We often hear the word “public” and “intellectual” but what is a “public intellectual?” A public intellectual is an academic who is a celebrated specialist in his or her field. This figure has become known to the general public-- not just academics—and is recognized for their willingness to provide commentary on current affairs. Public intellectuals come in many disciplines, but one of the most recognized political public intellectuals is Henry Kissinger.
Henry Kissinger has been called a lot of things: brilliant strategist, leader of U.S. foreign policy, war criminal, father of realism. Kissinger is best known for his time in the U.S. State Department as Secretary of State. In my view, you can break down Kissinger’s life into three main periods. The first part of his adult life, before he joined the State Department, Kissinger was a Professor at Harvard University. The second period of his life is Kissinger’s time as a statesman in his role as U.S. Secretary of State. The third and current period of his life is where Kissinger is a public intellectual and advisor to politicians. However, I would also propose that Kissinger has been a public intellectual ever since he published his senior thesis at Harvard in 1950. While his time in office may have been filtered due to political agendas, Kissinger did not shy away from asserting his own methods to achieve the ultimate goal.
Henry Kissinger is as interesting study. He brings forth visceral anger in some while others view his work as revolutionary. Originally from Germany, Kissinger and his family fled to the United States after WWI as they were facing increased anti-Semitism at home. Kissinger was always a bookish child and ended up receiving his PHD from Harvard in the Department of Government. Kissinger stayed on at Harvard teaching for a number of years as well as publishing books, including his 1957 work, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.
Before President Nixon appointed Kissinger as National Security Advisor and subsequently Secretary of State, Kissinger was already a recognized expert that both President Kennedy and President Johnson would turn to for advice on foreign policy. Kissinger perhaps is best known for his foreign policy during the Vietnam War, although quite controversially. Kissinger was also very key in developing Chinese – U.S. relations that allowed Nixon to make his historic trip to normalize this relationship between the two countries. Kissinger was often behind the scenes in many foreign policy advancements.
Kissinger’ s qualifications as a public intellectual are, in my opinion, irrefutable. University of Southern California’s professor Stephen Mack mentions on his blog: The New Democratic Review how there is a fear of the public intellectual declining. While in general this may be true, Kissinger is definitely on exception to this concern. When discussing the qualifications that are needed to classify someone as a public intellectual, Mack states, “we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.” Kissinger is a prime example of such a public intellectual who has not only theorized but also has done significant publishing of his world theories. He also is extremely well qualified traditionally Kissinger was also exceptionally influential on the American political psyche. Kissinger’s policies for the U.S.’s relations with foreign nations has shaped our history.
In his most recent book World Order, Kissinger summarizes his prevailing philosophy that he has held since his time at Harvard. Kissinger has been viewed for a long time as an uber-realist who often has a slight Hobbesian view on the world. And while it would be hard to classify Kissinger as anything other than a realist he has seemed to embrace a slightly more Constructivist view of the world now that he has emerged on the other side of his long political career. For Kissinger power has been the focus. If a country, like the U.S., has an agenda to carry out, why would it not make a smaller, less powerful country, e.g., Cambodia, bend to its will? Realism only considers military power, and the material means to achieve military might, as the measure of a country’s power in the international realm. Kissinger still believes that this is an extremely important measure of a country’s level of power. However, more recently Kissinger promotes the idea that simple material might can no longer be the only consideration in the balance of power; he believes that you have to take into consideration that each country and society has varying perceptions for what constitutes power based on culture, societal influences and domestic structure.
Throughout Kissinger’s time as a public intellectual people have associated the idea of realpolitik with his world view. Perhaps that stems from the fact that he himself is originally from Germany just like the word. Realpolitik is the idea that politics is based on “practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives.” Although Kissinger may not have labeled himself a realpolitik, he certainly fits the characteristics ascribed to one. Realpolitik goes hand in hand with realism, so Kissinger does not believe that the word “realpolitik” has any intrinsic value in itself and instead considers himself a realist.
One of the things that is fascinating about Kissinger is the fact that you can look at his time in office to see if he actually lived up to his theories about what guides the functioning of the world – something hard to come by with other public intellectuals. When we look at this, Realpolitik seems to be a constant theme in all the actions he has taken as a public figure. For a time, realpolitik was considered a contrasting way to deal with the world compared to the American style. For example, the carpet bombing of Cambodia, which was Kissinger’s strategy, was certainly not guided by any sense of morality but rather what he viewed as the most practical way to defeat “the enemy.”
