Essay Outline:

Intro: Does the spread of democracy mean substantiates Liberalist cause? Liberalists posits a more
optimistic view that can be settled with global cooperation. Conversely, Realists adopt a more
pessimistic lens where the struggle for power features more prominently. This essay seeks to adopt the
contrarian view that Liberalism pales in comparison to Realism.

Point 1: Liberalism fails to consider the difficulty to quantify success of soft power. China’s Belt and
Road Initative has shown that governments find it hard to defend use of soft power and global
cooperation. Liberalists like Joseph Nye, believe that the three sources of soft power rests in the
country’s culture, political values, and foreign policy. These factors are often intangible in nature. The
difficulty to measure the success of soft power will mean leaders find it difficult to defend its utility in
the eyes of the public. Whereas, the effects of hard power are near-real time.

Point 2: Liberalist argue that as more countries adopt Democracy, they assert that it would mean the
world would be less likely to go to war with one another. A key proponent of this train of thought is
Meiser who derived the Democratic Peace Theory. The example further reinforces the point that a
Realist sees the world as a power struggle and a zero-sum game with relative gains. The comparative
advantage is summed up by a neat question by Morgenthau who asks us to consider, “How does the
policy affect the power of the nation’s autonomy of the political sphere?”. In analyzing the cost-benefit
of how policy impacts the nation, one would arrive at a more rational conclusion. Therefore, Liberalism
does not entirely address how Democracy spreads conflict, unlike Realism.

Point 3: Realism is inherently pessimistic about eliminating conflict. The altruistic aspiration of Thomas
Jefferson’s “ball of liberty” has not materialized. A recent Nations in Transit report from Freedom House
documents that there are “few democracies in the region today than at any point since the annual
report was launched in 1995.” History will trundle on. In addition, the track record of institutional
proliferation will reduce conflict is rather mixed. Liberalists argue that increased institutional
cooperation will be a means of arbitrating conflicting interests but it may lead to fragmentation and
conflict instead.

Opposing View: Critics have argued that liberalism is a more robust argument since their theory caters
for her resilience in times of crisis. More liberal institutions set up across the world. By one recent
account, quantitative studies testing liberal hypotheses in IR have come to outnumber realist studies.
Cooperation can be nurtured and sustainable in spite of the anarchic reality. Liberalists believe
cooperation will facilitate long term benefits. Therefore, Liberalists believe that as more countries
democratize, it will usher in a new era of peace.

Rebuttal: Faith of Liberalists in cooperation may be too idealistic. One has to accept a growing re-
emphasis of hard power in the global context. Liberalists fail to consider the potential repercussions
arising from the ‘Thucydides Trap’ as exhibited by US-China trade war. Therefore, great power politics
has since reemerged. These reasons and the increasingly volatile times highlight a growing emphasis on
hard power. The fact that Realism is timeless as a school of thought we often fall back on highlights the
superiority over Liberalism. Even Meiser, a leading Liberalist also acknowledges the nascent phase in the
study of Liberalism. As he puts it, “Democracy is a relatively recent development in human history.”

Conclusion: The main thrusts of the essay, (1) difficulty to measure soft power, (2) the balance of power
in suiting a nation-state, (3) accepting the pessimistic reality that conflict will never be completely
eradicated, and (4) re-emphasis on hard power. The four points as outlined in the essay highlight the
fact that the Realist thought would prove more resilient and superior than the more idealistic Liberalist
thought. The analysis should rest on whether we believe that personalities leading different countries
are self-righteous and catering the common good of not just at the individual and state level, but also at
the international level. I adopt a pessimistic view on the matter that the perception of self-righteousness
can be easily undermined and skirted.