Kenneth W. Thompson

The Empirical, Normative, and Theoretical Foundations of International Studies

International relations have been the object of widespread study and review in the United States since World War I. Attention has focussed alternately on the flow of events, the goals and standards, and the underlying principles of world affairs. Primary emphasis has been directed to empirical, normative and theoretical problems. Along the way, scholars, statesmen and observers have singled out certain factors from the myriad dimensions of international society. Students have looked for concepts and methodologies by which order and meaning could be derived in this as in other complex fields.

The Religious Transformation of Politics and the Political Transformation of Religion

This article deals with the introduction of strongly fundamental views into the theory and practice of politics. It also concerns the transformation of religion from a concern with religious faith to the creation of political religions. Thus forces have been at work in the past two decades seeking to make a religion of politics and transforming religion into a holy political crusade in the form of a particular version of partisan politics.

Unity and Contradiction in the Theory and Practice of International Relations

A timeless issue in the history of political thought is the relation of theory and practice. From Plato to the present, it has preoccupied political philosophers and statesmen. In the discourse, an uneasy truce has prevailed between those who view theory as a handmaiden of practice and those who maintain that the twain shall never meet. Their differences are illustrated by discussion of the classical distinction questioning whether theory and practice should be paired at all. If theory merely finds expression and can realize itself only through application in practice, it becomes something less than theory conceived of as the quest for truth.

The Ethical Dimensions of Diplomacy

Ancient traditions have stressed the intervention of the gods and contemporary moralists picture God as being on their side in international conflicts. Pharisaism, Manichaeism and the morality of progress are other distortions of political ethics. The first step in a more profound understanding of the ethical dimension of diplomacy is a clear-eyed view of the good and evil in human nature informed by philosophy and history. However, differences exist among political realists and international lawyers who have examined human nature in these terms. Some emphasize the relevance of ethics for international politics while others question it. Democratic foreign policy poses special problems for those who discuss international morality. Such issues are resolved at least partly within the tradition of practical morality which the article considers in conclusion.

Moral Reasoning in American Thought on War and Peace

It is said by some observers of politics and foreign policy that morality has nothing to do with the vital issues of national and international politics. Experienced practitioners note that seldom if ever are moral issues invoked in serious policy discussions; politics and foreign policy are a practical art in which interest and power prevail. Others take issue with this view claiming that from its history America has derived a high responsibility unique among states to stand for certain moral ends and purposes. From its history it has been a nation set apart; its place in the world is dependent on faithfulness to its founding creed embodied in the Declaration of Independence and other statements down to the Atlantic Charter.

America: Promised Land or Wasteland

Hamilton Fish Armstrong, retiring editor of the influential quarterly, Foreign Affairs , writes in its fiftieth anniversary issue: “Not since we withdrew into comfortable isolation in 1920 has the prestige of the United States stood so low.” Lest his judgment be construed as political rhetoric, it should be noted that Armstrong has been an advisor to both major political parties. And if anyone doubts that there is cause for this critique, he need only consider the following: the United States, which in the 1940s and 1950s had an “automatic majority” in votes at the United Nations, has learned in the 1960s what it means to be outvoted in this same assembly. Americans, who during and after World War II trumpeted the cause of anticolonialism and the end of aggression, are today condemned as imperialists and aggressors. And while we have been heralded since 1946 as the most powerful nation in the history of the world, a tiny and divided nation among the less developed of Southeast Asia has fought us to a standstill. Is it any wonder Armstrong can write of the decline of America and point to the loss of our prestige in the world? Or that Hans Morgenthau can say: “America no longer sets an example for other nations to emulate; in many respects it sets an example of what to avoid”

American Democracy and the Third World: Convergence and Contradictions

I propose to examine the relationship of American democracy to the Third World along two planes of reality, one briefly sketched in outline and miniature, the other drawn with greater elaboration and substance. The brief sketch sums up all that follows; it draws on Americas great leader, Abraham Lincoln, who prophetically defined the issues that faced both the young American republic and todays fledgling nations by asking the question: Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?

The Prospects and Limitations of Diplomacy

The postwar era in international politics has been one of success and failure in the search for conflict adjustment among major powers. It is sobering to examine the list of issues inscribed at one time or another on the agenda of the United Nations and count the number for which resolution has never been achieved. For example, little, if any progress has been made toward a political settlement in the Middle East, South Africas policies, Eastern Europe, the denuclearization of Latin America or countless other issues out-

Moral Doubts About Present Political Diagnoses

FEW periods in history have left observers more unsettled and anxious than our contemporaries about the sufficiency of prevailing moral and political diagnoses. The din of public debate drowning out quiet thought and reflection may explain some of the confusion. Yet the strident clashes that break out between right and left, and with increasing frequency and fervor between radicals and liberals, compound but have not created the problem. Instead, the core of the problem appears to be a widespread questioning sweeping across society and sowing seeds of doubt about the sufficiency of all past and present social and political doctrines. For the first time in their lives more and more people express uncertainty that any prevailing doctrine meets our needs and on this there is less of a generational gap than is sometimes assumed.