinese government came in with an attempt at a rescue and pumped money into the market to serve as a boost, but this didn’t seem to work. European equities markets have been dropped down very low and raising the Fed rate at this time, though widely anticipated, would not be the smartest decision. The foreign trade sector represents roughly one third of the supply and demand, so it would be silly for the US Fed to ignore the rest of the world’s economic activity just to control inflation or to give banks more incentives to give out loans.

Realists would most likely underestimate the importance of the Fed's interest rates. This is because economic power is not as important to a Realist as military power, unless that economic power is interlaced with the military power. This Realistic viewpoint is unreliable because it is too pessimistic, doubting the morality and consequent sensibility of the international system. If a Realist thinks that countries all act in their own self interests, then how could one account for the US giving billions of dollars to needy countries? To a Realist, this would be a silly move. Yet the US has done so and still maintains its position as a regional power. Moreover, if each country only thought about its own interests, then the world’s international policies would be at a deadlock. Admittedly, some policies have more weight than others, but overall, this is not the case. For example, the European Union has been successful in distributing its large numbers of refugees over the member countries, with the US taking in 100,000 per year and Germany taking in a whopping 500,000 per year. These large accomplishments would not have occurred without the countries working together, not pitting themselves against each other. In this way, they defy Realist tendencies successfully, and hopefully the Fed interest rates will do the same.

Realism V Constructivism

Two of the major IR theories we have studied to this point have been Realism and Constructivism, each of which have merit and can be applied to modern international politics. I would argue, however, that despite the important aspects of each, Constructivism is better suited to today’s global stage. This argument stems from major issues in the realist theory. The argument that the physical survival of the state through security is the paramount goal and worry of a nation in conjunction with the ideal that nongovernment organizations are not important in international politics cannot be applied to our modern society. While security is important and the possibility of losing a war due to lack of security is a serious issue, this cannot be the nation’s only focus because the value of a NGO must be accounted for. The constructivist theory argues these two points about security, claiming that the reality and validity of NGOs actually lowers the security threats to a nation. This lowered threat stems from the idea that security communities can create alliances between states making war amongst themselves impossible. As a result of this, arms races between many countries, such as England and France, which would exist under realist theory, are not even a factor in the modern world discounting the Realist theory.

Furthermore, the Constructivist theory places importance in the idea of social norms, another nonexistent factor in the Realist theory. This is an aspect that cannot be ignored in our world because of the importance of respect between nations that can be lost if social norms are broken. For example, realists would believe the prospect of the United States declaring war with China would be extremely high as a result of China’s increasing power and security that threaten the US as a world power. Constructivists, however, there is no possibility at all. This is based on the idea if social norms and that it is no longer the social norm to simply attack another country without a concrete reason. If the United States were to attack China it would likely be condemned by the rest of the world, causing the US more harm than the progress China would make if left uninhibited.

The concept of a war between the United States and China displays the issue of interdependence, or the idea that the US and China both rely on the other for survival. This idea is discounted in Realism when thinking about war because of the thought that physical survival of the nation is paramount before all else. For a Constructivist, however, interdependency is factor that cannot be overlooked for one major reason; a victory at war could still cause the physical destruction of the state due to the loss of a huge economic partner for the US.

Realism provides an excellent theory that cannot be discounted as a result of its explanations of things like why arms races have occurred in our history. While it is important to think about this, there are gaps in the theory that are evident when one looks at the modern political landscape. As a result, I argue that the better of the two theories to use when looking at the modern political stage is constructivism. Most specifically, because of the inclusion of NGOs, interdependence and the various other factors which lower the high possibility of war under the Realist theory.

A Criticism of Realist Military Principles

Realism prioritizes military power as a means of survival. A realist lens offers tenets that characterize the nature of the international system and war between states.  I am offering criticism to the way that realist tenets define military power and advantages.  Realism ignores significant aspects of war that are vital to the success of a state. The tenets include:

  1)     A state cannot determine the intentions of another state.

  2)     Politics is separate from morality.

  3)     Military power is defined in measurable relative gains.

  4)     Politics and war are separate from other aspects of the state (e.g. culture).

Realists may claim to have the classical Chinese general Sun Tzu on their side.  Indeed, Sun Tzu was renowned for his ability to strengthen states with military power.  He believed the world was anarchic and military action was a method to prevail.  But this is a surface level connection to Realist theory.  In his work, The Art of War, Sun Tzu outlines principles to achieve military victories.  Careful study of these principles reveals that Realist tenets fall out of line with Sun Tzu’s principles.

