My basic thoughts on IR

This is an over-simplification of my basic look at IR policy. I base this on foreign policy decisions as well as ideology that these politicians more or less believed if for no other reason than there Secretary of State appointees. Liberal and Conservative are the terms I used, but they are a bit... open-ended. Liberalism and Conservatism have different meanings in America then they do elsewhere and generally just support the political leanings of the two major political parties there.

Realism and Altruism are more easily defined. Realism is the fact that foreign policy is nothing more than a system of communicating with the international community with the realization that countries will act within their means to better their standings. Altruism (which I will show my bias against) is an over-simplification of foreign policy that in my opinion looks more like an "Axis vs. Allies" game board. It involves the concepts of good vs evil and other... politically-inclined wording. Although a good balance between all ends is the best policy (like in most cases of everything,) in my opinion if you have to head towards one end liberal realism or conservative realism always prevail.

I know there are holes in the idea. JFK may have thought that the "realist" approach to the Cold War was prevent the spread of communism anywhere, in any form. To me it just seems to be an oversimplification in the same vein as good vs evil, all black or white (no gray.)