Do you approve of the political philosophy of realpolitik?
Might makes right!
are you a fellow realpoliticker?
Sounds European. I'm suspicious.
originally european, adopted somewhat by nixon, creating two main branches, bismarckian and nixonian. although to be fair, just because its Europe shouldn't bring inherent suspicion, or approval.
Haha. What's the basic premise?
politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions. Bismarckian tends to give an edge to diplomacy when possible and could be argued is more ethical than
Nixonian, which is more about power and brute force than Bismarckian, though still more of an attempt at reality based than ideology based politics.
Bismarckian is more restrained than Nixonian realpolitik. Despite claims tot he contrary, realpolitik doesn't throw morals and ethics out the window, though it does try to avoid ideological based decisions where possible. So humanitarianism is
possible within realpolitik, but say a choice between a dictatorship and a democracy won't be decided on the grounds a democracy is a democracy, ergo.... in realpolitik.
I hope this helps
Yeah, it does. Interesting.
possibly? could you explain?
I'm not extremely knowledgable about it, I think I align more with bismarkian or whatever you said it was.
I'd say that's probably accurate of you, though whether you agree with blood and iron may be another issue
I do believe in a strong defense, but diplomacy first and we shouldn't get involved with everyone's business.
It said I was a nationalist, unethical bigot who oppresses minorities???? Who isolated from the world but believed in preempted strike.
maybe that isn't the best test, it just labeled me a neo con.
Bismarckian or Nixonian?
I wasn't aware there was a difference. I was thinking of Bismarck at the time though
I ask mainly because I try and follow realpolitik, albeit what my government teacher called Wallackian (he was weird)
Bismarckian is more diplomacy based, and more realism based. Nixonian realpolitik is somewhat more power politics based, though still using realism. Bismarckian is somewhat more ethical and restrained, Nixonian is more practical and unrestrained.
I'm a realpolitiker, but somewhere in the middle.
So you're a merger of the two?
thats probably the best way to say it. I'm far from being unethical, but a healthy balance of power and diplomacy, at least IMO, is needed. despite many claims to the contrary, realpolitik does not inherently prevent ethical action, such as say
humanitarianism. In certain forms it can, and it can involve supporting government that aren't like ours (say not supporting a democracy or republic). In others it allows for it. Its a balancing act, but diplomatic restraint and power politics are
needed in combination. Nixonian realpolitikers overwhelmingly prefer the latter, Bismarckians the former, though both have mixtures. I'm probably close enough in between that both would disagree with me while still considering me a realpolitker
I don't know enough about it.
if I may ask, why?