OVERVIEW OF THE WORK

• The 1960s international politics were marked by antagonism between the USA and the Soviet Union.
• Kennedy’s strong responses to Soviet actions, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis, caused global anxiety about potential nuclear war.
• Whittle Johnston, a Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs, provided measured, clear-sighted analysis during this turbulent period.
• Johnston’s essays aimed to develop a theory for studying international politics, focusing on the relationship between liberalism and realism.
• He valued the realist contributions of figures like Morgenthau and Niebuhr but saw them as only a step towards a more comprehensive understanding.
• Johnston criticized realism for being too abstract and ahistorical to guide foreign policy effectively.
• He believed that change and historical context were essential for any international relations theory.
• Johnston argued that international politics should be studied historically, using theory as a framework to organize concepts.
• He saw the study of particular political communities and their historical images as crucial.
• Johnston viewed idealistic theories as a projection of the Anglo-American liberal experience onto world politics.
• He believed realism was necessary for the advancement of international relations theory but should be followed by further theoretical developments.
• Johnston argued that realism’s static abstractions needed to incorporate the dynamics of history.
• He criticized progressive theories of history for making it too easily comprehensible and inhumane.
• Johnston preferred Ludwig Dehio’s historical perspective over E.H. Carr’s progressive view.
• Dehio’s analysis of competing values and tensions in history aligned with Johnston’s belief in the complexity and human choice in international politics.
• Johnston’s essays explored the relation of science to history, the role of motion and values in scientific investigations, and the history of liberalism and the state system.
• He analyzed liberalism through the problem of community, balancing individualism and coercive order.
• Johnston saw the medieval European metaphysical unity as allowing individual freedom, disrupted by the Protestant Reformation and scientific rationalism.
• He believed that Great Britain and the USA avoided the cycle of order and chaos by mitigating the problem of community through liberalism.
• Johnston argued that liberalism in Britain and the USA harmonized individual freedom with strong government.
• He saw Britain’s medieval political thought and constitutionalism as key to its success and America’s prospects.
• Johnston viewed the USA as central to the future of the international system due to its liberalism and power.
• He believed the USA must lead the international system, acknowledging its preponderance of power.
• Johnston argued that a preponderance of liberal power was necessary for the international system to become truly liberal.
• He saw pluralism as undesirable in a nuclear age, advocating for a unified liberal international system to ensure freedom and security.

JOHNSTON AND REALISM

• Johnston viewed realism not as a monolithic theory but as an attitude towards international politics.
• He recognized realism as a stance that emphasizes skepticism towards utopian ideals.
• For Johnston, realism required intellectual fortitude to face the harsh realities of international relations without idealistic illusions.
• He acknowledged his intellectual debt to classical realists like Carr, Morgenthau, and Niebuhr.
• Johnston appreciated insights from these realist thinkers but found their theories inadequate on their own.
• He criticized the deficiencies in their theories and sought to move beyond traditional realism.
• Johnston aimed to develop a truer theory of international politics that incorporated insights from realism while addressing its limitations.
• He believed in internalizing the lessons of realism to advance thinking about international relations.
• His approach involved integrating realism’s perspectives with a broader understanding of historical dynamics and change.
• Johnston’s complex relationship with realism involved both respect for its insights and a critical stance towards its static abstractions.
• He emphasized the importance of understanding international politics as dynamic and historically contingent.
• Johnston’s critique of realism aimed to refine theoretical frameworks for analyzing global politics.
• His intellectual journey beyond realism reflected a quest for a more comprehensive theory that could better explain and predict international behavior.
• Overall, Johnston’s engagement with realism highlighted the evolving nature of international relations theory and the ongoing quest for deeper insights into global dynamics.

