Reflection #3

I think that a big issue that needs to be confronted when debating realism and liberalism is the issue of what is realistic and what is merely an ideal that will never be achieved. In Emily’s post, she says that it is more productive to be idealistic, rather than accepting that things cannot change. While I agree with her in some situations, when it comes to world politics, I do not.
In other situations, it can be argued that it is better to think the best of people and be disappointed than to have a perpetually bad view of the human race. However, this way of thinking allows for mistakes. If a person disappoints you, what is the worst that could happen? If you are being idealistic in the way you want our schools to function, things can only change for the better, right? But when you are talking about the territorial integrity of a country, there is very little room for mistakes. To be idealistic when setting the priorities for your nation can be disastrous. It all goes back to the argument that it doesn’t matter what your ideals are if you don’t have anywhere to exercise your beliefs in them.
It is idealistic to think that people can know what is best for them and always deserve a say. It is impossible for every citizen in a country to have an understanding of every issue; that is why we elect people to do it for us. The common person does not have the knowledge or desire to run the government. As Emily (again) said in her post, as long as the people’s basic needs are being met, the government is doing its job. That is, in essence, what Machiavelli said. He says that as long as people are not oppressed and as long as you throw them a bone every once in awhile, the people will be happy with the government.
Ok Emmy, done debating ☺