Realpolitik - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By ness31
#14773551
This probably could have gone in an ideology thread, maybe; but because I'd like to discuss the concept informally I've chosen Gorkiy.

One can go through life and hear or see a word bandied about and never really, truly understand it. Well that's been the case with myself and realpolitik :lol: I kinda think I know what it means, and apparently Kissinger was a master of it but ultimately I'm just guessing.

So instead of going to a search engine and getting a generic answer I was wondering if PoFoers would care to give me their definitions and see what we all come up with..

I always thought realpolitik were behind the scene political machinations. But then it never really added up for me because that would make all the public stuff unrealpolitk. See my dilemma? :lol:
User avatar
By MB.
#14774064
https://www.ft.com/content/802c822e-d0d ... f7778e7377

In 1920, the American journalist George Abel Schreiner published a history of the first world war titled The Craft Sinister. An attack on the delusions of high diplomacy, it included a peculiar chapter contrasting German Realpolitik with an avowedly moral form of British “Idealpolitik”. Schreiner went beyond familiar denunciations of Prussian militarism to argue that German Realpolitik wasn’t realistic at all, neglecting public opinion as it relentlessly pursued the national interest; British “Idealpolitik”, by contrast, was realistic because it was constrained, a worldly diplomacy tempered by democratic sensibility.

Sample the FT’s top stories for a week
You select the topic, we deliver the news.

Select topic
Enter email address
Enter email address
Invalid email
Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.
One obvious German response was to dismiss such claims to moral superiority as naive hypocrisy, given Britain’s longstanding imperialism. Yet Schreiner’s dichotomy does something to capture the dilemma most of us face with the term Realpolitik: namely, what exactly is it, beyond the Machiavellian actions of states focused squarely on getting what they want? John Bew, a senior academic in the war studies department at King’s College London and a prominent foreign policy intellectual, shows in his new book that it is far more complicated than that.

Realpolitik began as an argument about the possibilities of German unification following the European revolutions of 1848. Its originator was August Ludwig von Rochau, a radical who was jailed for his politics as a student, worked in exile as a travel writer, then returned home to Germany to become a political journalist and, eventually, a politician. In 1853 he published Grundsätze der Realpolitik (roughly translated as “Foundations of Realpolitik”), whose arguments applied particularly to the ramshackle confederation of German states. Rochau’s book suggests all the things you might think of when you hear the word Realpolitik: that politics is about power, about manoeuvring coalitions, about social forces (he focused on the rising middle class in Germany) and their capacity to influence politics, and about the power of ideas in shaping political possibilities — though it takes work to pull that out of his convoluted text.

Rochau published a second version of Realpolitik in 1869, now calling for a strong German national-liberal state able to defend itself against Bonapartist tyranny and to extricate itself from its Austro-Hungarian neighbour. It took a powerful Prussia under Otto von Bismarck make that happen — and, when it did, the German chancellor quickly became regarded as a political visionary. For admirers and critics alike, his name became synonymous with Realpolitik. And as Bew suggests, the subsequent story of Realpolitik is really one of how a historically contingent German idea became divorced from its origins, morphing into a polemical term signalling hardheaded realism (as opposed to “moralism”) about politics.

By the time of the first world war, it was power politics (or Machtpolitik) of the kind associated with nationalists such as the historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-96) that had come to dominate Allied thinking. British writers were moved to construct their own traditions of anti-Realpolitik to show just how far Germany had moved away from the norms of European politics — though the term would undergo something of a rehabilitation in the 1920s and 1930s, when lower-case (and hence un-Germanic) realpolitik was invoked in defence of empire against the perceived moralism of the League of Nations.

In the US, the concept was late to catch on, first used when the syndicated columnist Walter Lippmann called for an injection of Realpolitik into the foreign policy shield of the American republic during the second world war. But the background ideas had been developing for some time. Indeed, US policy intellectuals were soon more comfortable than their European counterparts with using a modified language of Realpolitik as a response to totalitarianism, precisely because it seemed to align with the rise of US world power.

