Today, as political sociologists, we take a look at our neighboring discipline, political science. Welcome to “A little sociology never hurts!”

The theoretical foundations

Classical realism (Morgenthau, Carr) and neorealism (Waltz, Mearsheimer) share some core assumptions that are insightful for analyzing Trump’s foreign policy:

States as central actors: The international system consists primarily of sovereign states operating in an anarchic environment—there is no overarching world government. From this perspective, international institutions, NGOs, and corporations are secondary.

Power maximization and security: States strive for power and security. In classical realism, this is rooted in human nature; in neorealism, it is rooted in the structure of the international system itself.

Zero-sum thinking: One state’s gains tend to be interpreted as another’s losses.

Trump’s foreign policy in a realist framework

Trump’s rhetoric and policies can be described surprisingly well using realist categories:

“America First” as classical nationalism: The explicit prioritization of national interests over multilateral cooperation corresponds to the realist principle that states act selfishly and should do so.

Skepticism toward institutions: Criticism of NATO, the WTO, the UN, and climate agreements reflects the realistic skepticism that international institutions can actually fundamentally change state behavior.

Bilateralism instead of multilateralism: The preference for bilateral deals corresponds to the logic that powerful states can achieve more in asymmetrical bilateral relationships.

Critical assessment

However, there are also tensions between Trump’s policies and realistic theory:

Unpredictability vs. rationality: Realism assumes rational actors. Trump’s often erratic behavior—such as spontaneous summit meetings with North Korea or abrupt policy changes—contradicts the image of the coolly calculating statesman.

Economy vs. security: Classical realists prioritize military security. Trump’s focus on trade balances and economic deals shifts the concept of power.

Offensive vs. defensive realists: Mearsheimer’s offensive realism would tend to expect aggressive containment of China, while defensive realists would warn against overextension.

Recommended reading

Getting started

Carlo Masala (2016): Weltunordnung. Die globalen Krisen und das Versagen des Westens (World Disorder: Global Crises and the Failure of the West). Munich: C.H. Beck.

Masala, a professor at the Bundeswehr University in Munich, writes from a decidedly realist perspective and applies the theory to current crises – easy to read and in German.

For further reading

John J. Mearsheimer (2001): The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

The classic work of offensive neorealism. Mearsheimer argues that great powers are structurally compelled to compete for hegemony – highly relevant to the current US-China dynamic and Trump’s great power politics.