Books I Read This Summer:
1. Failed States by Noam Chomsky
2. The New Financial Paradigm by George Soros
3. The Second World by Parag Khanna
4. Creating a World without Poverty by Muhammad Yunnus
5. What Happened by Scott McClellan
6. Financial Statecraft by Benn Steil and Robert E. Litap
7. The Three Trillion Dollar Meltdown by Charles R. Morris
8. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman
9. Blood and Oil by Michael T. Klare
10. On Empire by Eric Hobsbawm
11. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer
12. The Great Derangement by Matthew Taibbi
13. New Ideas from Dead Economists by Todd G. Buchholz
14. Ethical Realism by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman
15. Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet by Michael T. Klare
16. Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson
17. The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler
18. Feeding the Fire by Mark Eberhart
19. What We Say Goes by Noam Chomsky
20. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
21. Old School by Tobias Wolff
22. Ben Bernanke’s Fed by Ethan S. Harris
23. Philosophy and Social Hope by Richard Rorty
Since deciding to join an activity that would dictate the manner in which my non-academic time was spent, I have found that debate tends to be the "guiding light" in determining what books to purchase and figuratively consume. While this has not always been the case, particularly when I was not as serious about the sport as I am now, I feel I am almost frivolously squandering the paltry of "free time" that my academic commitments give to me should I choose to engage in a whimsical novel with little relevance to any argument I could conceive of. Nevertheless, I have committed such atrocities in the eyes of the "Debate Gods," although in hindsight, they are reciprocally justified considering Mr. Guthrie's reading some book about 19th century Christian theology at the end of last school year, instead of researching Slovenian anti-capitalist criticism in preparation for nationals--selfish, I know. Thus, with my conundrum laid out, my summer reading choices were incredibly focused on matters relative to this year's debate resolution (Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States).
Considering the nature of this year's topic and taking cue from my personal interests, following the onset of summer, I embarked on reading a diversity of non-fiction, and a few fiction titles, to enhance my understanding of core literature for the year. In my undertaking, I completed twenty-three books, some that were incredibly fascinating and engaging and others that caused me to feel inclined to demand a refund from Borders. The book that narrowly beats Parag Khanna's The Second World for the award of "Top Read" is John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, an analysis of the world of international relations and the implications for the post-Cold War era.
Mearsheimer's account is thought-provoking in terms of its forcing the reader to consider the fashion in which nation sates truly perceive and respond to the actions of other nation states. In line with his own understanding of international affairs studies, Mearsheimer focuses on the often regarded conservative school known as realism, the interpretation that contends states, as rational actors, function out of self-interest in an anarchic world where the only adequate stance is to view other actors as being potential threats. What is truly remarkable about the contentions of realism is that no state can be immune to the psychology of fear. A historically unprecedented superpower (i.e. the United States), despite its domination of military power in every aspect, can and should be feel threatened by a much weaker state due to the potential for asymmetric confrontation. It is rather ironic that an individual can feel much more secure than a state due to the ability to turn to the law for protection, but for nations, no such higher body exists--the U.N. is a rather weak transnational body and thus has been discounted.
Somewhat contradictory to my above statements, what I found most appealing to my interests and the least relevant to anything pertaining to debate was the extensive historical analysis Mearsheimer conducts to prove that realism is the correct interpretation of international affairs. A lover of history--particularly European history--I found his analysis of the historical foreign policy of states, such as Germany--prior to 1871 Prussia--France, Russia, and Great Britain, in accordance with a realist framework to be especially insightful because it gives meaning to the plethora of militaristic adventures undertaken by the great powers during Europe's tumultuous history over the last three centuries. For instance, why did Germany not seek to usurp control of continental Europe in 1907 despite the fact that it was a potential hegemon? While such questions cannot be categorically answered, although Mearsheimer attempts to provide his own explanation, they still make the reader realize that history, particularly in terms of geopolitical conflict, is not a collection of seemingly unnecessary events but rather a record of motivations and calculative actions.
While not literature in the conventional sense of fiction, poetry, etc., Mearsheimer's work is a Shakespearean interpretation of international relations that remains a cornerstone of international political theory literature, which in turn is an indispensable component of the wide body of work that stays relevant year after year in the esoteric world of debate. Although The Tragedy of Great Power Politics would not be placed in the literature section of a bookstore, that does not exclude the work from telling a story of the conflict that exists in everyday life at the grandest scale. In some instances, states are almost personified as entities whose actions are beyond the control of those individuals who "control the state." This portrayal of nations as calculative and pragmatic political structures in an antagonistic world rivals, in my opinion, any highly regarded novel that reveals deep personal conflict and turmoil. While The Tragedy of Great Power Politics may seem like a read reserved to political science students and academics, in reality, it is a book that seeks to provide a predictive message for a subject that often determines whether or not tomorrow we have blue skies or a mushroom cloud. A reader who has completed the book, myself included, cannot help but look at everyday international affairs in a new light that is a reflection of either acceptance of Mearsheimer's contentions or an understanding that was formulated out of something seen as problematic in the thesis of realism. I cannot but conclude that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics was and is truly transformative. (910)
