Podcast Summary: History As It Happens

Episode: What is Realism?
Host: Martin Di Caro
Guests: Linda Kinstler (New York Times Magazine, Harvard Society of Fellows), Stephen Wertheim (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
Date: January 27, 2026

EPISODE OVERVIEW

In this episode, Martin Di Caro explores the concept of "realism" in U.S. foreign policy, with a focus on how the Trump administration’s language of “flexible realism” shapes action and perception in global affairs. Joined by scholar-journalist Linda Kinstler and historian Stephen Wertheim, the conversation delves into the origins, philosophical underpinnings, historical applications, and contemporary mutations of realism—with special attention to where the concept meaningfully explains policy and where it may function as political theater or justification.

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS & INSIGHTS

1. Defining “Realism” and Its Mutations

• Theory, Not Ideology

  • Realism is a theory of international relations focusing on state behavior in an anarchic international system, emphasizing power, security, and the limits of idealism.
  • “In my conversations with people who are established realist scholars ... they underscored again and again that it is a theory of international politics. ... It's not an ideology.” – Linda Kinstler (10:17–10:36)

• Flexible & Principled Realism

  • The Trump administration has shifted its branding of realism from “principled” (values-guided) to “flexible” (tactically opaque).
  • “Flexible realism doesn't seem to have anything underlying it. It's very tactically opaque.” – Linda Kinstler (09:46–10:12)

• Performance vs. Substance

  • There’s skepticism regarding whether Trump is genuinely a realist or merely appropriating its language for legitimacy.
  • “A lot of what we're seeing is more like a mocked politic, the performance of power politics ... maybe the showmanship, the self-presentation, is more realist than the underlying policy itself.” – Stephen Wertheim (08:50–09:42)

2. Historical Origins and Evolution of Realism

• From Idealism to Realism (History’s Pendulum)

  • After WWII, realism emerged to explain disastrous global events that idealism couldn’t prevent (e.g., collapse of Weimar, Holocaust, failure of League of Nations).
  • Names cited: Hans Morgenthau, Kissinger, Nitze, Niebuhr, E. H. Carr.
  • “After World War II, realism became a framework for rethinking the nature of politics…” – Martin Di Caro (03:11–04:22)

• Realism’s “Evil Cousins” and Variants

  • Machtpolitik (“rule by strength”), as discussed by Patrick Porter, is framed as a dangerous perversion of realism focusing on power for its own sake.
  • “He kind of describes it as this evil cousin of realism ... rule by strength alone ... enriches only those in power.” – Linda Kinstler (15:51–17:41)

• Post-Cold War: Rise, Fall, and Return

  • Realism lost traction after the Cold War’s unipolar moment, with its recent resurgence tied to multipolarity and Trump-era messaging.

3. Realism vs. Idealism and Internationalism

• Competing Antonyms

  • Realism is contrasted with both idealism (utopian, values-based) and internationalism (belief in global governance or cooperation beyond self-help).
  • “Realism is often opposed to idealism... But at the same time, [E.H. Carr] calls for not the Replacement of idealism with realism, but rather striking a correct balance between realism and idealism.” – Stephen Wertheim (10:57–13:13)

• Adaptability and Limits

  • No U.S. president is 100% realist or idealist—pragmatism and adaptation are inevitable.

4. Assessing “Trumpian Realism”

• Ideology or Justification?

  • Trump’s foreign policy blends a realist vocabulary with ad hoc, often theatrical policy choices—emphasizing American strength, spectacle, and action over systemic vision.
  • “He wants interventions that appear clean ... that are spectacular, that are theatrical. Right. That fits his style.” – Martin Di Caro (37:51–38:17)
  • “Realism is being sort of elevated as a kind of language of legitimation by President Trump. And I think that's kind of how he views the world too.” – Stephen Wertheim (21:14–24:06)

• Pursuing Power, Not Restraint

  • Trump’s self-styling as a realist often masks an interventionist, performative, or “primacist” approach, not classic realism’s emphasis on restraint or long-term strategic calculation.

