Final answer:
Realists focus on maintaining state security and power, assuming self-interest guides state actions. Liberals advocate for cooperation within international institutions for collective security, while idealists envision a peaceful world governed by open diplomacy and minimal militarization. U.S. foreign policy utilizes elements from each school of thought.
Step-by-step explanation:
Differences in Foreign Policy Perspectives: Realists, Liberals, and Idealists
When addressing how realists, liberals, and idealists view foreign policy, it is essential to understand that these schools of thought have distinct perspectives based on their underlying assumptions about human nature, the state's role, and the international system.
Realists prioritize state security and power. They assume states act in their own self-interest and advocate for a robust military and binding agreements to safeguard national interests. In the realist view, the international system is anarchic, and states must navigate this through balance of power and sphere of influences to maintain global order.
Liberals, meanwhile, see states as actors within a broader international system that can benefit all through cooperation via institutions. Liberalism supports the idea that domestic policies and institutions constrain state actions and that states should act in the best interest of the international community.
Idealists take a more optimistic view, believing in the possibility of world governance through open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, free trade, and minimal militaries. There is an element of idealism in liberal internationalism, but with a more pragmatic expectation that states will act for the common good.
Ultimately, the United States' foreign policy often incorporates elements from all these perspectives, tailoring its approach to context and objectives. For instance, it may employ neoconservative strategies with unilateral military actions or take an internationalist stance in building coalitions for global issues.