As Bew follows the Americanisation of Realpolitik into the cold war, he shows how quickly many “realists” in foreign policy had become comfortable with their theories about the primacy of national interest, and how polarised this made any debate about the alternatives. If you weren’t a “realist”, you were a “utopian”, a damning charge. William Lee Miller, who served as speech writer for the democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1956, later argued that such sterile contrasts had damaged American political discourse by unrealistically implying that opponents of “moralism” somehow had access to a more perfect understanding than any living historical actor ever has had or could have.

For admirers and critics alike, Bismarck’s name became synonymous with ‘Realpolitik’
Historians of international politics readily agreed, and what Bew describes as the “Bismarck Debate” of the 1950s and 1960s was part of this process. AJP Taylor’s 1955 biography emphasised how Bismarck’s success had depended on luck as well as iron-willed genius; subsequent works by William Langer, George Kennan and Henry Kissinger would further contextualise his achievements. Highlighting the complexity of politics and political judgment in historical time showed that any simple opposition between realist heroes like Bismarck and, say, woolly Wilsonian idealists was bound to be more than a little overplayed.

One striking lesson of this history of Realpolitik in the 20th century concerns the power of ideas to shape politics, as academics and public intellectuals operating in the interstices of government, research centres, funding agencies and journalism were influential in configuring the more practically consequential actions of diplomats, State Department officials and politicians. Yet as Bew notes, these webs were largely spun without reference to the man who started it all.

He ends, therefore, by calling for a return to Rochau’s “real” Realpolitik, directly repurposing him to generate a checklist of principles. Here Realpolitik becomes simply a shorthand for diagnosing politics realistically and in context. You need a framework of analysis as far as possible devoid of self-deception — one that anticipates the extent of political possibility given the limits of the moment, understands the power of ideas and public opinion, and connects political power and imagination with economics and society. But as an answer to the question of what exactly Realpolitik is, this feels like conceptual displacement. To understand Realpolitik is simply to understand politics, no more, no less. Are we all clear now then?

Duncan Kelly teaches politics at the University of Cambridge
By ness31
#14774133
I was so stressed about this thread lol. I was petrified that I'd bared my soul about not understanding what realpolitik was and that all of PoFo was laughing at me :lol: I'm chuffed after reading the article as I don't feel quite as stupid anymore.

Considering its a German phrase, it's function and literalness can't be ignored.
I need to understand 'machtpolitk' better also..
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14774136
Realpolitik advances a notion that there is a kind of pragmatic politics free of ideological considerations. This patently ridiculous, since politics is about advancing a set of interests. The implicit ideology is revealed by observing whose interests are being pursued. Herman Kahn's Hudson Institute had a similar concept known as value-free analysis (parodied to great effect in Dr. Strangelove).

This purpose of such mental gymnastics is to obscure the actual ideology implicit in any set of policies.
By SolarCross
#14774142
quetzalcoatl wrote:Realpolitik advances a notion that there is a kind of pragmatic politics free of ideological considerations. This patently ridiculous, since politics is about advancing a set of interests. The implicit ideology is revealed by observing whose interests are being pursued. Herman Kahn's Hudson Institute had a similar concept known as value-free analysis (parodied to great effect in Dr. Strangelove).

This purpose of such mental gymnastics is to obscure the actual ideology implicit in any set of policies.

I have the opposite take myself. I think you are saying that realpolitik is ideology in "sheep's clothing" but I think the inner truth of all ideology is that they are weapons of realpolitik, that is to say ideology is realpolitik in sheep's clothing. Ideology is a subset of realpolitik and not the other way around. Christianity, Islam, Communism, Scientology were all crafted to give power to certain kinds of people in particular contexts. They are weapons of mass deception and what could be more realpolitik than that?
By Atlantis
#14774269
Unless you take some sort of absolutist view, which has no place in the relative world of politics, Realpolitik is indeed politics that does not follow a fixed ideology. Merkel is said to be an advocate of Realpolitik. I'm sure folks here can construct millions of hypothetical scenarios in which Realpolitik is ideology, but that has nothing to do with the reality of Realpolitik.

