Comparing and Contrasting Approaches to Foreign Policy of George Bush and Barack Obama Essay

Excerpt from Essay :

foreign policy positions President George Bush Jr. President Obama terms realism idealism

President George Bush and president Obama have all executed cases of similarities and differences when it comes to management of realism and idealism in the governance. The finest policies touching on foreign management and exemplification of people are determined by the magnitude at which these two leaders managed to ensure economic growth, diplomacy, preservation of the national interests, and other connotations that make up these nations. As a form of managing the rudimentary origins and displacements of the nations, President George Bush and President, Obama involved idealism and realism in their management of the country towards foreign matters.

On the recent terms, Obama has displayed an orientation of realism by asserting that the goal of transforming Afghanistan and Iraq into pro-west democracies should not be taken anymore as the goal of the United States of America. This is against the notions taken by President George Bush during his reign in the governance. President Obama has been keen to ensure that the sovereign powers of the United States of America have been protected at all costs (Schmidt et al., 2011). This happens without considering the consequences and matters related to protection of its interests towards other nations. To a given magnitude, President Obama has often reflected that he does not have to stand and see his country suffer numerous consequences of engagement without having to dictate its power in the world. He is a realist. With concepts of realism, President Obama has managed to overrule the dominance of the superpowers while restoring and sustaining the powers bestowed in the U.S. government in the world.

The realism-idealism ideas have always rocked the political structure of many nations in the world. Many political events demonstrate the nature in which political movements and rulers have expressed connotations of being a realist of an idealist. What is taking place today in the world is because of the ambivalence in the United States of America policy on foreign matters. This has been happening since the World War II. The period during the Second World War is similar to the notions that are taking place in the current political systems. The acts of realists have purported to deploy the interests of the people and the leaders without much consideration of the interests of the opposite parties. Any country will always perceive or dwell in the act of success that comes through having equitable structures with the foreign matters and nationalities (Crawford, 2000).

Realism began during the cold war where nations were seeking to have their innate interests felt and achieved during the war. The matters of concern were directed at the general policies that demonstrated acts of realism and idealism. Nonetheless, it was evident that there were remarkably few traces of idealism during this time. Many leaders around the globe sought to establish common interests that state the interests of the people within and outside the country. The origin of many wars in the world has been due to strong terminologies and conquests laid within realistic perceptions of the social structure. The rule of nature has had little interception from the pertinent members (Bardes et al., 2012).

Many nations use the notion of realism in order to protect on the state sovereignty. Political realists, like President Obama and George Bush, are regarded as realists when it comes to protection of the national interests in the United States of America (Crawford, 2000). The concept behind realism is to see the nation exist without external influences in any matter. Sovereignty is essential to the success and dominance of any nation. As relates realism, there is hope with involving any pathway to ensure equitable state of affairs within a country. Through realism, the nations opted to protect their interests within and even outside the nation without the interference of any other party (Bardes et al., 2012). Nonetheless, it is evident to study and understand the fact that realism has often resulted in numerous political wars. The essence of it all has resulted from one nation interfering with the sovereignty of another nation in protection of its sovereignty. This is a concept that cannot be differentiated within a simple matter in the society. Therefore, realists have pursued all means of accessing and making rudimentary changes within a given state of affairs in the country.

National interests within nations have valid consequences and need for realism. The state of realism has been instrumental in ensuring that nations have dominated their interests in and out of their nation. For instance, the interests that are bestowed by the nation have driven the U.S.A.'s policy on foreign affairs. For instance, the United States of America has involved in a number of wars that have shown it as a realist state. The government of President George Bush was realistic in nature. His perception and practices towards Iraq and other nations were driven by the need of having the interests of the country achieved (Callahan, 1994). Therefore, it is within the notion of realism that many nations involve in realism. The concept of realism is viewed to have more weight than idealism. Realism gives a country the innate responsibilities of dwelling within its boundaries without the intervention of other nations.

Balance of power drives many nations to embrace realism in the world. The current leadership power in the United States of America and many other countries in the world are dictated by the nature of power believed to be of any importance to the nation. The anarchical states resume realism as a way of balancing power between different categories of human organizations. Within the notion of realism is a balanced state of affairs that declares equitable stands of all the powers and procedures put in place. The United States of America has involved in war with the intention of retraining and balancing power. Shift of power happens after acts of war as done in Iraq and Afghanistan (Callahan, 1994).

Many realists have managed to live within a given parameter of diplomacy after involving realism in their affairs. With political realism, many conceptual models related to international relations are clued together within fair grounds of diplomacy. The facilities used to ensure equitable control and management are directed at establishing diplomatic relations that deserve respect from the pertinent members. With diplomacy, aspects of sovereignty and national interests are protected at all costs (Bardes et al., 2012).

Other general states have managed to live within the idealist perceptions. It is necessary to have both concepts of management and control reflected in the general performance of states in the world. The critical feature within the many societies in this case regards the concepts that were presented by john Locke in the past. The conception of idealism requires the law to dominate the relationships between different nations in the world. For instance, idealism purposes to establish a state where the rule of law is followed with no mere subjection of the demands and commands of separation as reiterated through realism. The aspect of idealism is seen within religious pluralism plan of liberation through peaceful negotiations and consent of governance that does not force any person to be in line with the concepts required for control and protection of any given state (Schmidt et al., 2011).

The state of nature and anarchy is respected when it comes to observance of the necessary terms and conditions of performance within a country. The current world has various analogies of idealism where anarchy is disrepute as a form of governance and control. Nature has its natural view and perception. When the United States of America involved in varied forms of realistic steps, some leaders, like President Obama, had a different view of the change that he was to bring to the American people. Nonetheless, the dominance of realism is still felt in the structures of governance and foreign policies in the United States of America.

The balance of power and national interest make a powerful tool in managing aspects of idealistic governance. According to the dictates of an idealist, it is highly possible to have international cohesion that transcends the realistic forces of nature and retribution in the world. Idealists perceive a possibility of cooperation among nations in order to relay cooperative power to the people. There is all possibility that a nation dwells within the rudimentary measures of cooperating with other nations in a bid to establish fluent environment full of domination of peace and cohesion.

With idealism, concepts of national interests are also concentrated for equitable control of the nations involved. As used with realists, national interests are perceived to be the only modes of ensuring equitable distribution of power and resources amongst the people. In order to ensure a sound democratic government, idealism prefers to be more optimistic of the steps taken to ensure fulfilment of the national interests among the people. Nations are required to act in their own interests. The interests of different nations differ in various…

Cite This Essay:

"Comparing And Contrasting Approaches To Foreign Policy Of George Bush And Barack Obama" (2013, March 02) Retrieved January 18, 2018, from

"Comparing And Contrasting Approaches To Foreign Policy Of George Bush And Barack Obama" 02 March 2013. Web.18 January. 2018. <>

"Comparing And Contrasting Approaches To Foreign Policy Of George Bush And Barack Obama", 02 March 2013, Accessed.18 January. 2018,