Williams, Michael. "Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics". International Organization, Vol.58, No.4 (2004): 633-665.

Williams, Michael. "Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics". International Organization, Vol.58, No.4 (2004): 633-665.

• The narrow definition of 'politics' in classical realist IR theory, in which politics is reduced to only power relations between states, is usually believed to have developed due to the intense military focus of the period immediately after WWII as well as a general depression about human nature (636).
• Hans Morgenthau defines politics as "interest defined in terms of power", but qualifies this statement with the caveat that 'interest' and 'power' change depending on time periods and perspective, since different things are considered 'power' or 'interest' by different states at different times (638).
• Despite the complexity of Dr. Morgenthau's actual position on 'power' and 'interest' in IR, his famous quote has been reduced by many in the realist school of IR to materialism -- which defines power only in terms of wealth or military strength -- or to instrumentalism, where power becomes a self-fulfilling end rather than the means of pursuing interests (639-640).
• The idea of 'ideal types' in the philosophy of Max Weber has had a deep influence on the scholarship of Dr. Morgenthau, who adopted this logic as a way of separating politics from other spheres of life. He defined politics as all action motivated by accumulation of power, separate from the distinct ideal types dealing with wealthy or morality (642).
• The use of Dr. Weber's distinct 'ideal types' of social spheres is likely the biggest weakness in Dr. Morgenthau's theories of politics and IR. The distinct spheres he establishes for politics, economics, and legality do not accurately represent reality, and thus may produce mistaken or inaccurate theories (653).
• This stress of national power takes place within the context of Nietzschean philosophy which recognizes that there are no absolute moral standards and that therefore all value judgments by nations are inherently political. The differences between these values is thus inconsequential, and power becomes the only common interest of nations (642-644).
• Dr. Morgenthau's justification for the separation of politics from other spheres of activity is that politics is the only sphere which deal with contested ideals and values. According to Dr. Morgenthau, trade is not political, because it deals with common values, not the conflict of worldviews. Politics is therefore defined by conflict (644).
• Dr. Morgenthau's definition of politics as defined by power was created during his time in the Weimar Republic, and responds to contemporary claims that violence is inherent and constituative of politics by Karl Schmitt and Georges Sorel (646-647). The difference is Dr. Morgenthau's definition is that he limits the definition of 'politics' as the sphere of non-violence contestation over values, arguing that when violence becomes the means of settling disputes over values, it stops being political and starts being part of the 'military sphere' (648-649).
• Although normally discussed in international relations, Dr. Morgenthau also believed that the balance of power operated on the domestic level. To Dr. Morgenthau, the domestic balance of power is not necessarily between distinct actors by a balance between the political sphere and other spheres of life, like the social, legal, or economic spheres. A proper domestic balance of power thus creates limits on the sphere of politics (650).
• Dr. Morgenthau believed that the social roots of fascism stemmed from the increased atomization and secularization of Western society, resulting in a loss of perceived power on the individual level and prompting people to seek out collective power, often in the form of a totalitarian state (650-651).
• Fascism was such a violent and destructive ideology because it reduced almost all spheres of life to the politics. By making economics, laws, religion, and personal life aspects of politics, it destroyed any limits on political possibility, allowing horrible things to happen, limited only by material conditions (651).
• Contrariwise, Dr. Morgenthau believed that the collapse of liberalism internationally in the 1930s was a result of its failure to generate an independent political sphere. Instead, it allowed essentially political decisions to be overrun by economic or legal concerns. This generated an environment of self-interest which was also unable to change rapidly enough to placate its discontents (652).
• Dr. Morgenthau's instance on the importance of a limited, but distinct, political sphere led him to be deeply pessimistic about the future of politics. Of particular concern was the supplanting of political with economic issues in national politics and a general transformation of politics and IR from a political field to a scientific or technical field (653).
• Looking at Dr. Morgenthau's conceptions of politics can provide important insight into flaws with the contemporary trend of scientific claims about politics. The arguments of many politics and IR scholars that creating categories for political inquiry enforces group identities, thus constituting politics, is dangerously close to claims of Karl Schmitt that all politics is about establishing and reinforcing in-groups and out-groups (655-656).
• The main issue with contemporary political scientists and IR scholars is that they refuse to engage in politics. The environment in which Dr. Morgenthau produced his research was deeply charged with political violence based on strategies of actively categorizing ideas and persons into acceptable and unacceptable, creating a moral necessity to engage in politics using gained knowledge. Contemporary scholars have lost this political motivation (657).
• This side of Dr. Morgenthau's theory of politics -- the importance of theory in providing political answers -- engages well with contemporary discussions in social constructivism. It argues that not all political constructs are of equal value, and that theorists have an obligation to assist in resisting destructive ideas, not idly stand as neutral observers (658).
• The author urges IR scholars in the realist school to really engage with classical realists like Hans Morgenthau, rather than dismissing them. The author also critiques the drive for rationalism and parsimony in the neoliberal and neorealist schools, instead calling for a recognition of the central role of politics in IR, and the political potential of IR research (660).