5. Core Realist Concepts in Contemporary Debates

• Spheres of Influence

  • Traditionally, realists recognize great powers’ spheres of influence as a practical limit to foreign entanglement—but Trump’s actions blur or ignore such limits.
  • “He's not offering China a sphere of influence in the Indo Pacific. He's not even offering Russia a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe or Central Asia.” – Stephen Wertheim (35:25–36:41)

• Vital vs. Peripheral Interests

  • Realists claim to distinguish between what’s vital (existential interests) and what’s peripheral—but, in practice, the line is blurry and subject to political, ideological, or personal motivations.
  • “Aren't realists supposed to be good at [distinguishing between interests]?” – Martin Di Caro (39:02)
  • “I'm not sure that if you look at the historical record, that that's what we see.” – Linda Kinstler (39:02–39:22)

• Credibility Trap

  • The fear of losing credibility (with allies, adversaries, or with oneself) can drive non-realist, escalatory logic—as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and modern crises.

6. Realism in a Multipolar, Globalized World

• Multipolarity Shifts Discourse

  • As U.S. hegemony wanes, both challenges and opportunities for realist thinking emerge, such as the balancing of power and the limits of American primacy.
  • “If the United States is losing a position of global dominance ... it's not just that big powers will get to rampage over small ones. There is an option of balancing. We really miss that option in our political discourse, and I think we do that at our peril.” – Stephen Wertheim (47:26–51:02)

• Soft Power & non-military Engagement

  • The episode laments a declining emphasis on soft power—diplomatic, economic, and cultural—in favor of brute or performative force.
  • “There is no question that we see a retrenchment of US Soft power in this moment and basically very little interest in using that as a tool of statecraft, much to our regret.” – Linda Kinstler (51:45–52:29)

MEMORABLE QUOTES & TIMESTAMPS

• “Flexible realism means whatever you want it to be, I guess.” – Martin Di Caro (09:42)
• “It's a very slippery concept.” – Linda Kinstler (10:57)
• “I think Linda is onto something in highlighting the kind of performative status, conscious power as an end in itself quality to Trump.” – Stephen Wertheim (18:27–19:32)
• “Realism is being sort of elevated as a kind of language of legitimation by President Trump.” – Stephen Wertheim (21:14)
• “Everyone wants to be realistic, of course. ... To describe oneself as a realist, even if you're not kind of familiar with all of the meanings of the term, can follow closely afterwards.” – Linda Kinstler (24:38)
• “If the United States is losing a position of global dominance ... it's not just that big powers will get to rampage over small ones. There is an option of balancing. We really miss that option in our political discourse, and I think we do that at our peril.” – Stephen Wertheim (47:26–51:02)

TIMESTAMPS FOR IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

• [01:11–01:34]: Host frames core questions—what is realism, does Trump embody it, and why does it matter?
• [07:24–10:12]: Discussion on the rise of realism as Trump-era policy language.
• [10:12–13:13]: In-depth definitions of realism and exploration of its antonyms.
• [17:41–19:32]: Examining whether Trump is a realist or simply a Machtpolitik actor.
• [24:38–25:50]: Realism as “alibi” or justification, populist appeal of being “realistic.”
• [32:22–33:30]: Realism’s connection to imperialism; 19th-century roots.
• [35:01–36:41]: Application and limits of the spheres of influence concept.
• [40:39–41:56]: Realism and the prudence of avoiding great power conflict.
• [43:10–47:13]: The curse of credibility and how realism can (or cannot) counteract it.
• [51:02–52:29]: Discussion of soft power and the modern need for realism in statecraft.

CONCLUSION

The episode thoughtfully interrogates “realism”—not as a fixed doctrine but as a living, often-contested vocabulary that powerful states employ to justify, explain, or perform foreign policy actions. While realists advocate rational distinction between vital and peripheral interests, history and personality often blur those lines. Both Kinstler and Wertheim agree that today’s foreign policy language—particularly under Trump—uses the trappings of realism more as branding than as principle, fusing power politics with spectacle, and often crowding out softer, more constructive forms of influence. For listeners, the episode demonstrates that being “realistic” in politics is neither a guarantee of prudence nor a shield against excess, but a concept deeply intertwined with history, ideology, and how leaders want to be perceived.