1NCo/v: Empirics prove that realism is the best model for creating policy decisions. (that’s WALT 16) The rise of China is an ideal example of offensive realism( that’s Li16) , but a struggle for more control is unavoidable. (that’s Li 16). Offensive realism is the best way to analyze the Asia pivot because it is suppourted by history. (that’s Hendriks 15)Realism is the best theoretical rubric for making foreign policy decisions—empirics WALT 16-Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, PhD and MA in Political Science @ UC-Berkeley [Stephen, “What Would a Realist World Have Looked Like?” Foreign Policy, 1/8/2016, , DKP]Here’s a puzzle for all you students of U.S. foreign policy: Why is a distinguished and well-known approach to foreign policy confined to the margins of public discourse, especially in the pages of our leading newspapers, when its recent track record is arguably superior to the main alternatives? I refer, of course, to realism. I’m not suggesting that realism and realists are completely marginalized these days — after all, you’re reading a realist right now — but the public visibility and policy influence of the realist perspective is disproportionately small when compared either to liberal internationalism (among Democrats) or neoconservatism (in the GOP). This situation is surprising insofar as realism is a well-established tradition in the study of foreign affairs, and realists like George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Walter Lippmann, and others said many smart things about U.S. foreign policy in the past. Realism also remains a foundational perspective in the academic study of international affairs and with good reason. At a minimum, you’d think this sophisticated body of thought would have a prominent place in debates on foreign policy and that card-carrying realists would be a visible force inside the Beltway and in the world of punditry. Furthermore, realism’s predictions over the past 25 years are clearly better than the claims of liberals and neoconservatives, which have dominated U.S. foreign policymakingsince the Cold War ended. Yet time and time again, presidents have pursued the liberal/neoconservative agenda and ignored the counsels of realism. Similarly, major media outletshave shown little inclination to give realists a prominent platform from which to disseminate their views. The results, alas, speak for themselves.When the Cold War ended, the United States was on good terms with all of the world’s major powers, al Qaeda was a minor nuisance, a genuine peace process was underway in the Middle East, and America was enjoying its “unipolar moment.” Power politics was supposedly becoming a thing of the past, and humankind was going to get busy getting rich in a globalized world where concerns about prosperity, democracy, and human rights would increasingly dominate the international political agenda.