Yep. I particularly appreciate the part about how the need for collaboration originates from realism about technology, not from progressive ideology. If human psychology requires that we have a common enemy in order to collaborate, we have one in the form of unconstrained technological development. There’s no need to posit love taking over the biosphere. Good old reliable fear can do the job. We don’t even need a phobia, just a correct appreciation of the dangers of feedback. The progressive part in “progressive realism” can easily be misunderstood as a qualifier that restricts what kind of realism would we admit, as if the cause is progressive and the tools are realist. As if we will only admit realism in a subordinate role. The truth is that the realism of “progressive realism” is unconstrained and leads to the an estimate that collaboration is existential as a calculated result. Maybe “existential realism” would be better at conveying what this is really about?
I imagine that 20 odd years ago, when Wright came up with Progressive Realism, the main reason he chose “progressive” is that it was considered to be a synonym for the political Left, a grouping that had a more or less well-deserved reputation for being short on compromise and flexible thinking about policy— tended to value purity of concept and politics, and disdained horse-trading with other factions. I assume he was trying to edify an ideological group that had good values, but struggled to influence national politics and policy. Perhaps we should be using "Progressive" as a more general adjective denoting anything that produces helpful change, or instead come up with another term that doesn't struggle under the burden of all those associations. Both "existential" and "cooperative" work for me as well or better than "progressive".
I'm not getting a math vibe from "existential". It's a mushroom cloud vibe for me. I like "cooperative realism", actually. I think it's quite good. Has a good mix of skepticism and opportunity. Also a natural outcome of nonzero sum analysis.
It has a mushroom cloud vibe for me too. But xriskers can’t resist (correctly) assigning moral weight to the non lives of potential persons. We’re gonna need a calculator.
If someone wants to argue the democracy versus autocracy dichotomy, they should define each term in a way that allows for nuanced evaluations across different countries. I believe their definition must acknowledge the spectrum of democratic qualities, not just categorize systems as purely democratic or autocratic.
From my perspective, countries like Britain and America, often at the forefront of this debate, exhibit weaker democratic traits due to their first-past-the-post electoral systems and the influence of money in politics. Maybe there is a bit of projection going on there!
I just finished reading Jim Sciutto's "The Return of Great Powers", which typifies the dangerous, faux "realist" mind set that Wright impressively critiques here. Then there is Trump's ignorant and myopic version of "realism", which might reduce tension between the U.S. and China/Russia in the short-run, but would produce a catastrophic neglect of the other existential threats we face.
I'm not sure Trump will reduce US-China tension even in the short run. There's a pretty good chance that China hawks wind up being influential in a Trump administration.
Guessing what Trump will do on any issue is sort of like predicting the winning number when spinning a roulette wheel--a very large number of permutations involving his self-interest, ignorant view of the world, plastic ideology, and changing circumstances. So, I agree that we shouldn't bet on Trump ever being a positive influence.
Trump is the sort of demagogue that must have an external enemy singled out at all times. I’m guessing it will probably be China as the default enemy, until there’s another major terrorist attack on US soil, at which point it will revert back to Islam.
I agree also with your conclusion for a world governance But how to get there is the big question. Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry of the Future goes in this direction. I guess almost the best chance is a benign superintelligence that rates the survival of the planet‘s biosphere higher than individual nations or companies fates.
Well, I think we'd have to do some work to make sure the superintelligence was benign. Meanwhile I'd like to think of ways to use AI that could help resolve conflicts/tensions among nations.
Why is it when I read your fine work like this piece I find it depressing. I think it comes from knowing it just ain't going to happen the way you envision solving the issues. Bob, you have got to be an optimist. I like to think of myself neither optimist or pessimist. In life one hopes for the best and plans for the worst is the best option as things usually turn out looking something like a middle case. Well, I ramble. Bottom line I just don't think the world will get it together. Why? The people who are authoritarians and the leaders who are megalomanic will continue on and drive us to our doom. I think that is the source of my depressive reaction to your point of view which I wish would come to fruition. At least you can say you told us so when the chickens come home to roost if anyone is around to read it then he says with a smile. End rant.
You certainly have done and are doing more than your bit to try and move the rudder. I will certainly grant you that. You keep on truckin as we said back in the day ;-).