CARR

• E.H. Carr is considered a founder of realism in international relations.
• Johnston extensively considered Carr’s work, especially “The Twenty Years’ Crisis.”
• Carr “discovered” the phenomena of power by recognizing the historically conditioned nature of perspectives and principles.
• Carr critiqued liberal thinkers who believed in a “harmony of interests” leading to a common good.
• Carr argued that reality is not self-evident or intelligible and must be interpreted based on historical circumstances.
• Carr’s theory of historical work emphasized that facts are interpreted through values.
• Johnston valued Carr’s view of the historically conditioned nature of human perspectives.
• Johnston accepted Carr’s critique of Enlightenment rationality and the importance of values in understanding facts.
• Johnston criticized Carr’s belief in historical progress and harmonic monism.
• Johnston saw himself as a better exponent of Carr’s historical insight by rejecting the notion of historical progress.
• Johnston emphasized the preeminence of values over facts in interpreting international relations.
• Johnston’s rejection of Enlightenment rationalism avoided the fact/value distinction common in Enlightenment thought.
• Johnston’s approach did not lead to postmodernism but to a return to Aristotelian tradition, emphasizing virtues and education for understanding facts.
• Johnston highlighted the importance of virtues and prudence in grasping political realities.
• Johnston’s preference for practical achievement over philosophic subtlety aligned him with Burke’s thought.
• Johnston believed political liberalism presumes a truth independent of government determination.
• Johnston’s commitment to constitutional government and rule of law reflected his adherence to political liberalism.
• Carr’s rejection of constitutional liberty for socialized planning contradicted his own realist insights.
• Johnston saw Carr’s work as ultimately pointing back to political liberalism and the need for rule of law.
• Johnston’s understanding of political liberalism involved acknowledging human vices and the necessity of legal institutions to prevent tyranny.

MORGENTHAU

• Johnston deals with the second great realist, Morgenthau.
• Morgenthau deepened Carr’s critique of Enlightenment rationality and showed its implications for international politics.
• Morgenthau saw international politics as a perpetual struggle for power among states, regardless of their status.
• Morgenthau lacked interest in the radical differences among regimes in the international system.
• Morgenthau rejected the notion of political “science” and emphasized philosophic wisdom in understanding political existence.
• Morgenthau criticized the Enlightenment tradition, including Marxist economics and politics.
• Morgenthau believed in the possibility of truth found in older thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Hobbes.
• Morgenthau’s rejection of Enlightenment rationality contrasted with Carr’s partial adherence to Marxism.
• Johnston aligned more with Morgenthau’s intellectual standpoint than Carr’s.
• Johnston noted Morgenthau’s inconsistency in establishing timeless abstractions and observing historical changes in international politics.
• Johnston criticized Morgenthau’s search for eternal verities and its limited value.
• Johnston viewed Morgenthau’s reverence for the past and distaste for the present as escapism.
• Morgenthau’s escape to the past led to odd conclusions and a materialistic view of the national interest.
• Johnston criticized Morgenthau’s focus on materialism, which obscured the importance of sentiment and political values.
• Johnston highlighted the difference between the eighteenth-century monarchies and the twentieth-century mass awakening.
• Johnston emphasized the importance of political values in understanding the international system.
• Johnston noted the Anglo-American preponderance of influence in international affairs for hundreds of years.
• Johnston emphasizes the importance of political values in explaining strategic and diplomatic behavior of states beyond material necessity.
• Morgenthau downplayed the significance of regime differences in the contemporary international system.
• Morgenthau viewed democracy as inferior to aristocratic government regarding foreign policy.
• Johnston worried that Morgenthau’s preference for aristocratic governments meant he had no real answer to contemporary questions, especially during the Cold War.
• Morgenthau’s approach obscured vital differences between regimes.
• In Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, Morgenthau noted differences between the American and French republics.
• Morgenthau saw the American republic as founded through political prudence and the Soviet Union through zealous belief in an impotent divinity.
• Johnston agreed with Morgenthau on the American republic’s political prudence and the Soviet Union’s Enlightenment rationality.
• Liberalism for Johnston means the culmination of Western political wisdom, not just the belief in “rights of man” or “autonomy”.
• Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations casts the Cold War as a conflict between imperial capitalism and Communism, or democracy and Communism.
• Johnston saw the Cold War as a struggle between the American regime ordered by the Constitution and the Soviet Union embodying Enlightenment rationality.
• Johnston believed the struggle was between liberalism and absolutism, not just competing human rights catalogues.
• Morgenthau’s desire for universal truths in international politics repeated Enlightenment rationality errors.
• Johnston points out Morgenthau’s focus on the first image (human nature) while ignoring the second image (regime differences).
• Johnston believed interactions between states are influenced by regime similarities or differences.
• Morgenthau’s realism obscured the significance of liberalism.
• Johnston breaks with Morgenthau by being more true to Morgenthau’s insights than Morgenthau himself.

