Login Here
[Please welcome author, Matthew Yglesias, and our Host, Spencer Ackerman. As is our tradition in the Book Salon, please stay on the topic of the book. Thanks, Bev.]
The origin story:
First God created the Internet, and then She created LiveJournal, and LiveJournal displeased Her, so She brought down the flood and wiped away the barnacles and the dross. At the moment when She had brought upon America the dual plagues of George Bush and Osama bin Laden, She had just barely inspired Her faithful to create blogging software, and so naturally Her eye was drawn to a college student who took the odd-but-driven step of hard-coding his attempts to figure out the meaning of both intersecting plagues. She soon blessed the student with a functional content-management system. But that was not Her only blessing: she guided Her chosen one first to The American Prospect, where he learned to write long-form opinion journalism; then to Talking Points Memo as it birthed the salon TPMCafe; and most recently to The Atlantic Monthly, where an elite audience could finally learn what ideas were at stake in the renaissance of American liberalism. But She was careful not to overstep Her bounds: all She gave was opportunity. It was Matthew Yglesias who created for himself the vernacular, the tone, the style, the approach, and, most importantly, the substance.
Matt Yglesias is the best liberal opinion writer on the internet. There, I said it. In a few years he'll be the best liberal opinion writer in America. The latest step toward this goal demonstrates why he'll achieve it: his excellent, necessary new book Heads In The Sand: How Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and How Foreign Policy Screws Up The Democrats.
Heads In The Sand, to be reductionist, is a survey of the intellectual horizon on foreign policy. It examines the ideas that enabled the Republican Party to take the U.S. into Iraq and the lack of ideas -- and political courage -- that enabled the Democratic Party to enable the Republicans. If you've read his blog, you'll be familiar with his contentions about the war: Iraq is an imperialist war that must end rapidly. The imperial cast of mind exists within the Democratic Party as well, by default as much as by design. The entire Washington foreign-policy establishment suffers from an inordinate fear of liberalism, even as all of liberalism's alternatives have been discredited by Iraq. What's needed is not just to end the war, but to defend liberal internationalism -- not blindly, but without apology.
The book intends to start a debate within the Democratic Party. Is it enough to erode Bush's agenda, or is it necessary to put forward a distinctly liberal alternative? Can the same class of experts and journalists that championed the war be relied upon to end it? What sort of 2008-vintage updates are necessary for the old-time religion of liberal internationalism? Luckily, Yglesias is here to discuss all of this with us, and I'm eager, in particular, to hear his thoughts on something the book doesn't discuss -- to my mind, the only blindspot -- which is how to create a healthy relationship between liberalism (not just liberals) and the military.
One final note before we get underway. Yglesias' book is a watershed and needs to be treated as such. His book is a test of whether a blogger can become an author. Buying and debating Heads In The Sand is valuable on its own terms. But it will also help publishing companies take risks on other bloggers. Just something to think about. For now, welcome to the salon -- and, soon, to the New York Times Bestseller List -- my friend and colleague Matthew Yglesias.
Spencer Ackerman is a senior reporter for The Washington Independent who blogs there and at Attackerman.
Share This 
Spotlight
Hi, Matt and Spencer!
Hi! Glad to be here, and thanks to Spencer for the very gracious introduction.
Hi everyone. Matt, how would you like to field my question about the liberal-military divide to get us going?
Wow, what a fun introduction Spencer, welcome Matt.
Although it becomes clear from the context of the following sentence, this sentence is a little unclear as written. Does “liberalism’s alternatives” mean “alternatives provided by liberalism” or “alternatives to liberalism”?
Anyway, the issue itself is going to be major in the general election. If the Democratic candidate doesn’t put forward an unabashedly liberal approach to foreign policy, he or she will get pounded by McCain.
Because let’s face it. You can’t out-imperialism the Republican Party, and if you try you will get your ass handed to you on a platter.
Sure — this is an important issue. In a political sense, the military is a highly respected institution and liberals and liberalism will benefit from respecting it and being respected by it. Part of the answer is simply to realize that there’s only so much that can be done from the perspective of opposition — the failures of the Bush administration have, I think, created an opening for progressives to get a fresh hearing from all sorts of people and institutions who’ve been skeptical in the past, and if we manage to win the election part of the task in 2009 will be for the new president to simply do a good job.
It sure is a great intro. Welcome, Matt and Spencer.
If the Democratic candidate doesn’t put forward an unabashedly liberal approach to foreign policy, he or she will get pounded by McCain.
