Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace.

John Lennon's "Imagine" (1971), while immensely popular, is considered idealistic at best; indeed, even people who embrace the message of "Imagine" may think that it is naively utopian. Certainly, when one looks at the hard "reality" of the world we live in--especially the international world--it's not hard to concur. From a different perspective, however, Lennon's "utopianism" reflects the very simple belief that "ideas" matter--that ideas can and do have a profound impact on the world in which we live. Surprisingly, perhaps, this is a belief shared by many hard-headed, no-nonsense neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives, however, believe that only hard power can be used to reshape reality--a point I discuss in my entry on the Bush Administration's View of Reality" below.

But Lennon, too, is talking about power: he is talking about the power of millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people imagining a more peaceful world. Imaginiing a world in which international borders and religious cleavages did not exist. Can such thing simply be wished away? Well, probably not. But one point is that international borders and religions are, in essence, little more than ideas. Yes, it is true that borders have an objective existence, yet the significance we attach to borders exists within our heads. That is, borders have meaning through the ideas of nationalism or citizenship. Certainly, this is even clearer in the case of religion: religion is simply a set of beliefs and values that exists within our collective heads. To change the world, then, requires changing our ideas about how the world should work or how it should be organized.

On this point, it worth remembering that democracy and individual freedom are ideas. The Bush administration believes, we are told, deeply in the idea and power of democracy. The Bush administration believes that spreading democracy will bring a fundamental change to international relations, and in particular, will bring peace to the Middle East. Is Bush a utopian? Perhaps. But, if he is, he has a lot of company.

The issue, needless to say, is much, much more complex than what I presented here. Suffice it to say, then, that we--as students of political science--need to consider seriously the significance of ideas in the "real world." Do ideas have power? If so, how is this power manifested and under what conditions? Can ideas--shared among whole populations--reshape the world in a fundamental way? I am not offering an answer here, only an "idea" to ponder.

Bush and Reality

A few years back an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Now, I know it's a bit late to be commenting on this statement (first reported in 2005), but I was reminded of it when I heard and wrote about Ann Coulter's quote, "I'm more of a man than any liberal." Ironically, both quotes reflect a post modernist or reflectivist perspective, which understands reality as socially constructed. I say ironically because most conservatives see post modernism as mushy, leftist thinking associated with such strange foreigners (even worse, Frenchmen!) as Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard.

Yet, from a post modern or reflectivist perspective, the idea that powerful governments--even more, hegemonic powers--create their own realities is not at all far-fetched. Indeed, in many respects, this is the starting point of analysis, a fundamental assumption. Certaiinly, as we look at the what the Bush administration has done--and what it is doing--it is not difficult to conclude that it is creating and recreating realities, some of which, to be sure, are very tenuous. (But, in a post modern world, we have to accept the "truth" that reality is not a fixed, objective fact.) Today, for example, the new reality is that we live in an inherently dangerous world populated by irrational terrorists who "hate freedom." In this reality, we have to fight the terrorists "over there" so that they cannot bring death and destruction "here." In this new reality, moreover, the United States is largely, if not entirely, an innocent target; the US--even as an empire--is certainly not responsible for creating the conditions that breed terrorists and terrorism. Of course, not everyone accepts this reality, but perhaps this is because the power of the American empire is under seige.

In sum, the idea that the Bush administration has the literal capacity to reshape reality should not be dismissed out of hand. For critics of the Bush administration, too, it is a lesson to take to heart. For while the present administration is not producing a more peaceful, more socially just world, one could argue that it possesses capaciity to do so. Social constructivists (such as Alexander Wendt), in fact, would argue that powerful states--especially acting under the influence of a hegemonic power--can, through their actions and understanding, construct a peaceful world order.