Realists believe that it is impossible to know the plans of another state.  This is the basis for amassing military resources and personnel if another state decides to attack.  Sun Tzu rejects this idea.  The Art of War contains an entire chapter detailing the use of spies to anticipate the activity of the enemy.  “Foreknowledge”, as Sun Tzu calls it, is the key to making effective maneuvers against the enemy.  Realists generally distrust the idea of foreknowledge, which leaves them at a strategic disadvantage.  Although they generally claim to have history on their side, realists ignore the benefits that intelligence networks bring to the state.  In World War II, both sides of the war intercepted messages to gain an advantage against each other.  While spies and intelligence networks are hardly quantifiable, they are integral to a successful militaristic state.

Realists believe that politics can be separated from morals.  This sentiment is especially prevalent in Bismarck’s Realpolitik.  However, Sun Tzu differs from Realists.  From the first chapter of The Art of War, Sun Tzu makes clear that morality and war are not separate:  “A moral compass brings people into accord with their ruler so they will follow him in life and in death without fear.”  The military must have an overarching sense of morality that the people can turn to in times of need.  The state also should have morals that tie together its citizens.  Realism ignores this aspect of warfare, but humans are moral creatures.  When following a state morality, we will be more powerful than if we followed no morality at all.

A historical example can be used to provide criticism of the last two tenets.  Consider the Vietnam War.  The United States had amassed nearly every tangible advantage.  From a Realist perspective, Vietnam would be foolish to engage in war with the U.S., a great power and western hegemon.  So why was the U.S. forced to flee the Vietnam after years of fruitless war?  The Vietcong had a few unquantifiable advantages that Realism does not emphasize.  The Vietcong understood military strategy that kept their forces fluid and deceptive.  Their guerilla tactics left the conventional U.S. forces fumbling to make any effective strikes.  Realist theory does not emphasize this important advantage. The U.S. also had a cultural issue within its borders.  Many of the citizens did not support the war after watching footage of combat.  Discontent toward the government eventually led to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam.  Realists reject the relevancy of culture in international relations, but it is evident from Vietnam that cultural issues are of military importance.  Because of Realist emphasis on tangible advantages, like equipment and manpower, they understate the power of foreknowledge, culture, strategy, and morality.  These intangible advantages allow for a weaker state like Vietnam to defeat a great power like the U.S.  This does not mean that Realism is invalid, just that it ignores an important part of military success.

Refugees, Constructivism vs. Realism, and Soccer

The current refugee crisis in Europe has been dominating the news cycle in recent weeks, and I could not help but notice the role that organizations have been taking in attempting to be as hospitable as possible to these refugees. In line with constructivist thought, and countering the realist school of thought, these organizations are taking a very active role in the well being and safety of the refugees. Considering the near religious following of soccer in my life, the role that individual clubs and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) have taken are truly extraordinary. This approach is miles better than what the U.S. is currently struggling with regarding our southern border. The different approaches between the U.S. and Europe reflects the battle between realism and constructivism quite well.

After watching the entirety of the Republican Debate this past Thursday, many of the candidates supported a mass deportation or even the construction of a wall. I see this approach as one a realist would support. The U.S. should only worry about the national interest and our security, while ignoring the suffering of those who are not Americans. Realists often associate human nature with politics, and in this case the “natural” thing to do would be to take care of those who are part of your state. However, the constructivist idea that our identity helps guide decisions is a major reason of why Europe’s major soccer clubs are helping these refugees. 

Soccer clubs are an incredibly large part of many peoples lives. These clubs are using their influence over people’s thoughts to help sway belief to help the refugees. While in the past, immigrants have been met with disdain in Europe, most notably France with the large influx of Islamic immigrants that were entering the country. However, very similarly to the constructivist idea that history is not a guaranteed predictor of what the future will be like, these clubs have taken it upon themselves to take an active role in ensuring that the refugees will be met with open arms. The multi nationality of a majority of these teams help create their identity. While a leader of this movement, Bayern Munich, are a very German team with a very German identity, they also involve a multitude of cultures both within their squad as well as their fanbase. So they have their German base, but expand into many other cultures. The donations from Bayern are going towards food and German language classes, showing that while they are very willing to help these refugees, they also want to help them integrate into German culture. More than monetary support is coming from these actions though. The fans of these clubs get behind these ideas and bring that support outside the stadium to the refugees. 

