Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Neorealism Versus Neoconservatism: Power Imbalance in International Affairs?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 24 page paper on the ongoing debate regarding the appropriate role for the U.S. in world affairs. The author details the views of Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and Robert Kagan and other political
philosophers. Bibliography lists 14 sources.
Page Count:
24 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPusRol2.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
of the U.S. in world order. Two of the camps comprising that debate are the neorealists and the neoconservatists. Neorealists criticize autonomous nation-states and believe that they are
motivated by their quest for power and the potential for relative as opposed to absolute gains. Neoconservatists, in contrast, support an aggressive foreign policy. The divergence that exists
between neorealism and neoconservatism is not better illustrated than through a comparison of the philosophies of Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and Robert Kagan as they apply to the current world
order and the U.S. role in that world order. Waltz, the father of Structural Realism suggests that the world political situation
is on a large scale, a scale that is currently overbalanced by the U.S. He suggests that this results in a situation in which "overwhelming power repels and leads
others to balance against it". Walz projects, in fact, that this unipolarity will soon correct itself as other nations position themselves to correct for it. Mearsheimer, another neorealist
takes a similar stand on these issues. Kagan (2003), in contrast, approaches the U.S. role in international politics from the perspective that we must act not only to preserve
world peace but to aggressively protect our own integrity. Kagan (2003) contends that the U.S. is slowly extracting herself from her identification with the "West" as a whole, that
this extraction has come about as a result of the obvious differences in missions of European powers and the U.S. vision. Kagan contends that the projection and upholding of
power is important to the U.S. while Europeans have grown progressively more intent on opposing power (Rynning, 2003). Kagan suggests that:
...