This is certainly my view. It’s always possible, of course, that economic problems will simply get so bad that McCain is dragged down by the tide. But it’s a pretty sorry political movement that has no better strategy than to root for bad economics and national security is sure to play a big role in the politics of the future. The task is to illustrate that the manifest failures of the Bush years aren’t just the fault of Bush personally, but of Bush’s flawed ideas — ideas that McCain shares, and that need to be replaced by a real alternative, not just a promise of tweaks and better management.
PhysioProf, sorry. Should have edited more closely. I meant the alternatives to liberalism have been discredited by Iraq. And I kind of wonder why we don’t act like it more often. For decades, conservatives have used the words “Jimmy Carter” as a rhetorical four-move-checkmate when debating foreign policy with liberals. Why don’t we make Bush just as toxic? Carter’s foreign policy is a massive success by comparison.
Bingo! Not just that BushCo was incompetent (though they were and are) but the entire premise on which the war(s) have been fought were invalid.
Yep!
Democratic foreign policy lately seems to be “cleaning up the GOP’s messes” and so long as Americans continue to insist on electing GOP presidents occasionally, that may be a successful foreign policy.
However. How do you think our potential nominee should address questions about Jimmy Carter, America’s greatest monster, and his freelancing in the Middle East?
Thanks for this great introduction; looking forward to reading the book.
I meant the alternatives to liberalism have been discredited by Iraq. And I kind of wonder why we don’t act like it more often.
This is a very good point. Democrats suffer from a notable confidence gap on national security issues — they tend to reek of defensiveness even at a moment when the Bush administration has really thoroughly discredited itself. And I think that lack of confidence is, itself, a big political problem. Most people in the media, after all, don’t really know much about any realm of policy, national security included, but they can read political strategy. When they see politicians acting confident, like they expect to win, they assume that what they’re saying should be taken seriously. But when Democrats act timid, reporters smell fear. I’d like to see more dismissiveness of the GOP position — why should anyone take the architects of this disaster seriously? — but of course to do that, Democratic leaders need to put more distance between themselves and some of the Democrats who also hopped about the war bandwagon in 2002-2003.
Hi Matt.
Have you given any thought to having the Atlantic setting up a separate blog for your book, where you can publish endless sycophantic emails and petulant, uncomprehending replies to your critics? I understand a very fashionable approach for new authors to take nowadays.
Great intro, very funny.
Is liberal internationalism merely a form of neoliberalism? When I hear of liberalism in foreign policy I think of soft power imperialism and am not inclined to support liberalism.
Definitely! This is, in large part, because the Repubs are so good at putting them on the defensive:
“We do too support the troops!”
“We do too love America!”
“We do too want to win!”
“We do too want Iran not to destroy our children with nuclear bombs!”
etc, etc, etc
I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning if I didn’t believe one day George Bush would clearly be known -by all- as the toxic being that he is.
Carter is, I think, unfairly maligned by most people but it doesn’t seem to me that it makes sense for a practical politician to expend too much energy defending his reputation. The point to make is that the Bush administration’s approach to these issues has, for all his “pro-Israel” bluster, not actually done anything to make Israel any better off. The efforts of the Clinton and Carter administrations yielded peace deals with Jordan and Egypt that have given Israel real security. The Bush teams seems to be set on thwarting any efforts at rapprochement between Israel and Syria and nobody really knows why.
They also need to put some distance between themselves and the lawmakers (including Democrats) who’ve profited from investments related to this war.
Wonderful intro, Spencer. I will most definitely buy this book.
Thanks for being here, Matt.
More seriously, what do you think of the DNC’s latest ad hitting McCain for the “100 Years War” thing, and linking it to Bush policies? It seems to be the sort of thing we need to be seeing more of.
ooo - that sounds downright delicious.
I’m not always clear on what “soft power” is supposed to mean in a context like this. Liberal internationalist is internationalist, engaged with the world, rather than inward-looking. But it’s engaged in a liberal way rather than an imperial one, focused on strengthening and upholding international law and international institutions. It means taking things like the U.N. Security Council and the Non-Proliferation Treaty seriously, it means joining the successor to the Kyoto Protocol and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. The difference between liberalism and imperialism is like the difference between legitimate commerce and the mafia — it’s all about accomplishing goals through mutually agreed-upon rules, processes, and institutions.
Now come on! It’s not nice to make fun of doughpants!
Democrats support the troops by providing the necessary equipment to protect them.
Democrats Love America by protecting its citizens from unwinnable quagmires.
Democrats support Veterans by giving them competent care and benefits that acknowledge the sacrifices made.
