IP NOTES 11/8

(HOLDOVER FROM LAST LECTURE)
US Policy centers around moving both hierarchy and anarchy towards negarchy, anarchy on the system level and hierarchy on the unit level
-this was especially huge during the cold war
-AFTER the cold war, the US had built up a massive National Security System
-NSS was far, far, far beyond anything ever envisioned before, there was sooo much military power in a 'limited government'
-so after the cold war, the US doesn't move towards cobinding
-this is basically because the US doesn't become hierarchy, but rather maintains its limited government
-essentially, after the cold war the US flip flops roles- from encouraging up-and-coming states to trying to beat them down, because they're competition
neoCons become a large factor in post-cold war decision-making, moves towards old-style european state system
#18 Liberalism (II): Democratic Peace

I Modern Democracy and Peace
Kant's Three Articles
three different articles he wrote
1) republican civic constitution
-a republic is NOT a democracy
-a true democracy is DESPOTIC
2) Pacific Union
-polities that organize themselves in this way will end up with 'amity treaties'
-the amity treaties do NOT constitute authoritative union or government
3) Cosmopolitan Hospitality
-foreigners are treated well
-rights of commerce and trade will be respected
as a system, this isnt really all that different from the realist view
they essentially believe that restraint leads to peace
Democracy as Cause of Peace (4)
1) citizens are gonna bear the costs of war
-war is the 'sport of kings' while the people get killed
2) institutional checks
-executive power is restrained
-wars are made possible because of the secrecy of states and diplomacy
-this is checked by liberal TRANSPARENCY
-with transparency, war goes way way down
3) commerce
-to produce and trade with a country is far superior to conquesting them
4) norms
-democracies are like one another (there is an affinity between democracies)
-with commerce rising, the militaristic tendencies decline significantly
-pacific tendency
Empirical Testing and Five Caveats
are democracies actually tempered this way?
has there been enough time to test the theory adequately?
1) how do you define democracy?
-when you get this kind of definition, you have to discard like 4 or 5 wars just in recent history
2) Great power politics
nobody really cares about small countries, but they're countries, right? not really...
3) geographic
-doesnt matter if two democracies dont go to war if they physically cant
4) timing
-really only post cold war are the times when this shit had been tested
-hasnt really been too much time for democracies to squabble
5) covert intervention
-so when the US overthrows democratically elected regimes, does that count as a war?
Publius Before Kant: Fed-Rep Security before Democratic Peace
federal-republican security ends up being much much more important than kantian democratic peace
republic + federal union yields increase in size yields increase in security
-VI and VIC again?
had it not been for the USA, would there be other democracies in the world?
-look back at 1941-43, when democracies were basically getting shanked one after another, except for the US and just barely Great Britain
-democracies are just GONE without the US, especially in that period
where are these democracies post WWII?
-ALLIED with the US!!
-essentially they exist as an extension of US security- against USSR and china

II Democracies and Non-Democracies
BoP Performance (4)
democracies are a PROBLEM for the balance of power AND for sovereignty
Features of democracies, realists think it's bad, liberals think it's good
1) pacific
-Realists say it invites aggression
-liberals say it avoids security dilemma
2) divided/open debates
-realists say that this leads to SLOW decisionmaking
-liberals say that this leads to BETTER policies, this is the reason that non-democratic states tend to fail, because their policies are just worse
3) democratic norms
-realists say ideology > interests, this is BAD for security (can't have 'sentimental attachments')
-liberals say you make allies this way, and it might just be in your interests anyways
4) limited war decreases
-realists say that conflict is totalized, huge absolute losses
-liberals say that it leads to total victory, as well as reconstruction
Sovereignty vs Intervention (3)
liberal states tend to invade a hell of a lot more than other states, not respecting Westphalian sovereignty
why?
1) Liberal states end up protecting property and assets of their citizens
2) they fight against tyrants
3) co-nationals
-'entangling alliances of unmentable ethnics'
-indians come to US, mobilize a voting block, and india gets nukes. wtf

Subversion and Revolution
liberal states dont tend to overtly fight against states all that much
basically, the US, they say, is the embodiment of an idea, rather than just a state
-this in and of itself is subversive
-promotes 'liberal one-worldism' and the 'end of history'

Nationalist Populism: Diversion Theory
class conflict here, the people (lower class) want to redistribute property
what does the high class do?
-mobilize nationalist sentiment to start a war, keep people occupied
-fun fun fun!