light reading on history then and history now

As I get older, I am increasingly reading history books.  The philosopher in me also enjoys books about history itself--its currents, ebbs and flows.  After reading an Atlantic article on Dr. John Mearsheimer and his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics I decided to read the book myself. 

Mearsheimer is a professor political science at the University of Chicago.  His book details world history, under the guise of nation/states, from the early 19th c to the present seeking to find order within what otherwise seems chaotic--the growth and decline of economies, countries, wars, etc.  His organizing principle for political history is that nations act in their own interests all of the time.  Altruism and ideals and democracy matter little; nations seek power first and foremost.  He provides a great deal of historical interpretation to prove his point.  his school of thought is called offensive realism.

On a micro-scale, like City Council for instance, I tend to agree with his point.  Entities by and large act in their self-interest.  I did see one flaw in his argument however; he discounts the humanity of individual leaders.  In addition to cold calculations on power, risk and victory, individuals make decisions and their human experiences, along with hopes, sympathy and empathic tendencies do influence those decisions.

I recommend it for students of history.  Mearsheimer has packed it but it is worth the time.

This reading led me to a book that came out while I was finishing my B.A. at Wake Forest.  Francis Fukuyama, a professor at Stanford who teaches political science and political economics, wrote The End of History and the Last Man circa 1991.  Fukuyama follows Hegelian thought in arguing for a progression throughout political history.  The end of the Cold War provides a plateau for him within this scheme.  All of political history is moving toward liberal democracy.  Once freedom tinged with equality, or vice versa, manifests itself over the world, then we are at the end of historical development, as Hegel (and Nietzsche) conceived it.  This school of thought is far more optimistic than offensive realism.  It also argues that capitalism is inherent to the development of liberal democracy.

The book is two decades old and clearly history continues, at least in terms of political development.  But, as someone who enjoys Hegelian writings (without necessarily agreeing with them), I liked the book.  If you can only read one of the two, read Mearsheimer's work.