Waltz And Machiavelli’s Thoughts
This paper will discuss the similarities and analysis of Waltz and Machiavelli’s thoughts on international relations and politics. Waltz began his career as a political theorist to describe state behavior. He used the imagery of human nature and individual leaders, the domestic politics of nations, and the global system itself. Classical realism and liberalism have both used the first and second images to represent global politics in their works for centuries. In Theory of International Politics, Waltz aimed to create from destruction. He thought the third image best characterized the state’s actions. He claimed international system structure impacted state conduct. In the lack of a sovereign to enact and enforce laws, interstate cooperation was limited, and competition arose. According to Machiavelli, to begin a reasonable examination of politics, one must first understand human nature. He considered humanity a mixture of weakness, gratefulness, fear, and a craving for power, and he felt that all men were wicked somehow. Every human being is, by nature, ambitious and unhappy with their life. The hostilities and conflicts that have resulted from this desire are the results of this desire.
Similarities
Both Waltz And Machiavelli advocated for neorealism as a significant addition to political science. According to this idea, through the anarchic nature of the international system, Waltz may explain the interplay between sovereign nations. Machiavelli argues that the prince’s primary center of attention should be mastering the art of war, not anything else. Aspire to the prince’s position by pursuing this career, he feels, would enable him to obtain control of a state while also maintaining his position. Machiavelli argued that morally reprehensible acts in politics, including lying and the killing of innocents, were commonplace. In addition, he urged politicians to engage in evil when it was necessary for political gain. On the one hand, Waltz was primarily engaged in the theoretical aspects of international relations, but on the other hand, he had some contentious views on American foreign policy. He maintained that because there are no checks and balances in international affairs, strong nations are practically guaranteed to abuse their position, frequently to their disadvantage.
How can we use Waltz to analyze Machiavelli and vice versa
We can relate Waltz’s thoughts to Machiavelli’s classical realism ideas; he focuses on personal and domestic considerations. Neorealism stresses how the structure of the international system impacts state conduct, and Waltz advocates for neorealism. The system’s nations combine periodically to counteract powerful governments that threaten others, despite being nominally equal yet vastly different in capability. Anarchic states seek to increase their authority to protect their safety; hierarchical states may create alliances to maintain a feeling of power balance. Waltz also employed international relations theory, and he conceded that the conclusion was a description rather than an explanation.
Machiavelli analyzed Waltz’s thoughts on the distinction between politics and religion. He stressed man’s physical existence over the state’s moral purpose and mission, a distinct set of norms that governs politics. He saw the state as supreme over all other relationships. The prince is entirely free and untethered. He does not care about what other people think of him. He can leverage his religious beliefs to his advantage, and politics and the state are beyond the church’s power. People and institutions are under its control at all times. The state is necessary for all institutions, and it is differently viewed since it is at a higher level. To achieve dominance, religion serves as a method. To serve the interests of the people, the state exists.