Show of HandsShow of Hands

skinner February 10th, 2014 10:48pm

Do you approve of the political philosophy of realpolitik?

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

MadCow True GOP
02/11/14 9:19 am

Might makes right!

Reply
Mattwall1
02/11/14 3:39 pm

are you a fellow realpoliticker?

beanD California
02/10/14 8:06 pm

Sounds European. I'm suspicious.

Reply
Mattwall1
02/10/14 8:49 pm

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.

beanD California
02/10/14 9:00 pm

Haha. What's the basic premise?

Mattwall1
02/10/14 9:02 pm

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

Mattwall1
02/10/14 9:02 pm

Nixonian, which is more about power and brute force than Bismarckian, though still more of an attempt at reality based than ideology based politics.

Mattwall1
02/10/14 9:05 pm

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

Mattwall1
02/10/14 9:06 pm

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.

beanD California
02/10/14 9:26 pm

Yeah, it does. Interesting.

Mattwall1
02/10/14 7:23 pm

possibly? could you explain?

NDAmerican Florida
02/10/14 7:27 pm

I'm not extremely knowledgable about it, I think I align more with bismarkian or whatever you said it was.

Mattwall1
02/10/14 7:30 pm

I'd say that's probably accurate of you, though whether you agree with blood and iron may be another issue

NDAmerican Florida
02/10/14 7:33 pm

I do believe in a strong defense, but diplomacy first and we shouldn't get involved with everyone's business.

NDAmerican Florida
02/10/14 7:43 pm

It said I was a nationalist, unethical bigot who oppresses minorities???? Who isolated from the world but believed in preempted strike.

Mattwall1
02/10/14 8:49 pm

maybe that isn't the best test, it just labeled me a neo con.

skinner Jersey City
02/10/14 5:51 pm

I wasn't aware there was a difference. I was thinking of Bismarck at the time though

Mattwall1
02/10/14 5:52 pm

I ask mainly because I try and follow realpolitik, albeit what my government teacher called Wallackian (he was weird)

Mattwall1
02/10/14 5:55 pm

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.

Mattwall1
02/10/14 5:55 pm

I'm a realpolitiker, but somewhere in the middle.

skinner Jersey City
02/10/14 5:57 pm

So you're a merger of the two?

Mattwall1
02/10/14 6:00 pm

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

Mattwall1
02/10/14 6:02 pm

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

Mattwall1
02/10/14 6:03 pm

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