Democrats protect their children by not losing site of the real enemies through made up slogans.
etc etc etc
Matt…….Thanks for being here.
Spencer mentioned the relationship between liberals and the military. Would love to hear your thoughts on why there is such a disconnect especially given the much higher percentage of military veterans among Democratic congressmen and senators.
I think this goes well with Thers’ question at 20:
It’s a good ad. You can tell from how pissed the GOP gets about people bringing this up that they’re afraid of this line of attack. I think it’s imperative for liberals not to fall for this BS that the quote is somehow “out of context.” Look at it in context, McCain is saying what he believes — that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, at any price.
Matt, here’s something that isn’t in the book but I was hoping you’d address: What should we actually think of when we hear the words “Liberal Hawk”? Is there an actual series of necessary and sufficient conditions that comprise Liberal Hawkishness? Or should we just think “Liberal Who Supports A Particular War”? It occurred to me that the further you drill down on a definition the more so-called Liberal Hawks you exclude.
Yeah, those are much better retorts than what amny Dems seem to reflexively reach for.
A lot of truth in what dakine01 says here. I do think, however, that liberals need to avoid the trap of thinking of military policy as just another branch of domestic social policy where the troops are primarily an interest-group that wants better veterans’ health care benefits and equipment in the field. That stuff’s important, but nobody joins the military for purely mercenary reasons and it really is necessary to demonstrate that Democrats have clear ideas about how they’re going to keep the country safe and strong.
Excellent! Can you outline your vision for what those ideas should be?
Yeah. I once wrote a piece that unfortunately never saw the light of day in which Tony McPeak, an Air Force general who (I think) is advising Obama now, observed something like, “Real men don’t care about health care. They care about the national interest.”
I simply don’t buy that liberalism and imperialism are disparate.
In this context I mean “soft power” as diplomatic tools such as U.N. Security Council and the Non-Proliferation Treaty to obtain the same goals as the Bush Administration is using force to obtain.
While there are Congressional Democrats who have terrific ideas about how to keep our country safe and strong, I don’t see the congressional leadership absorbing these ideas and promulgating them.
Do you think more ‘fighting Dems’ is the answer?
In part it’s simply demographic, the majority of people in the military are white people without college degrees, which is a group that doesn’t include a ton of Democratic Party voters, and beyond that it’s a disproportionately Southern and rural group of people. So there is, in a very literal sense, less connection between people who’ve served and most Democrats.
More broadly, though, if you look at the committee assignments, you’ll see that in both the House and Senate the tendency is for the defense committees to be populated by electorally vulnerable moderates. Some of those are good people, but few of them are serious progressive leaders, and as a result there winds up being a disconnect between the most knowledgeable Democrats and the people in a position to really make a difference politically. The rise of folks like Jim Webb is good news on both of these fronts.
nice way to sum it up.
I have known individuals who take advantage of the human impulse to be nice and accommodating, we all know these people.
imo it is these very people, like those actors in Washington who do all they can to strip regulations from the books, t is these types that force the rest of us -the good and the just- to enact and enforce rules and regulations and laws.
I wish I could pox upon their houses.
eeeuww
Well, look, the Bush administration is trying to use force to attain goals that you could only possibly attain through force (and, as we’re seeing in Iraq, even force doesn’t make them workable). There’s a natural match between means and ends. If we work through the NPT process to secure verifiable disarmament from Iran, that’s going to mean we need to follow the rules, too — no new “bunker buster” nukes, a return to moves toward global disarmament, a multinational fuel cycle, etc.
For one thing, I think Nancy Pelosi is better on this stuff than she sometimes gets credit for. When she took over after the 2002 fiasco, the hawks were full of proclamations of doom. Peter Beinart said Pelosi would lead Democrats into a generation of “McGovernite wilderness” thanks to her non-hawk instincts. It hasn’t happened.
Beyond that, more “fighting Dems” can help, but real leadership on these topics fundamentally requires first a presidential candidate and then a president.
Buy the book!
Beyond that, the killer ap for a candidate not hobbled by a record of support for the Iraq War is the idea of a focused, disciplined campaign against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, al-Qaeda continues to pose a threat, and al-Qaeda ought to be eradicated. So let’s do it — let’s focus on resources on finding their leaders and killing or capturing them. Let’s stop mucking around in Iraq, rattling sabers at Iran, and generally wandering around in a hazily-defined “war on terror.”
I forgot Peter had said that. God, six years seems so long ago, and so hard to understand.
