User:Jazzman831/liberalism

Liberalism in International Politics:

An Essay and Lesson

Written by JazzMan (Work in progress) ''Comments and questions are welcome! Please discuss this essay on the Talk Page.''

This essay is a defence of the international politics definition of liberal, and how it applies to the United Nations. Ideally I can use this essay to petition the definition's inclusion into the article on cp:liberalism, but I won't hold my breath. The definition upon which this essay is predicated is as follows:


 * In cp:international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power. They believe that there is a complex interdependence between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization.


 * The opposite of a liberal is a cp:realist.

Clarification: What is an actor?
The term actor, since it implies an individual, can be confusing to newcomers of international politics. Actor is a shorthand term to refer to any entity which makes or is involved with the making of foreign policy. Prime examples of actors include states, non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as the World Bank, and intergovernmental organizations (IGO's) such as the United Nations. The European Union is another good example of an actor.

While all actors may have a single representitive head, such as a Secretary of State, President, or Chairman, they do not act as individuals. Most, if not all, actors act through bureaucratic methods, which can produce seemingly irrational results (see below). Additionally, the actual policy makers are influenced directly by their staff and advisors, and are influenced indirectly by the media and public opinion.

Argument 1: This definition is not necessary
There is no need for a new definition of liberal, because it is already covered under the current definition. Liberals tend to be more socialistic, and their world policies reflect this fact.

Counterargument 1
The modern "American politics (AP) definition," for lack of a better term, does not fit on an international level of politics. There are two main areas of politics: national level, and world level. The local level of politics is what with which the AP definition of liberal is concerned, not the world level.

One reason for the distintion is that there are some issues which simply are not relavent on a world level. For example, AP liberals tend to be pro-choice, but on a world level this issue has no relevance. Perhaps with some very minor exceptions, countries do not concern themselves with international abortion policy. AP liberals also tend to be pro gun control, but the reasons for this do not translate to the world level.

Another reason for the distinction is that the two levels of politics operate in different ways. National politics involves policies designed within a government, whereas international politics involves policies designed between governments. National politics takes place in an anarchical system.

Socialism is covered in international politics under the category of radicalism.

Rebuttal 1
Why don't you just use classical liberal to describe what you are talking about, instead of creating a new term.

Counter Rebuttal 1
Classical liberalism is close to liberalism, but they aren't the same thing. [To be finished later]