I'm sure I'd be for "realpolitik micropolitics" -- if only I knew what on earth it is.
Should have been the micropolitics of realpolitik international competition. That doesn't help much, I know.
What I have in mind is the idea that one can pursue all sorts of selective incentives, strategies of binding domestic political actors, and so forth with reference to the politics of particular states and regions. That is, the US can engage in "great game" style politics at the "local" level in ways tailored to a global strategy of liberal international order building. Although the latter rules out certain tactics at the "local" level, it actually serves to improve the effectiveness of other tactics. Maybe this makes more sense in the context of the paper?
On the one hand, there are those (apparently like Kagan) who want to pick a fight with both Russia and China. I would call that the macropolitics of unrealism -- so unrealistic that it is verging on suicidal.
On the other hand there are those who remind us (as I think Dan is) that effective diplomacy needs to be attuned to particular circumstances. To me, that is just fundamentally realistic, pure and simple.
Against unrealpolitik macropolitics, I'd vote for realpolitik micropolitics any day.
Ah, but the recurrent theme of international politics ... balances will form, etc., and relative gains considerations will always make mutual cooperation difficult.
Thus the new great game's, not so new.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
