re. It was a more optimistic view that envisioned a harmony of interests, the power of law, and public opinion and international organizations as being modifying forces which could alter national policies.
On the surface, idealism and optimism have a positive ring. Yet the emotional appeal of individual words isn't what is really important. What matters is which theory actually enhances our ability to analyze and understand international political behav-ior. Which concept comes closer to describing power relationships and explaining how nations actually act? Perhaps even more signi-ficant, which theory can be translated into practice?
The problem with the idealism of the inter-war period was that it may have been a lovely ideal, but it was not based on the lessons of history or on actual behavioral patterns. Critics later charged that a passionate pursuit of peace, to the extent that the use of force becomes unthinkable, only leaves a nation vulnerable to the ruthless who have no qualms about using violence. It certainly appears that American and British policies prior to World War II were laced with such idealistic notions.
The idealists put their faith in the power of international bodies and laws to control nation-states. A League of Nations was created, but it lacked enforcement powers. U.S. politicians were so divided over the idea that the Senate refused to ratify U.S. entry to the League in 1920. In 1928, Congress did pass the Kellogg-Brand Act which ba
...