For any problem to be solved someone must first believe that it can be solved. Without such a belief there is no reason to look for a solution, no reason to work at an understanding of the problem. By working at trying to understand a problem you reveal your belief that the problem may be workable, that a solution may yet be found. You may assign a low probability to such an event, yet the probability you assigned it must be high enough that it keeps you attached to the problem, bounded enough away from zero that it explains how you choose to allocate your remaining life. How small can it truly be? Optimism is not a delusional perception of reality. Optimism is how we reach into potential to pull out a better reality. No one that believes in coordination should shy from being called an optimist. It is the tool of the trade.
Realists generally believe that international law exists to serve the narrow interests of great powers. They contend this is because states prioritize their autonomy/sovereignty over international institutions. Something like the UN supports this view because the victors of WWII each possesses a permanent seat on the Security Council AND veto power. The idea is the UN would not exist unless such guarantees were extended to certain countries. Bottom line: If states can get away with ignoring international law/cooperation, then they will.
The worldview espoused here sounds like it belongs within the tradition of liberalism, which claims states are capable of cooperating for mutual benefit/enlightened self-interest, especially as the world becomes more interconnected. As a certain author rightly notes, technology creates more opportunities for non-zero sum interactions, which necessitates collaboration.
I don't know why this is being sold as "realism." When we're talking about "taking nations as they are,' it typically means self-interested. "England does not have permanent allies, only permanent interests." A problem with liberalism is that it's not as coherent as realism. The latter makes clearer, more forceful claims and predictions. Self-help. Survival. Sovereignty. International anarchy (for the neo-realists). Realism as being "realistic" has always been something of a rhetorical stolen base.
I'd be delighted if you had Ikenberry and Mearsheimer back on the podcast to run "progressive realism" by them.
If states collaborate from a perception of self interest against a shared enemy, that’s entirely consistent with realism, is it not? What if the enemy is abstract, such as the extinction of an animal specie, or the proliferation of a dangerous technology? Is it any less realist because the enemy is abstract?
Absolutely realists believe states can collaborate out of self-interest. A core realist concept, as I'm sure you know, is balance of power. Power balances power. States enter into military alliances, but realists contend these alliances are always contingent. Someone can back out. Leaders are known to use a technique called "lying," which is why, ultimately, it's a "self-help" system.
Mearsheimer and other realists contend there's a group egoism -- that tribalism is built into the constitution of human beings. Tribes do not cooperate because cooperation is good; tribes cooperate in order to compete. Realist Kenneth Waltz opposed the Iraq War; he said it was completely foolish, but noted that a problem with a unipolar world is there's no one around to check a hegemon. He said that a unipolar configuration is inherently unstable because great powers almost inevitably overreach.
As for "abstract" threats -- well, we can see the kind of cooperation forged on climate change. I suppose a model is the Montreal Protocol, but I've recently read the US was reluctant to go along with that until a domestic chemical giant created an alternative to CFCs. States are angling for relative advantages. The same goes for being the first to harness super-intelligent AI.
I agree with Bob that the US should actually adhere to a "rules based order" and help solidify such norms. This is a good strategy if the US is no longer the most dominant country in the world. An alternative point of view could be that the US should work hard to make sure it never has a real peer competitor. It should not try to rely on "rules based order" because international cooperation/alliances are much flimsier than people believe. And that's a difference between realists and liberals. Liberals believe states are capable of "deep" collaboration.
If all collaborations were all flimsy and just an instrument for competition the US would have broken into its constituent states after the War of Independence. Some collaborations are sustainable. I'd even grant you that most collaborations are not sustainable over the long run. So what? Our self-interest dictates that we seek out collaborations, building short term and long term ones whenever we find common cause. The real problem is American delusions of grandeur. The idea that we can dictate to the world our way of life is an ideology, not a national interest. Our interest is in stability and trade. Showing respect for the way of life of others can buy us much good will, for so little expense. Why do we always have to win at self-righteousness? Why we can't win at making friends?
Ha, the perfect as the enemy of the good, again. Small changes are more likely to be feasible and are less dangerous. Collaboration between states is hard enough to accomplish. We agree that countries have too much power, yes? But how can you convince them to pass some of that power to a central institution? You must appeal to their self-interest. No other line of argument would work.