In the real world, politics is the art of the possible. Advocating nuclear energy as the right way forward to combat climate change and achieve energy independence is the right way forward when the political consensus is in favor of nuclear energy. Deciding to exit nuclear energy because of the incalculable risk is the right way forward when there is a political consensus against nuclear energy. There is no ideology in this, just pragmatism.
By ness31
#14774380
If we "murder our darlings" a touch in all of your posts then we will see some common themes come to the fore regarding realpolitik -

quetzalcoatl wrote:Realpolitik advances a notion that there is a kind of pragmatic politics free of ideological considerations. This patently ridiculous, since politics is about advancing a set of interests. The implicit ideology is revealed by observing whose interests are being pursued. Herman Kahn's Hudson Institute had a similar concept known as value-free analysis (parodied to great effect in Dr. Strangelove).

This purpose of such mental gymnastics is to obscure the actual ideology implicit in any set of policies.


Regardless of the interest, it is the pragmatism or the 'advancing' that you have described which is fundamental to realpolitik.

SolarCross wrote:I have the opposite take myself. I think you are saying that realpolitik is ideology in "sheep's clothing" but I think the inner truth of all ideology is that they are weapons of realpolitik, that is to say ideology is realpolitik in sheep's clothing. Ideology is a subset of realpolitik and not the other way around. Christianity, Islam, Communism, Scientology were all crafted to give power to certain kinds of people in particular contexts. They are weapons of mass deception and what could be more realpolitik than that?


You prefer to differentiate between ideology and realpolitik which is fine (I hesitated to put in in the ideology forum) - but aren't you saying that realpolitik is the result of ideology in practice?

Atlantis wrote:Unless you take some sort of absolutist view, which has no place in the relative world of politics, Realpolitik is indeed politics that does not follow a fixed ideology. Merkel is said to be an advocate of Realpolitik. I'm sure folks here can construct millions of hypothetical scenarios in which Realpolitik is ideology, but that has nothing to do with the reality of Realpolitik.

In the real world, politics is the art of the possible. Advocating nuclear energy as the right way forward to combat climate change and achieve energy independence is the right way forward when the political consensus is in favor of nuclear energy. Deciding to exit nuclear energy because of the incalculable risk is the right way forward when there is a political consensus against nuclear energy. There is no ideology in this, just pragmatism.


This for me personally, is what ties it all together. One cannot exploit or manipulate an outcome without consensus.

Quetz is such a fan of formulas, so how's this:

Ideology (vehicle or weapon) + consensus (power or macht in German) = realpolitik

Edit - I still feel somewhat empty. Why did they use REALpolitic instead of just politics :knife:
By Atlantis
#14774471
ness31 wrote:Why did they use REALpolitic instead of just politics :knife:

Because it is primarily driven by pragmatism and not by ideology. That doesn't mean that advocates of Realpolitik like Merkel don't have an opinion about what is right or wrong; however, their policies are not a priori determined by any ideology.

If I'm a socialist I will advocate socialist policies, if I'm a neocon, I will advocate neocon policies, whereas in Realpolitik I can chose the best policies irrespective of ideology. I can use social policies together with free market policies. The result is a type of social market economy, which adopts the policies that are best for the time and the place.

Philosophically, ideologues have fallen victim to the illusion that there can be one truth or one method of truth for all times and for all places. That is the primary fallacy. In reality, the only constant there can be is change.
By ness31
#14774488
*taps pen on desk*

You are right, of course. It is based in pragmatism. And yet, I can't help but feel like something has flown under the radar and I'm missing something.

I'd have preferred Ludwig to have coined it PraktischPolitic or pragmatischpolitic ....but I guess it wouldn't have quite the same ring to it.

Ludwig you will haunt me for a while yet..
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14774562
ness31 wrote:*taps pen on desk*
You are right, of course. It is based in pragmatism. And yet, I can't help but feel like something has flown under the radar and I'm missing something.


You're quite right, of course. The 'real' in realpolitik conceals as much as it reveals. Merkel has been advanced as an example, for instance. But she is almost a caricature of idealpolitik, advancing politically damaging policies against her own interest. She and Obama are the acme of center-right politics so adored by Europeans. They are deemed realistic, against every available metric.

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]