Some Common Ground for Liberals and Realists

At first glance, liberalism and realism seem diametrically opposed paradigms in international relations theory. Liberalism’s hallmark - democratic peace theory - evokes a warm and fuzzy outlook on the international system, while realism’s security dilemmas and zero-sum games paint a far different picture of international politics. The two approaches are understood to differ greatly in their core assumptions, in the empirical realities they can explain, and in the predictions that follow from their theoretical assertions. Gradually, however, with the advent of neoclassical realism, realists and liberals have seemed to be moving closer together, and rather than view this as a degenerative path, I believe this convergence to be a step in the right direction. I argue that the skeletal liberal framework outlined by Moravcsik should constitute the “hard core” of a liberal international relations research program, but that rather than excluding realists, the liberal umbrella can and should absorb the realist paradigm to broaden and strengthen its explanatory power.