With the immigrant crisis that the U.S. is facing, professional sports teams have not made a stand like this. While European soccer clubs are full of a multitude of cultures and nationalities, a majority of American sport is defined by them being American. I see this major difference as reflecting the constructivist vs. realist argument incredibly well. The attempt to not let history define the outcome of the current crisis as well as these clubs acting as institutions that have a real effect on the outcome of the crisis. 

link-http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/09/champions-league-europa-donate-ticket-refugees-porto-bayern-munich 

Constructivism and US-Iran Relations

Constructivism is arguably the most difficult international relations theory to grasp. However, it offers some very relatable ideas that, if put into more accessible language, provide a compelling and useful complement to other international relations theories – especially for those attempting to understand the dynamics of US-Iran relations. Alexander Wendt applies Constructivism to the international state system, arguing that states are engaged in social relationships which derive meaning independently of the actual material environment. In Wendt’s theoretical view, states begin their interactions with a blank slate: nothing predisposes them to conflict or to cooperation. The early interactions are critical; they can set the relationship and intersubjective meaning construction between two countries on a largely positive or negative course. In the case of US-Iran relations, I argue that the following is a plausible explanation of the countries’ persistent conflict: Intersubjective meaning construction was placed on a negative trajectory when the current Iranian state known as the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from revolution in 1979. 

Western imperialism and interference, backed by the historical realities of America’s role in the 1953 coup in support of the Shah, helped motivate the creation of a new state whose identity was to be largely based on opposition to America and the West. Meanwhile, a critical moment for the US in its early intersubjective meaning construction with post-revolutionary Iran was the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and subsequent hostage crisis. If there were a momentary blank slate between the US and post-revolutionary Iran, this event helped to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran as a radically hostile enemy in American eyes. Relations between the two countries have thus arguably been handicapped over the last three decades by the intersubjective meaning constructed with hostility, trauma, and distrust. In such a Constructivist view, the state of US-Iran relations cannot be blamed on conflicting geopolitical, military, or economic interests. Instead, it is the result of ideas and narratives of grievance and threat developed in each country about the other. These ideas and narratives are in some cases rooted in real historical events that occurred at critical times, but often assume a power and a scale beyond what many outside observers would consider “rational” or objective.

Not only can the Constructivist approach explain the evolution of the Iranian-U.S. relationship, it can also offer a new way forward. The United States’ perception of Iran as an actor engaging in criminal activities in the Middle East must change to understand that Iran, like the United States in the Middle East, is acting according to its perceived interests. Conceiving of the Islamic Republic as an unrelenting source of regional malignancy will only perpetuate the U.S.’ negative view of Iran. To be sure, Iran is a leading sponsor of “terrorism” and violence throughout the Middle East, perhaps only trailing the U.S. as the leading source of violence in the region. However, U.S. policymakers should attempt to engage Iran in an earnest fashion. This engagement and even limited, but symbolic concessions—such as allowing Iran to enrich its own uranium as long as it remains below weapons grade—will beget a new understanding. The United States could also demonstrate by its own efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons and leading a global call of disarmament that nuclear weapons are no longer the symbol of prestige as they were during the Cold War. This would send a strong signal to the Iranians that being a regional or even global power no longer requires nuclear weapons capability.

Feminism

Anchal Kannambadi
Article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/carly-fiorina-the-accidental-feminist.html

Response #1

Clearly Feminism is a big part of this year’s candidacy. Donald Trump has consistently dissed the female candidates by using their sex and gender against them. Women have been treated differently since the start of the race. We are also introduced to the idea of Identity Politics in which people’s ideas are shaped by the communities it which they identify with. I don’t think that these sexist slurs are helping anything. Women in the government are constantly facing obstacles because of their sex. We live in a fairly masculine society, and women especially have a hard time trying to rise up. Earlier in the summer we saw Donald trump throwing out sexist comments during the first debate, as well as in many press conferences and articles. However, Carly Fiorina has been using these sexist comments to her advantage. She is ultimately telling everyone that she is being treated differently because she is a women, and women all around the country are seeing this and going “hey, that is not right” and they are banding together to support Fiorina in the run. Like the article says, each candidate in the race is using Identity politics to their advantage. Ben Carson is the candidate that opposes Obama’s ideals but is not a racist, Marco Rubio is the candidate that has supporters who are from ethnic demographics, and Hilary Clinton is appealing to women in the Democratic Party. In class we discussed how we felt about feminism in our country and how it affects many different aspects in International Relations as well as our lives. In my life I have definitely faced misogynistic people. When I am running for a position in a group, or I am taking charge during a project, I have been told not to because I was a women, and I would not be able to separate my feelings from what needed to be done. That is what discourages a lot of women from going after what they want, and that is unfair. We could also look at how Women can be natural born leaders, and by shutting them down we are limiting our full potential as a society. We have fought (as women) to be treated equally, but even people who are running to be our president, are separating us by gender and sex, not potential. If the candidates want to have something interesting to talk about they should focus on talking about what the other candidates have done or not done. Trump has been consistently degrading women in positions of authority, and if he were to stop and focus on the real issues at hand, more people would take him seriously.