NIEBUHR

• Johnston considers Reinhold Niebuhr an eminent “Christian realist”.
• Niebuhr saw the importance of sober realism that supports traditional liberal thinkers and democratic institutions.
• Johnston was inspired by Niebuhr’s defense of democracy: “man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary”.
• Johnston inherited much from Carr and Morgenthau but even more from Niebuhr.
• Niebuhr was the first classical realist to recognize the strength and importance of liberalism.
• Niebuhr contended that liberalism was worth defending against the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union.
• Niebuhr emphasized that any theory of international relations ignoring normative concerns or the relationship between order and justice would be half-blind.
• Justice, according to Niebuhr, required the active ordering force of government.
• No order can be long-lasting and stable without approximating justice to some extent.
• Niebuhr believed the relation between power and justice is ambivalent.
• Government is necessary for justice and peace but also dangerous and must have restraints to prevent tyranny.
• Restraints on government power cannot primarily consist of moral or social pressure.
• Power must counteract power to prevent tyranny on a world scale.
• Niebuhr categorized theorists and political movements into the “children of light” and the “children of darkness”.
• The children of light emphasized moral unity and the power of international organization and reason.
• The children of darkness emphasized the effect of original sin and diverse interests, making liberalism an impossibility.
• Johnston identified Morgenthau as a child of darkness for failing to see the historical significance of constitutional polities.
• Niebuhr believed the way forward was to hold the universal belief of a child of light while acknowledging the truths of the children of darkness.
• Johnston argued that liberalism had long since pointed out this “middle way”.
• The balance of power was a way to prevent the overweening lust for power from finding a violent outlet on the global stage.
• The international community lacked the cohesive factors necessary for world government.
• Niebuhr emphasized the need for great powers to work together in some sort of alliance for stable peace.
• A balance of power is not enough for international stability, requiring preponderant power to maintain peace.
• Niebuhr saw a preponderance of British or American power as necessary to maintain peace and cohesion in the non-Communist world.
• Johnston’s work reflects Niebuhr’s emphasis on the ambiguity of power and freedom, partial truths, legitimate complaints on both sides of conflicts, and the tendency of justice claims to be pressed unless counteracted by power.
• Johnston saw his concern for justice and the balance of power as the proper inheritance of Niebuhr.
• Johnston believed there was no tension in being both a committed disciple of Niebuhr and a committed liberal.
• Johnston thought justice is the “earmark” of liberalism and saw liberalism as the child of British constitutionalism, not the Enlightenment.
• The fundamental question of liberalism is how to relate freedom, equality, and order in a sustainable manner, governed by the concept of justice.

