E. H. Carr is persuasive in his conception of the international political arena. Instead of sticking to one theory, like all the other theorist we have encountered so far, Carr sees value in two major schools of thought. As such, he contends sound political though will always be a combination of idealism and realism. This strategy is convincing because he is able to choose the best components of each theory and dismiss their individual flaws. It is as though, implicitly picks up on the widely held maxim “pray for peace but prepare for war” that even extends beyond the realm of international relations.

Flaws of both theories are laid out throughout the book twenty years crisis. Idealism is said to be a great illusion. It is criticized as looking more like indoctrination than academic research. Promoting global peace may be initially viewed as ideal but it proves to be evermore aspirational. That is, there is a dangerous disconnect from the real world. Woodrow Wilson sought to promote idealism onto the world stage but ultimately failed through the commencement of the second world war. As such, idealism at the time succumbed to the powerful explanations of war provided by realism. Carr, however, remains equally critical of realism. He maintains realist want war but doesn’t see a way out of it. For this reason, it is fathomable that realism is not a desirable theory.

Utopia and reality offer a compelling explanation of both schools of thought. Through Albert Sorel, Carr contends “it is the eternal dispute between those who imagine the world to suit their policy and those who arrange their policy to suit the realities of the world” (Carr, p.11). To put things simply, Carr ingeniously frames both theories through the concepts of free will and determinism. He contends idealism is free will as it entertains the possibility of rejecting reality for utopia. Realism, on the other hand, is substituted with determinism because it accepts that one is powerless in changing the realities of the world.

Both idealism and realism fight for the right to be the dominant school of thought in international relations. This dual happens in the 1940’s and is widely regarded as the first great debate. Through this debate, both rival theories seek to establish a paradigm for the discipline of IR. This aim, however, rests unaccomplished as there is always more than one story to tell. That is, there is no vantage point outside the world. Therefore, it is difficult to make claims about the world while in it. Put simply, each theory speaks from a specific vantage point that attempts to make claims about the world. This is problematic because theories are lenses that construct what we see. This meta-theoretical claim persuasively highlights the lack of certainty and ability to apply laws to social sciences. Carr is rational in picking premises from both idealism and realism because neither ideology can claim to be a paradigm. For this reason, a combination of idealism and realism seems like the most logical ideology for international relations.