In Kissinger’s newest work, World Order, he articulates his philosophy as to what is essential to creating a truly balanced system.
“Any system of world order, to be sustainable, must be accepted as just—not only by leaders, but also by citizens. It must reflect two truths: order without freedom, even if sustained by momentary exaltation, eventually creates its own counterpoise; yet freedom cannot be secured or sustained without a framework of order to keep the peace. Order and freedom, sometimes described as opposite poles on the spectrum of experience, should instead be understood as interdependent. Can today’s leaders rise above the urgency of day-to-day events to achieve this balance?” – Henry Kissinger, World Order
This "World Order" that Kissinger is talking about is not something he believes to have existed thus far in our world. As such, he reveals himself as something other than a pure realist. True realists believe in complete anarchy; that there is no way to bring reason to the international system. Kissinger here is proposing, although very cautiously, a scenario with the possibility of some sort of balance being achieved. Realism advocates for the maximizing of one’s state’s power, whether total or relative, not balance of power between states. Kissinger in this new literature deviates from his previously more traditional realist view. However, this new emphasis on the balance of power still keeps power as a key factor. So in the end Kissinger is merely accepting the fact that other influencers have to be considered in addition to the struggle for military dominance.
Another key piece of Kissinger’s over all view on the world is the idea of a Westphalian peace. The Treaty of Westphalia, created in the 1600s, is where international relations theorists declare the idea of the modern state was born and with it the idea that states have the right to sovereignty. For Kissinger, the Westphalian Peace is when the current international conditions were put in place. Kissinger describes the state of Europe after this peace as “a multiplicity of political units, none powerful enough to defeat all the others, many adhering to contradictory philosophies and internal practices, in search of neutral rules to regulate their conduct and mitigate conflict.” This again goes back to the balance of power between states. This system is not conducive to one extremely powerful state being able to dominate all others.
At his center, Kissinger is very much a historian. Throughout his book World Order Kissinger sheds light on past conflicts and why they occurred. Kissinger connects the past to present day issues to illustrate the parallels between history and the current state of the world. Revolutions are a key issue that he discusses due to the fact that they create great instability. For Kissinger, the French Revolution was a prime example of how an internal conflict in a state can be more disruptive to the international equilibrium more than many international conflicts.
By this time, you may think that I am a huge fan of Henry Kissinger and swear up and down that he was an amazing theorist and political figure. In fact, I am not. Kissinger is an individual whose ideas have embedded themselves into the Unites States’ security policies but in many instances I do not agree with Kissinger. I give him credit as a political figure for being able to so closely stick to his ideas about the world in his actions. However, Kissinger’s realist view of the world caused tremendous casualties and were not always the best decisions in the long run. Kissinger has become such a prominent international strategist that it is impossible to ignore his influence on American politics and theories. However, I found the tone of World Order unnecessarily self-important at times.
Public intellectuals are less common than they used to be and this is not a surprise in my opinion. Money is the main motivator in life in the present time, and it is difficult to be paid just for your thoughts. Kissinger’s life shows the influence a public intellectual can hold on the way we view the world. His time holding a government position is long past, but his books still cause great debate over the ideas he puts forth. While Kissinger’s time in the government was when he was most influential enacting policy, the theories he discusses in his literary works still match up with actions taken previously. I do like seeing that in World Order Kissinger has evolved his thinking about certain ways the world works. He broke way slightly from his strict realist approach to the world, most likely as a result of seeing the real-world reactions to his policies in countries in conflict with the U.S.
References
https://www.thenation.com/article/five-corporations-now-dominate-our-privatized-intelligence-industry/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/books/in-world-order-henry-kissinger-sums-up-his-philosophy.html?_r=0
http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_decline_of_7.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/henry-kissinger-history-legacy-213237
http://www.biography.com/people/henry-kissinger-9366016#time-at-harvard
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/21/kissinger-the-constructivist/
http://warontherocks.com/2015/12/the-kissinger-effect-on-realpolitik/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/public-intellectual
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/henry-kissingers-world-order.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/01/world-order-by-henry-kissinger-review-account
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Kissinger-Henry.html
