The Oldest Reality Show in Town

Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, orMachiavellian. Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles.

Thanks for that wikipedia, my old friend for quick answers.  Thanks, anonymous reader, for asking me to write about realpolitiks.  It's one of the more misunderstood concepts in modern politics.  When George Bush used strong words with North Korea and Iran, he wasn't just being boisterous, he was being diplomatic.  He was using on of the oldest tricks in the book.  Otto von Bismarck, Chancelor of Germany under Wilhelm II, coined the term.  The Cold War was also a wonderful example of a time period of the use of the device.

Why did we invade Iraq but not North Korea?  Realpolitik dictates that North Korea's nukes make them a more difficult target than Iraq.  They were both ruled by dictators with less-than-stellar human rights records and they were both in Bush's Axis of Evil.  We also didn't invade Iran because they are supported by Russia (which is interesting with regards to history, but who likes history?).

I think I've done enough of a definition and history of realpolitik, I'd like to now look at its use and future.  Realpolitik is not the actual use of force, it is the thought of force.  It is not the game of Risk, it is the game of Diplomacy.  (All rights reserved)  Realpolitik is why I love politics.  You don't ever actually use force, but you make sure that everyone knows exactly how much force you have and you make really sure how much force everyone else has.  George Bush wanted to play the game but wasn't very good at it, he was too much of a cowboy.  If I had to pick one person who was the best I'd say Vladamir Putin.  I absolutely love Vladamir Putin.  It's not surprise that I called the Georgia invasion.  It was an application of realpolitik.  Didn't I just say that realpolitick wasn't a use of force?  Yes I did.  Let me help you all get rid of the dissonance.  The invasion of Georgia wasn't an invasion of Georgia.  Russia didn't care about Georgia.  They had two objectives in that conflict: show Turkey that they still wanted the Dardanelles Strait and show the US that a country can be invaded and left.  They succeeded in both of these objectives.

that was one of the most recent and successful examples of realpolitik.  Now for the future.  The United States is going to wallow in the memory of former glory as China and Russia and India rise in power.  This does not mean that the United States will be meaningless, like so many writers like to state.  They will however, no longer be the bully.  We will have to learn how to share the world with the rest of the people that live on it.  Developing countries are going to continue to develop in the wake of our fall.  If we were going to learn one lesson, we should learn from England.  England has had a graceful fall from power and enjoys a position of power without force.  Everyone remembers how great England used to be and those diplomatic ties will not be severed easily.  We should tell our government to get out of the way of business so that we can continue to bankroll the development of the rest of the world so that China doesn't reap the enormous benefits.

When it comes to political force, it really is a zero-sum game.  Not to sound like a Barberian active negative, but there can only be so many voices shouting in a crowd that can be listened to.  The real players of real politics will last over time.  The oldest trick in the book will be the last trick in the book.