John Mearsheimer

And again, the liberal view, this first liberal theory is that democracies don't fight other democracies.

And therefore, the more democracies you have, the more peaceful the world.

You can't make that argument that you're making about democracies, because if you're saying that democracies are inclined toward peace,

and the electorate picks leaders who are inclined towards peace, then you have to show that democracies are in general more peaceful than non-democracies, and you can't support that argument.

You can find lots of evidence to support the argument that democracies don't fight other democracies.

So the argument I believe that you have to make if you're gonna support democratic peace theory, the main argument you have to make is that liberal democracies have a healthy respect for each other and they can assess each other's intentions.

If you're a liberal democracy and I'm a liberal democracy, we know we have value systems

that argue against aggression and argue for peaceful resolution of crises.

And therefore, given these norms, we can trust each other.

We can know each other's intentions.

Remember, for realists like me, uncertainty about intentions really helps drive the train.

But if you're talking about two democracies,

The argument there is that they know each other's intentions.

I think that's right.

Yeah, that's right.

So that's democratic peace theory.

The second theory is economic interdependence theory.

And that's the argument that in a globalized world like the one that we live in,

and have lived in for a long time.

There's a great deal of economic interdependence, and if you and I are two countries, or if you and me are two countries, and we're economically interdependent, and we're both getting prosperous as a result of this economic intercourse, the last thing that we're gonna do is start a war, either one of us, because who would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?