The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams And International Realities

 John J. Mearsheimer’s The Great Delusion argues that while liberalism may succeed domestically, its global export causes conflicts and strategic failures. The realist critique of liberal hegemony is appreciated through this review but gaps such as oversimplification of the liberal theory is questioned analytically along with light on its limited emphasis on cooperation and institutional frameworks. Furthermore, the book needs to be read with caution because of its selective empirical grounding. 

Introduction

The Great Delusion by John J. Mearsheimer  is a foundational work revolving around a sustained critique of the ‘utopian dreams of liberalism and its hegemony’ that gained extraordinary momentum through the foreign policy pursued by the United States of America (USA), post the Cold War. The author is a strong proponent of offensive realism and therefore, argues against the liberal dreams that have failed because of non obedience to the anarchic world order. So, even if liberalism succeeds domestically, when it is exported abroad, it turns out to be devastating (Mearsheimer, 2018, pp. 4–7).

The book highlights the limit of American foreign policy and the role of ideology in setting up power dynamics in the international arena. It also touches upon the debates between realism and liberalism which has been a long standing strand of intellectual conflict. While the work remains foundationally strong and grounded with reasons, Mearsheimer still invites some criticisms such as with regards to its strict perception of liberalism and underestimation of cooperation. 

International Failure of Liberalism?

The core argument of the book is bringing in light a fundamental liberal contradiction: while it is suitable to manage domestic affairs as per liberalism, it is inherently inefficient when applied at international level (Mearsheimer, 2018, p. 8). The author counters liberalism by criticising its three main strands, namely, liberal democracy, liberal institutionalism and economic liberalism. As per the book, even though liberals claim that the convergence of these strands is international cooperation and prevention of wars, it is not true, because these, instead, result in establishment of what the author terms as, ‘liberal hegemony’ when they are taken in consideration for foreign policy formulation. 

The book talks about the belief of liberal democracies, especially, the United States, that liberalism is the inevitable end of the historical process of political evolution. This belief was further reinforced when the USSR fell and the Cold War ended, paving the path for a unipolar world dominated by the United States. This was considered the triumph of liberalism and then commenced a phase of promotion of liberalism in the former USSR states, often termed as ‘the Shock Therapy’. This included relentless and passionate methods of introducing liberalism in all spheres — economy, politics and society. However, the result was rather devastating. 

Mearsheimer, as stated above, as a proponent of realism, gives more emphasis to nationalism in determining the actions and reactions of nations than liberal tendencies. According to him, nationalism is one of the strongest driving forces in the international arena in the modern world. (p. 72). The book elaborates that all the societies in the world are not compatible with liberalism. In fact, when forceful imposition of liberalism is observed, the results are biased and undesirable, such as, nationalistic backlash and an attack on national security instead of protecting it. The US has always been driven by the motive of promoting liberalism around the globe, however, its intervention is not always beneficial. Cases such as the US’s intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq are the epitome of failure of American foreign policies. Mearsheimer argues that the reason behind such failures is the utter ignorance of realistic diversities because of liberal idealism (pp. 186-214)

Tackling the Liberal Theory

One of the major strengths of the book is its engagement with the liberal theory. Mearsheimer critiques the ‘liberal peace thesis’ which states that liberal democracies are very unlikely to wage war against each other, not only because of political liberalism but also due to economic interdependence and this becomes the ultimate path to world peace and security. The author points out that this thesis is rooted in idealism and is used as a justification for the unnecessary intervention and expansion that dominates the liberal foreign policy (Mearsheimer, 2018, pp. 56–61). He continues to oppose the thesis by claiming that liberal scholars overestimate democratic peace around the world which is anti-realistic.

However, such a critique can risk oversimplifying the theory under a single claim of the ‘liberal hegemony’. This is exemplified by the works of Michael Doyle (1986) and Robert Keohane (1984) who never stated that there is a direct correlation between peace and democracy alone. These scholars emphasise that interdependence and institutional elements act like conditioning variables. So, it would be inadequate to treat diverse liberal approaches and strategies homogeneously, especially in the context of dynamic international relations.

Moreover, the modern world itself is the epitome of the importance interdependence bears. No nation is self sufficient and even if not entirely, interdependence of one nation on another, does reduce the chances of full fledged wars between them and hence, act as an important tool of establishing peace between nations.

Further, is liberalism all about expansion and interventions? No. It provides some very crucial ways to deal with the globe and survive in the international arena. John Ikenberry (2011) elaborates how liberal obedience acts as a source of peaceful negotiations and constraints over institutions. Liberal theory speaks of representation, which paves a path for accountability and this cannot be neglected at any cost, especially in the current contexts of the world order where people need to have the power of questioning those who make rules for them.

How Strong is Nationalism?