THE ARGUMENT

• The volume is organized to reveal Johnston’s views on international politics and liberalism.
• There are four main parts: theory, history of liberalism, history of the international system, and liberal world order and America’s place.
• Part I, “The Long Road to Theory,” has four chapters.
• Chapter 2, “Politics and Science,” starts with an essay on what science is and its application to politics.
• Johnston dismisses structural realism as neither realistic nor cunning.
• He calls politics “architectonic” and concerned with the whole of man.
• Chapter 3, “Politics and Value I,” discusses Kenneth Boulding’s view of “the image”.
• Johnston explores themes of necessity, freedom, arbitrariness, and choice in human consciousness.
• Human beings must see themselves and their place in the world, leading to arbitrary choices.
• There is no single conception of being human, rational, or reasonable.
• Johnston provides grounding for a conflictual and realist world.
• Chapter 4, “Politics and Value II,” continues the discussion on human freedom and its potential to cause conflict.
• Politics involves knowing the limits of “permissible” offense.
• Political education is crucial, leading to good practice.
• Chapter 5, “The Scientist, the Moralist, and the Historian,” outlines different approaches to studying international politics.
• Johnston questions the moral order promised by the Enlightenment.
• He critiques the scientific revolution’s hope for a future moral revolution.
• Scientists may be ill-equipped to address political and moral questions.
• Johnston advocates for history over science in understanding the human condition and state relations.
• History reveals the central issue in world conflicts is “what is justice?”.
• The second section, “International Relations and History,” examines the system of states and historical lessons.
• Chapter 6, “The States System,” explores the development of the international system over time.
• Johnston critiques progressive history and sees trends in tension without a clear goal or purpose.
• There is a tension between disintegration/particularism and uniformity/universality.
• The future of the international system depends on individual statesmen.
• Johnston critiques the balance of power and dismisses systems analysis.
• Chapter 7, “The Balance of Power,” critiques whether the balance is a useful concept in international politics.
• Johnston criticizes advocates of the balance of power for relying on states’ goodwill and ignoring the possibility of anarchy and community issues.
• A preponderant power with political loyalty is necessary for the balance of power to function.
• The third section, “Liberalism and History,” discusses the historical development of liberalism and the problem of community.
• Chapter 8, “The Development of the Liberal Tradition I,” describes the problem of community as the struggle between diversity and uniformity, individual and collectivity, freedom and equality.
• Tradition helps balance tyranny and disintegration by giving individuals a sense of place.
• Modernity, marked by a revolt against tradition, exacerbates the problem of community globally.
• Chapter 9, “The Development of the Liberal Tradition II,” discusses Locke and Hobbes as coequal founders of liberalism.
• Hobbes emphasizes the necessity of government, while Locke highlights the dangers of powerful government.
• Liberalism needs both founders to balance itself.
• Traditional liberal approaches to world politics often fail due to lack of uniformity provided by Hobbes’ state.
• Power is needed to establish uniformity for liberal politics.
• Chapter 10, “The Development of the Liberal Tradition III,” reinforces earlier arguments, stating the great driving force is “the world revolution.”
• The world revolution could lead to liberalism or Communism, with human choice determining outcomes.
• Part IV, “International Relations and Liberalism,” applies the problem of community to international politics.
• Chapter 11, “The Problem of Community,” argues for the need of power and uniformity in international relations.
• Freedom requires order, and order requires freedom.
• Domestic equality and freedom can cause international chaos, necessitating power and hierarchy.
• Chapter 12, “The American Alliance System and World Order,” discusses America’s role in world politics.
• American alliances act as a principle of unity in a disintegrating world.
• The American people support leaders who strengthen alliances.
• Ignoring alliances risks nuclear anarchy.
• The task is to constitutionalize the American imperium to stabilize the world.
• Chapter 13, “Democratic Theory and International Relations,” ties together the book’s themes.
• Johnston values realist critiques of idealistic liberalism but finds Morgenthau’s work insufficient for understanding state self-perception and cultural differences.
• The international system is now oligopolistic, dominated by great powers.
• Realism’s views on the balance of power are outdated and insufficient for guarding against nuclear destruction or ensuring justice.
• Johnston advocates cautious use of force by the USA to build community and support liberalism in international relations.

THE AUDIENCES OF JOHNSTON’S WORK

• Johnston’s work addresses numerous and diverse subjects, reflecting his liberal learning.
• His writings speak to multiple audiences: international relations theorists, liberal theorists, scholars of modernity, and students of politics and international relations.
• International relations theorists focus on content, methods, and limits of reason in their discipline.
• Johnston incorporates ideas from Morgenthau, Carr, Heilbroner, Fromm, Aristotle, and Dehio.
• His work uniquely combines political philosophy, history, economics, and psychology.
• Liberal theorists find interest in Johnston’s exploration of individual rights, state power, foreign policy, and free domestic life.
• Johnston emphasizes the historical development of liberalism and its intellectual foundations.
• Scholars of modernity explore Johnston’s thoughts on progressivism, conservatism, behavioralism, socialism, and existentialism.
• Johnston reflects on politics’ connections to other sciences like economics, ethics, and metaphysics.
• His insights reveal the development of politics in his time and aid comprehension of modern political philosophy.
• Students of international relations and political thought benefit from Johnston’s holistic view of their discipline.
• Johnston encourages fundamental, philosophical thinking about politics and human existence.
• His work offers answers to fundamental questions about liberalism and globalization.
• Johnston’s breadth of knowledge provides readers a chance to deepen their grasp of politics and international relations.
• He understands the interconnectedness of history, philosophy, economics, and politics.
• Johnston’s Cold War-era writings remain relevant for contemporary issues.
• His defense of liberalism addresses the perennial problem of community.
• Historical investigations of liberalism’s roots inform Johnston’s work despite its emphasis on contingency.
• Johnston advocates for an international system friendly to liberalism, a goal for both academics and American statesmen.
• He believed American power and liberal values were essential to preventing global catastrophe.
• Johnston’s work remains valuable for understanding and advancing liberalism today.