The way to convince any country, even the ones we think of as adversaries is to say how can we work together and make life in your country better. How can we have even exchanges that will help us both. This will improve us both as leaders of our people. World problems need world answers. In my view there is no time to argue. We have to go forward for mankind on a world scale. This means mankind is moving forward, even if only a small amount, with every decision.
"Hence the call for America to transform its conduct and even its self-conception—for it to quit invoking the “rules” selectively and opportunistically, and quit sermonizing about how other societies should organize themselves, and start tempering its narcissistic sense of exceptionalism with some humility and self-awareness."
Amen to that. And it's not that America is the only modern nation that got drunk on itself--Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century did the same (driven by hubris and chauvinism; e.g, "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen"--"German nature may heal the world"), with disastrous consequences. Epistemic humility and cognitive empathy are powerful antidotes to this ever-present malady and something to look for in both journalists and elective officials.
We can’t really have hope for epistemic humility to become a dominant value in society without setting up institutions that promote its propagation. Where can I send my kids to increase the probability that they end up valuing epistemic humility?
I've tended to think of realism as inherently conservative because accepting nations as they are is non-ideological and thus conservative in a Burkean sense. But the radical element of progressive realism described here (extending the rule of law to the global level) seems to challenge this intuition. It takes the theoretical foundations of realism but still seeks to reshape the world (away from nation-states as ultimate political units) instead of accepting the constraints of the present. Nonetheless, I still think it's compatible with conservative sensibilities since conservatism is adaptive and non-ideological, and progressive realism's call for a remaking of the international order isn't ideological but rather responsive to context.
From The Economist on having Ukraine join NATO while at war "Article 5 would not necessarily require troops from other nato countries to fight on Ukrainian soil; its commitments could be met with generous supplies of weapons, plus help with logistics and battlefield intelligence." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/07/04/how-to-trump-proof-americas-alliances
I'm not buying it. Is The Economist now in the business of publishing fantasy?
I agree.
Yep. I particularly appreciate the part about how the need for collaboration originates from realism about technology, not from progressive ideology. If human psychology requires that we have a common enemy in order to collaborate, we have one in the form of unconstrained technological development. There’s no need to posit love taking over the biosphere. Good old reliable fear can do the job. We don’t even need a phobia, just a correct appreciation of the dangers of feedback. The progressive part in “progressive realism” can easily be misunderstood as a qualifier that restricts what kind of realism would we admit, as if the cause is progressive and the tools are realist. As if we will only admit realism in a subordinate role. The truth is that the realism of “progressive realism” is unconstrained and leads to the an estimate that collaboration is existential as a calculated result. Maybe “existential realism” would be better at conveying what this is really about?
I imagine that 20 odd years ago, when Wright came up with Progressive Realism, the main reason he chose “progressive” is that it was considered to be a synonym for the political Left, a grouping that had a more or less well-deserved reputation for being short on compromise and flexible thinking about policy— tended to value purity of concept and politics, and disdained horse-trading with other factions. I assume he was trying to edify an ideological group that had good values, but struggled to influence national politics and policy. Perhaps we should be using "Progressive" as a more general adjective denoting anything that produces helpful change, or instead come up with another term that doesn't struggle under the burden of all those associations. Both "existential" and "cooperative" work for me as well or better than "progressive".
Cooperative realism?
Mine sounds too communist and yours sounds like we have to start doing math regarding possible future persons.
I'm not getting a math vibe from "existential". It's a mushroom cloud vibe for me. I like "cooperative realism", actually. I think it's quite good. Has a good mix of skepticism and opportunity. Also a natural outcome of nonzero sum analysis.
It has a mushroom cloud vibe for me too. But xriskers can’t resist (correctly) assigning moral weight to the non lives of potential persons. We’re gonna need a calculator.
Or actuary.
Which I am not opposed to… just makes things messier for all.
If someone wants to argue the democracy versus autocracy dichotomy, they should define each term in a way that allows for nuanced evaluations across different countries. I believe their definition must acknowledge the spectrum of democratic qualities, not just categorize systems as purely democratic or autocratic.
From my perspective, countries like Britain and America, often at the forefront of this debate, exhibit weaker democratic traits due to their first-past-the-post electoral systems and the influence of money in politics. Maybe there is a bit of projection going on there!