Mearsheimer has placed nationalism above liberalism in terms of the influence it bears on domestic actions and international dynamics. He has argued that liberalism stems from interventionism and when external actors enter the domestic arena to ‘modify’ system and affairs, in other words, transition the state to a liberal order, they are overpowered by nationalistic perceptions and demands (Mearsheimer, 2018, pp. 73-78). In almost every case of the US invasion, the failure to grasp the strength of apparent nationalistic forces, turned out to be a reason behind its failure. Nationalism seeks self determination powerfully which counters liberal internationalism, for instance, in Vietnam, the US intervened in 1965 to counter the spread of communism and successfully establish a ‘stable pro-democratic government’ in Vietnam, however it did not assess the sheer amount of strength its nationalist opponents bear including the Viet Cong that consolidated the opposition into a full fledged popular movement (Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, n.d.).

Mearsheimer's discussion of nationalism closely aligns with the constructivist research tradition. Identity and norms dictate the behaviour of states in the international arena (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998) and nationalistic tendency remains a strong driving force. The book is built on realist foundations which claims that the international system is a battle ground for survival among nations because of anarchy and power contestations — largely a material reality against idealism. However, nationalism itself is an idea which does dictate material structuralism but fundamentally, remains an ideal. So, the readers might experience a sense of paradox because the book tends to support the very ideational arguments it seeks to counter. 

“Anarchy is what states make of it”, a very prominent argument by Alexander Wendt (1999) reinforces that the mere presence of anarchy cannot be equated with an inevitable struggle for power and inter-state conflicts. The power dynamics shared by different nations is different which increases the chances of confrontations between some nations while reducing the same for other nations. Mearsheimer opposes this claim implicitly, yet, talks about the undesirable effect of liberal ideals, especially when exported abroad. Again, such a strand of argumentation tends to endorse the very argumentations against the role of ideals, the book tends to counter by way of realism. 

Empirical Analysis

The US’ post Cold War foreign policy remains one of the core discussions of the book. Mearsheimer has linked this with the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This aligns with the popular strands of scholarship which points out the intensive benefits to the US because of NATO’s expansionist tendency, such as, promotion of a more liberal, stable and pro-US Europe which would also enhance American security globally. Mearsheimer also exemplifies that this contributes to contemporary global contentions including fueling insecurity in Russia (Mearsheimer, 2018, pp. 115-122) But, is this all to NATO and its apparent expansion? Perhaps not, as many other considerations drive it forward that ought not to be underplayed with the claim of  ‘liberal hegemony’. European nations are impacted with the US's foreign policy but also, bear an autonomous agency of their own. The fear of Russia is not merely contemporary, it has been a historical tension and this fear alone has driven many nations to seek NATO membership. Further, strategic protection against insecurity and local demands, also act as factors determining European expansion. 

Mearsheimer has also explored US-China relations with liberal lenses. He argues that the interaction is largely driven to acquire China’s support to the international liberal order dominated by economic exchanges and perhaps, influence China for a liberal orientation and governance (Mearsheimer, 2018, pp. 250-258). However, no motivation, especially ideological reasons,  today overpowers economic benefits. The US does not limit itself to any one approach for dealing with China, it keeps transforming its strategies as per its interest and international needs. Hence, the global order is much more complex than mere theoretical claims. 

Importance for International Relations

Despite a few cautions for readers, The Great Delusion 

remains one of the most important works which reinforced structural realism in international relations. It provides a sustainable critique to liberal idealism which is even more important to counter the claims of liberal universalism. Mearsheimer contributed in transforming the realm of realism from description of how states behave to prescription against liberal interventionism. He reinforced the influence held by nationalism and international power dynamics. 

Most liberal accounts are the proponents of correlation between stability, sustainability and liberal order. But, Mearsheimer constructively provides an alternative strand of argumentation by rejecting the idea of linearity and stability due to liberalism. Instead, he highlights the post-Cold War uncertainties, resistances and failures. This study is relevant to the contemporary debates about NATO’s eastward expansion, the US’s middle east intervention and challenges, Sino-US relations and policy orientations of the west, in general and the USA, in particular. 

And lastly, it pushes accountability amidst liberal scholars to accept and work on the empirical gaps of liberal implementation. Stephen Walt (2018) considers that the book is not only valuable for constructively countering liberalism but also for reinforcing accountability with regards to the cost of liberal promotion globally. Hence, The Great Delusion, is an important work to interact with long standing debates, questions and claims in international relations. 

Conclusion

The Great Delusion is not just a work in international relations which criticises liberal hegemony, rather, it acted as a new perspective altogether — before this, Mearsheimer himself, wrote descriptively, explaining and evaluating how states behave in anarchical order. The Great Delusion, however, came forth as a prescriptive caution for the states, highlighting the impacts of liberal interventionism globally and the inevitable impact of nationalism, power politics and local demands on international behaviour and order. 

The oversimplification of the liberal theory, rejection of normative influence and narrow engagement with empirical cases, might act as a few weaknesses. Yet, it remains convincing with its strong realistic argumentation and emphasis on gaps between liberal idealism and actual outcomes. The Great Delusion, therefore, stands as a vital read — not only to dissect liberal internationalism but also, to engage critically with the limits of domination of ideological orientation in foreign policy and tensions of the world order. 

---

References

Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4)

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.