The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath. The political psychologists and the behavioral

economists look to see whether states or individuals actually do act according to the

dictates of expected utility maximization. But nevertheless, the key point is there

is one definition of rationality, which is expected utility maximization, that sits at

the heart of both the rational choice, enterprise, and the political psychology enterprise. And

we are going after that definition of rationality and offering an alternative definition, which

focuses on theory and deliberation. I'm Jack Goldsmith and this is the LawFair

podcast, September 22, 2023. It is commonplace for American leaders to describe their fiercest

foreign adversaries as a rational, crazy, delusional, or illogical. In their new book, How States

Think, the rationality of foreign policy, political scientist John Mearsheimer of the University

of Chicago and Sebastian Rosado of the University of Notre Dame, argue that these claims

of many similar ones are often wrong because they're based on a flawed understanding of

state rationality and international affairs. I questioned Mearsheimer and Rosado about

why they think most states act rationally most of the time in developing grand strategy

of managing crises. Among other topics, we discuss how their theory of state rationality

differs from rational choice theorists and political psychologists, why understanding

state rationality is important to success in international affairs. And why Mearsheimer,

a harsh critic of US expansion of NATO and of the US choice to pursue liberal hegemony

after the Cold War, nonetheless, argues in this book that those decisions were rational.

...