E-mail:

Dear Mr. Lowry,
I am a graduate student in international relations writing to advise you to be careful throwing around the term “neo-realism”. The term has been floating around in the IR/foreign policy community for about 25 years now, and refers to the theory of Kenneth Waltz, who argues that the structure (number of great powers) of the international system is the primary determinant of international outcomes. More importantly, the term has the practical meaning of “super-realist”–self-described neo-realists tend to believe that the power of states is the ONLY thing that matters in international politics, and “neo-realist” is often an epithet used to describe prudent minded people by those who wish to straw-man them. The WSJ’s article notwithstanding, this is the major image that most well informed observers will get from the term “neo-realism.”

ME: I take the point. But when coming up with a new label, I’m not sure points like this really matter. They certainly didn’t when everyone who supported the Iraq war was labeled a “neo-con.” John Bolton is consistently labeled a neo-con–the Wall Street Journal did it the other day–when he’s clearly not, and is much closer to being a neo-realist (add him to the list). So Kenneth Waltz is going to have to move over–we’re taking the phrase and using it for our own purposes…

I’m afraid what really matters in the labeling game, of course, is whether Chris Matthews will realize that there is now a neo-realist cabal forming that is bent on hi-jacking American foreign policy and proceed to talk about it every night…