I just finished reading Jim Sciutto's "The Return of Great Powers", which typifies the dangerous, faux "realist" mind set that Wright impressively critiques here. Then there is Trump's ignorant and myopic version of "realism", which might reduce tension between the U.S. and China/Russia in the short-run, but would produce a catastrophic neglect of the other existential threats we face.
I'm not sure Trump will reduce US-China tension even in the short run. There's a pretty good chance that China hawks wind up being influential in a Trump administration.
Guessing what Trump will do on any issue is sort of like predicting the winning number when spinning a roulette wheel--a very large number of permutations involving his self-interest, ignorant view of the world, plastic ideology, and changing circumstances. So, I agree that we shouldn't bet on Trump ever being a positive influence.
Trump is the sort of demagogue that must have an external enemy singled out at all times. I’m guessing it will probably be China as the default enemy, until there’s another major terrorist attack on US soil, at which point it will revert back to Islam.
I agree also with your conclusion for a world governance But how to get there is the big question. Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry of the Future goes in this direction. I guess almost the best chance is a benign superintelligence that rates the survival of the planet‘s biosphere higher than individual nations or companies fates.
Well, I think we'd have to do some work to make sure the superintelligence was benign. Meanwhile I'd like to think of ways to use AI that could help resolve conflicts/tensions among nations.
Why is it when I read your fine work like this piece I find it depressing. I think it comes from knowing it just ain't going to happen the way you envision solving the issues. Bob, you have got to be an optimist. I like to think of myself neither optimist or pessimist. In life one hopes for the best and plans for the worst is the best option as things usually turn out looking something like a middle case. Well, I ramble. Bottom line I just don't think the world will get it together. Why? The people who are authoritarians and the leaders who are megalomanic will continue on and drive us to our doom. I think that is the source of my depressive reaction to your point of view which I wish would come to fruition. At least you can say you told us so when the chickens come home to roost if anyone is around to read it then he says with a smile. End rant.
I'm not an optimist. I'm not predicting the world will take this path. I'm just trying to explain why I think the world is screwed if it doesn't.
You certainly have done and are doing more than your bit to try and move the rudder. I will certainly grant you that. You keep on truckin as we said back in the day ;-).
For any problem to be solved someone must first believe that it can be solved. Without such a belief there is no reason to look for a solution, no reason to work at an understanding of the problem. By working at trying to understand a problem you reveal your belief that the problem may be workable, that a solution may yet be found. You may assign a low probability to such an event, yet the probability you assigned it must be high enough that it keeps you attached to the problem, bounded enough away from zero that it explains how you choose to allocate your remaining life. How small can it truly be? Optimism is not a delusional perception of reality. Optimism is how we reach into potential to pull out a better reality. No one that believes in coordination should shy from being called an optimist. It is the tool of the trade.
Realists generally believe that international law exists to serve the narrow interests of great powers. They contend this is because states prioritize their autonomy/sovereignty over international institutions. Something like the UN supports this view because the victors of WWII each possesses a permanent seat on the Security Council AND veto power. The idea is the UN would not exist unless such guarantees were extended to certain countries. Bottom line: If states can get away with ignoring international law/cooperation, then they will.
The worldview espoused here sounds like it belongs within the tradition of liberalism, which claims states are capable of cooperating for mutual benefit/enlightened self-interest, especially as the world becomes more interconnected. As a certain author rightly notes, technology creates more opportunities for non-zero sum interactions, which necessitates collaboration.
I don't know why this is being sold as "realism." When we're talking about "taking nations as they are,' it typically means self-interested. "England does not have permanent allies, only permanent interests." A problem with liberalism is that it's not as coherent as realism. The latter makes clearer, more forceful claims and predictions. Self-help. Survival. Sovereignty. International anarchy (for the neo-realists). Realism as being "realistic" has always been something of a rhetorical stolen base.
I'd be delighted if you had Ikenberry and Mearsheimer back on the podcast to run "progressive realism" by them.
If states collaborate from a perception of self interest against a shared enemy, that’s entirely consistent with realism, is it not? What if the enemy is abstract, such as the extinction of an animal specie, or the proliferation of a dangerous technology? Is it any less realist because the enemy is abstract?
