Idealism vs. Realism: Michael Ignatieff

Introduction

Michael Ignatieff, current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, is often decried by his opponents and even by his fellow liberals at times. Such criticism arises because of the many interesting ideologies Ignatieff follows, with which many disagree. Such ideologies are very deeply rooted into idealism and include cosmopolitanism, liberal democracy, and liberal interventionism. I aim to examine his viewpoint and formulate an opinion to see whether I agree or disagree with it. [1]

Cosmopolitanism, Communitarianism, and Post-Modernism

I do not fully support cosmopolitanism, and nor do I fully support its oppositional concept, communitarianism. Instead, I blend these two ideologies utilizing post-modernist politics. Consider, for example, the following premises.

Cosmopolitanism: The idea that all humans, whether fellow citizens or strangers, have a moral obligation to each other in terms of human rights and international justice. [1]

Communitarianism: Humans only have a moral obligation towards members of their own nation. [1]

Post-Modernism: There is no objective standard of morality in international politics. [1]

Given these definitions, it is clear that cosmopolitanism and communitarianism are both idealistic in nature – they each involve the exercising of morality. However, under the lens of post-modernism, we are able to put aside the idealistic portion and consider the realistic dimension of these two ideologies.

Being a realist, I strongly feel that a nation's interests must come first. Although it would be benevolent to aid a country in need, it is imperative that one first asserts the benefits and risks associated with lending aid. If the benefits outweigh the risks, then assistance should be provided to the nation in need. However, if there are far too many dangers lying in wait for intervening states, then it would be best to sit out on the conflict so that energy, resources, and time are conserved. In his biography of Ignatieff, Michael C. Morgan likewise says:

"Cosmopolitanism requires a solid foundation if it hopes to mobilize governments. Sympathy alone is insufficient." [1]

I theorize that such a “solid foundation” is directly proportional to how much a nation is interested in and fulfills its own interests. This suggests that in order to achieve an idealistic goal in today’s politics, one must use realistic methods to do so. As we will see soon, this is exactly what Ignatieff believes in.

Liberal Interventionism and the Lesser Evil

“It is meaningless to proclaim the importance of human rights unless one is willing to fight when they are threatened, and a sincere commitment to preventing genocide demands nothing less.” [1]

Liberal interventionism is the idea that military action should be used, when necessary, to protect ideals like democracy and human rights. This is the point where Ignatieff embraces imperfection and where his theory of the "lesser evil" comes into play.

The lesser evil is a concept that posits that when no possible political decisions are completely moral, one must make the least harmful choice. [1] What is interesting about this theory and liberal interventionism is that they both involve the blending of idealism and realism. A liberal interventionist sets an idealistic goal, but works towards it in a realistic manner.

I find myself agreeing with liberal interventionism and the lesser evil. I believe that moral principles often require force to be protected. However, from this, an issue arises - that the use of force is counter-idealistic because it involves the violation of others' rights. The lesser evil is a response to this problem. In such a scenario, I feel that it is necessary to violate the rights of someone who is violating the rights of innocent others in order to stop them. Afterwards, order may be brought in and the situation may be stabilized.

If a group of persons violating the rights of another group are not stopped, they may acquire enough power to form a tyrannical regime that, for example, engages in genocide. At this stage, this organization is much more difficult to stop and far more dangerous to idealism than it was at an earlier stage. A good example of this is the ongoing crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a humanitarian terror that has been widely underreported, but yet, is in a more critical state than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined. [2]

The Applications of Ignatieff’s Ideology

There is no doubt that Ignatieff’s policies are perfect for an idealistic realm. However, this is not our world of political affairs today. Few politicians adopt the concepts outlined above that characterize him. [1] He is no doubt credible for trying to bring this idealism into a realistic world and ground it therein by conforming it to realistic principles. However, the magnitude of this idealism is too impractical and is perhaps why Ignatieff has not yet been successful against the Conservatives.

Conclusively, I find Ignatieff’s policies to be an extensive and unique case study in the rhetorical battle between realism and idealism. As I wrote earlier, I am a realist and hence, I disagree with Ignatieff's aims. Nevertheless, I respect him for accepting non-perfectionism, unlike many other idealists. It is this non-perfectionism that leads him to understand that it is necessary to aim for idealistic goals in a pragmatic manner. Because Ignatieff is not only looking at what is ideal, but is also looking at what truly works in contemporary politics, I think his ideas have much more credibility than your average idealist.

[1] Morgan, Michael C. “Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the ‘Lesser Evil.” International Journal 61, no. 4 (2006): 972-979.

[2] Geoffrey York. “The bleak calculus of Congo’s war without end.” The Globe and Mail, 26 March 2010.