The funny thing about IR majors is that they're so insulated in their propaganda bubble that they blue-screen the moment they're faced with a dissenting viewpoint. Insufferable econ majors usually at least have some talking points about wine barrels memorized. A few years ago in an intro to IR class, the "liberal internationalist" professor was extolling the virtues of the "democratic peace hypothesis". In response, I asked her in front of the class: <"Just to simplify things, the core of the democratic peace theory is that everyday citizens are less likely to desire war than political elites, correct?">"That's correct, more democratic institutions is correlated with less armed conflict".<"Believe it or not, I agree with that to a large extent. That's why I think we should put the decision to go to war directly in the hands of the people: have a national referendum before any major troop deployment. This was a historic Trot demand before WWII Would you support this reform?"
Like I said before, she froze up worse than Windows ME. In theory this reform fits in perfectly with the "democratic peace hypothesis", but she felt in her gut that supporting this reform would be very, very bad for US imperialism.