Support for Realist Foreign Policy: Reality Attunement or Ignorance?

Abstract

Social discourse often considers realist foreign policy to be the most pragmatic and rational approach to international relations. The present research tests the widespread belief that realist foreign policy reflects superior reality attunement by examining its correspondence to two indicators of reality engagement: the amount and quality of historical knowledge and the presence or absence of identity-defensive biases. In a first study I used a true/false quiz to test participant's performance on a test of critical and celebratory knowledge about past US foreign interventions; I measured endorsement of blind and constructive orientations of American patriotism, and I examined the relationship of these predictors with support for realist foreign policy. Consistent with a "realism as ignorance" hypothesis, realist foreign policy support was negatively related to historical knowledge and positively related to identity defensive patterns of American patriotism. In a second study, I conducted an experiment in which I exposed participants to different sets of facts that were either critical or celebratory representations of past US foreign interventions and assessed the impact of this manipulation on support for realist policy. Inconsistent with a "realism as ignorance" hypotheses and results of Study 1, results reveal a biased assimilation pattern, such that participants who were high in blind patriotism selectively appropriated celebratory knowledge to further bolster their realist policy inclinations. Together, results from both studies challenge the notion of realist foreign policy as reality attunement. Instead, results associate realist policy preferences with ignorance and identity defensive forms of patriotism.