Thanas wrote:Then you need to read what Bismarck actually did - in essence, offering rather fair terms to defeated nations (except in case of France, when he was overruled, still the treaty of 1871 was far less harsh than previous french treaties with german states), guaranteeing stability for over 30 years with his treaties (a feat unheard of before), creating the first social security system, enhancing the secularization of the state, jumpstarting the industrialization, allowing the first nationwide equal elections and keeping his nose out of the business of other nations as long as it did not concern Germany.
Much of this I am aware of. Again, there's a fundamental disconnect here over what "realpolitik" is applied to, probably because the term is tied so intimately to a politician who has a MUCH better reputation in his own country than out of it.
I'm not saying Bismarck was punitive against France, or that he was some kind of cartoon character constantly pitting everyone against everyone. He wasn't. I'm saying that he is (in the eyes of the non-German world) often associated with a policy that
was, a policy that to be quite honest didn't blossom in its true stupid glory until years after his death. It's not fair to the man, but it explains why Americans talk about
realpolitik in terms that make no sense to a German.
As for what
I said, nothing you've told me is mutually exclusive with "Bismarck pursued his own country's interests while at best being neutral towards and at worst actively harmful to others." Many of the reforms and positive steps you cite were very much in Germany's interests, but I never denied and would never consider denying that Bismarck did Germany a lot of good. However, being a German, he naturally sought to do good for Germany
first and other nations only as an afterthought. As a result, many of his foreign policies had bad effects on other nations, even if those bad effects were not intended goals of his policies.
Declare Bismarck the patron saint of Germany, fine, you have good reasons for doing so, it makes perfect sense. He did more for the place than just about anyone else who's ever lived. But remember that he's NOT going to look as good to a Frenchman (or to an American; we have a long on-and-off love affair with France that's lasted for most of our history) as he does to you, for obvious reasons that I think any fair minded person will understand. And that colors perceptions of the single word most commonly associated with the man in any language.
_______
Not what Bush did, which was to squander his nations strength for little to no gain. Realpolitik has become a buzzword because it has become so distorted, but if you look closer you will find that Obama is practicing much more realpolitik than Bush ever did, such as his willingness to talk with Iran and to get out of Iraq despite accomplishing little freedom and democracy there.
I am inclined to agree. Bush
thought he was practicing realpolitik, but he was an idiot, so that doesn't matter. An idiot can believe anything if they put their mind to it.
I'm just trying to explain the reason why the word "realpolitik" mutated into the strange and improbable beast found in American discussions, rather than remaining faithful to its German origins. It went something like this:
"
Realpolitik is what Bismarck did!"
Foreigners*: "We perceive Bismarck as a ruthless bastard who cared for nothing save his own country's interests!"
Foreigners who have read Machiavelli: "Bismarck did a pretty good job!"
Same foreigners: "We should be ruthless bastards who care for nothing save our own country's interests!"
Same foreigners: "OK, what
are our country's interests?"
At this point, smart people give smart answers and do smart things. Stupid people give stupid answers and adopt cunning strategies aimed at the wrong goals, in ways that will never work, using
realpolitik as a cover. And the hell of it is that they believe their own buzzword, because
realpolitik as understood by foreigners* is vague enough that it's easy for any individual person to convince themself that they're doing it.
*As in, people who are not German
Stark wrote:The general staff knows what's best!
Yeah, we tried that once. Turns out that it didn't work so swell when you ignore politics in favor of weapon systems and blatant military posturing. But who knew the Romans were right all along? After all, they just had the longest lasting empire in history.
Shorten your weapons and lengthen your frontiers, sort of thing?