Absolutely realists believe states can collaborate out of self-interest. A core realist concept, as I'm sure you know, is balance of power. Power balances power. States enter into military alliances, but realists contend these alliances are always contingent. Someone can back out. Leaders are known to use a technique called "lying," which is why, ultimately, it's a "self-help" system.
Mearsheimer and other realists contend there's a group egoism -- that tribalism is built into the constitution of human beings. Tribes do not cooperate because cooperation is good; tribes cooperate in order to compete. Realist Kenneth Waltz opposed the Iraq War; he said it was completely foolish, but noted that a problem with a unipolar world is there's no one around to check a hegemon. He said that a unipolar configuration is inherently unstable because great powers almost inevitably overreach.
As for "abstract" threats -- well, we can see the kind of cooperation forged on climate change. I suppose a model is the Montreal Protocol, but I've recently read the US was reluctant to go along with that until a domestic chemical giant created an alternative to CFCs. States are angling for relative advantages. The same goes for being the first to harness super-intelligent AI.
I agree with Bob that the US should actually adhere to a "rules based order" and help solidify such norms. This is a good strategy if the US is no longer the most dominant country in the world. An alternative point of view could be that the US should work hard to make sure it never has a real peer competitor. It should not try to rely on "rules based order" because international cooperation/alliances are much flimsier than people believe. And that's a difference between realists and liberals. Liberals believe states are capable of "deep" collaboration.
If all collaborations were all flimsy and just an instrument for competition the US would have broken into its constituent states after the War of Independence. Some collaborations are sustainable. I'd even grant you that most collaborations are not sustainable over the long run. So what? Our self-interest dictates that we seek out collaborations, building short term and long term ones whenever we find common cause. The real problem is American delusions of grandeur. The idea that we can dictate to the world our way of life is an ideology, not a national interest. Our interest is in stability and trade. Showing respect for the way of life of others can buy us much good will, for so little expense. Why do we always have to win at self-righteousness? Why we can't win at making friends?
The answer to these questions is not countries but we have to have a world answer. And if you say that is impossible then there is your answer.
Ha, the perfect as the enemy of the good, again. Small changes are more likely to be feasible and are less dangerous. Collaboration between states is hard enough to accomplish. We agree that countries have too much power, yes? But how can you convince them to pass some of that power to a central institution? You must appeal to their self-interest. No other line of argument would work.
The way to convince any country, even the ones we think of as adversaries is to say how can we work together and make life in your country better. How can we have even exchanges that will help us both. This will improve us both as leaders of our people. World problems need world answers. In my view there is no time to argue. We have to go forward for mankind on a world scale. This means mankind is moving forward, even if only a small amount, with every decision.
"Hence the call for America to transform its conduct and even its self-conception—for it to quit invoking the “rules” selectively and opportunistically, and quit sermonizing about how other societies should organize themselves, and start tempering its narcissistic sense of exceptionalism with some humility and self-awareness."
Amen to that. And it's not that America is the only modern nation that got drunk on itself--Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century did the same (driven by hubris and chauvinism; e.g, "Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen"--"German nature may heal the world"), with disastrous consequences. Epistemic humility and cognitive empathy are powerful antidotes to this ever-present malady and something to look for in both journalists and elective officials.
We can’t really have hope for epistemic humility to become a dominant value in society without setting up institutions that promote its propagation. Where can I send my kids to increase the probability that they end up valuing epistemic humility?
I've tended to think of realism as inherently conservative because accepting nations as they are is non-ideological and thus conservative in a Burkean sense. But the radical element of progressive realism described here (extending the rule of law to the global level) seems to challenge this intuition. It takes the theoretical foundations of realism but still seeks to reshape the world (away from nation-states as ultimate political units) instead of accepting the constraints of the present. Nonetheless, I still think it's compatible with conservative sensibilities since conservatism is adaptive and non-ideological, and progressive realism's call for a remaking of the international order isn't ideological but rather responsive to context.
From The Economist on having Ukraine join NATO while at war "Article 5 would not necessarily require troops from other nato countries to fight on Ukrainian soil; its commitments could be met with generous supplies of weapons, plus help with logistics and battlefield intelligence." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/07/04/how-to-trump-proof-americas-alliances
I'm not buying it. Is The Economist now in the business of publishing fantasy?