Bringing theory and policy together. IR theory—basically, doing an action causes a predictable reaction. Explicit or implicit. Implicit’s problem means you can’t get the theory on the table to argue it, examine it.

Class of theories: realist, liberal, constructivists

Marxism fell out of favor (could have fallen into realist category).

Counterfactuals: all casual claims have implicit counterfactuals.

What makes a theory good/bad/better? How well does it explain reality? How often is it right or wrong? This is the most obvious. Here are ways to judge:
Goodness of fit.
Parsimony –all things equal, parsimony better; very few casual condition variables (eg. Realism)
Generalizability—relates to both dependent and independent variables.
Trade-offs between 1/3 and ½.
Also, how manipulable are the variables (can the theory be use to affect things. Eg, Policy variables better than structural variable. Process vs. structure.).

Levels of analysis: pertains to the independent variable.
Waltz’s three levels [Book: Man, the State, and War]. Dependent variables for all three is IR.
Man: Human nature (more deterministic) OR specific people (related to “Great man” theory of history)
State: internal workings; interest groups, government’s nature (E.g. No wars in democratic peace theory)
International/state system: states in an environment of anarchy. More important because it works in/allows for the other two levels to a lesser degree.
Some debate as to theories fitting into the above levels.

Melian Dialogues
The strong do what they can, the weak do what they must.
Norms of civility—for the weak, but should the strong also uphold?
Use of power important (precursor of realism)
Smart vs. honorable action
People fight losing wars hoping for allies
Importance of power distribution (international system) you would act the same in our position.
Naïve belief in help from others.
“Waterbirds”—overextended great power is vulnerable.
Final: Melians’ wishful thinking, misperception.

National Interest: Survival and power
Realism: power most important variable. Dynamics timeless.

Things to do as state vs. individual.
Machiavelli: Be willing to be “mean,’ but ideally be moderate to inferiors (Athenian idea). Ideally, feared AND loved. Choose fear if you have to because keeping order important. Your role as leader of states vs. as citizens different because consequences are greater as leader of state. Morality of a statesman different from morality in society (“end justifying the means” not so much personally).
Hobbes: main focus of Leviathan is domestic politics, very little on IR. Natural state of men is anarchy. T hen extrapolated to state level. The desires to dominate/be powerful, and to not be denominated. Getting a “rep” to get future things at lower cost. But what is glory? A real thing? The shadow of virtue. Honor/glory. Competition, diffidence (?), glory. First two get you stuff, and safety—rational wants. “Glory” gets you a reputation, and for credibility, it’s a rational drive. Glory/honor not material, seems in opposition/irrational. Doing things even if not in self-interest because of glory alone irrational.

Analytic—almost all theories have this component. How things are. (Hobbes here).
Normative—some theories have this. How things ought to be. Machiavelli here.

EH Carr: He himself not necessarily a realist, but has written great classic texts on realism. Differs from preceding realists: shows following the “right” thing can be disastrous. Eg League of Nations (problems from the concepts of collective security), as a recipe for perpetual peace. Carr’s concern with desire to fund/volunteer when it’s another state’s problem. This is why it’s on realist readings—wishful thinking becomes very dangerous to set up a system by.