Whether Woodrow Wilson is a starry-eyed idealist or a hard-nosed realist is still a very debatable topic. Many scholars will insist that Wilson is anything but a realist, with his impractical and unrealistic goals, while others will say that he is a different kind of realist who had a reasonable ambition to make the United States the world's most dominant economic power. One of the reasons that so many people still disagree about whether Wilson was a realist or an idealist may be because he was a combination of both. Some of his plans and goals were realistic, while others were not.
When America became entangled in the war over in Europe, one of the most deeply respected American traditions was shattered. For more than a century, Americans had prided themselves in their isolationism and neutrality in foreign affairs, but all this ended with the American intervention in Europe. Wilson may have been unrealistic in going into the war with the idea that this would be "a war to end war" "to make the world safe for democracy." Wilson had nearly the entire nation hypnotized with his lofty ideals. He said that America was not fighting for riches or territory, but rather, to shape international order in which democracy could flourish. .
Many people saw Wilson's idealism as the promise for a better world, so the statesmen of France and Italy were careful to keep Wilson to keep him at an arm's length from worshipful crowds who might try to overthrow their leaders and disturb their imperialistic plans. Wilson's ultimate goal was a world of parliament which would be known as the League of Nations, which many people considered to be the most unrealistic of all his goals. He was criticized as an impractical dreamer who failed to understand that the international order is, and always will be anarchic and unruly, outside the rule of law, where only military force can effectively protect the nation's security.