Many readers may feel uneasy about dispatching Richard Nixon and Pope Pius XII to hell, and to its innermost circle at that. In the Western world, there is a widely accepted distinction between public and private morality. We consider it wrong to lie, but smile knowingly when we first hear the old adage that a diplomat is an honest man who lies to foreigners in the interest of his country. But how do we feel about leaders who lie to their own people in the name of national security, or actively support murderous dictatorships because they are anti-communist or protect American interests? Is any action defensible if it enhances national security or the national interest? And how do we know what they are? Is the distinction between public and private morality a useful, perhaps necessary, one in a world where hostile forces plot our destruction? Or, is it merely a convenient rationalization for unscrupulous and self-serving behavior?

Realism purports to have answers to these questions, or at least a framework for thinking intelligently about them. Modern realism, derived from the seminal mid-century works of E. H. Carr, Frederick Schumann, John Herz and Hans J. Morgenthau, has been the dominant paradigm in international relations for the last fifty years.