This alludes to what is, in my opinion, a hugely important point. One of the things a rational liberal approach to foreign policy has to accept as a fundamental foundational principle is that there are some things that are simply not achievable, period. This pernicious notion that we are America and, therefore, can achieve anything we want so long as we have the “will” has led to a litany of disasters.
Who might be strong liberal Dems who could lead State and our UN contingent under Hil or Obama?
There’s so much domestic work for the next president to do, it would seem prudent for either of them to embrace two real leaders for these positions.
You bastard!
(Just kidding! Bought it now on Amazon.)
Thank you for your reply. Good luck with the book.
Aloha, Matt and Spencer! As a twenty year Vet, and a Liberal, I’d like to point out some discrepancies… 1) The military is civilian controlled, currently by Neocons, and, 2) The leadership is ‘promoted’ by Congress/WH, currently they’ve been selected from the right-wing of the mid-level career officers serving… We need to get rid of the neocon civilian control and cull the leadership ranks of the rightards, like we need to clean house at the DoJ… Only then we can get somewhere…!
There are a couple of different species in the liberal hawk aviary. But I think the core instance of the liberal hawk is the group of people who seems to believe that liberal ends in terms of securing human rights and justice around the world can best be achieved through unleashing an imperial vision of American power. This is basically a delusion, but it’s a tempting one for a lot of intellectuals.
Great question! Is Wes Clark one of them? (I tend to think not, but maybe some think otherwise.)
When has Peter Beinart ever been right, though?
Have you any sense of how to remove from our public discourse, particularly that on foreign affairs, those who’ve been wrong over and over?
CTuttle, do you think it’s a set of ideological convictions that actually goes into the promotions process? I tend to find it’s more of a cultural thing — who’s uncomfortable with this or that policy, rather than who’s a reliable GOP voter or conservative. To my mind, the thing to watch will be what happens to all the colonels and one-stars that Rumsfeld dipped down in the Army to make one-and-two-stars.
Peter Beinart was right to hire me and then promote me twice!
Who might be strong liberal Dems who could lead State and our UN contingent under Hil or Obama?
I think there’s a bit of a problem here. Everyone should read Spencer’s excellent article on Obama’s foreign policy team and you’ll see that though there’s a lot of excellent folks around, they seem a bit underqualified for the very top level positions. Richard Holbrooke, who I’m not hugely enthusiastic about, was thought to have the inside track for SecState in a Kerry administration and he’s very close to Hillary Clinton, but probably too close to have a high-level job with an Obama administration. I think you might see a politician, someone like a Bill Richardson or a Joe Biden, tapped.
Great question! Is Wes Clark one of them? (I tend to think not, but maybe some think otherwise.)
I like Clark a lot and would like to see him continue to be involved in public life. He’s campaigned for HRC a bunch, but I think has generally avoided any real slams on Obama so could be a candidate for office under either person.
Welcome Matt, thanks so much for being here today.
Who let Spencer play with the matches?
Jane, I’m trying to be careful with your baby! This is how I act when I’m restraining myself.
I hope that Secretary Rice has discredited the idea of hiring Secretaries of State from academia for some long time. I eagerly await a politician in that role in a Democratic administration; political skills are what’s required, as she has so sadly proved, having none.
Not that her lack of political skills is her sole deficit — by any means.
For flag promotions, yes it is highly ideological… and I agree about those one and two stars… The mid-level officers usually aren’t affected as directly, altho, it does depend on whom they serve under since their promotions are based largely on their superiors’ recommendations/performance evaluations…!
I think it’s unfair to see Peter Beinart as someone who’s always wrong, but he was definitely wrong about Pelosi, and I think represents a widespread but wrongheaded piece of conventional wisdom that if something’s wrong with Democrats and foreign policy it must be the doves’ fault. In his book, he somewhat oddly concedes that the anti-war folks were actually right about Iraq, but somehow are still to blame for problems anyway.
In my book, I try to make the more straightforward argument that the problem is the people who get things wrong, not the people who get things right.
Matt, who should be Secretary of Defense? My understanding is that he’d have to be out of uniform for another couple of years (2010?), but Tony Zinni would be a really bold choice for a Democrat. He sees eye-to-eye with them on a lot of issues, and is tremendously respected within the military. (Plus, a Marine as SecDef would be a big deal.)
It’s hard to argue with that!
But Rice isn’t really “from academia,” she was groomed for years in GOP administrations to be a foreign policy practitioner and only found herself in academia because Bill Clinton was in office. I don’t think we should put a career professor into a top foreign policy job, but I do think our understanding of U.S. policy toward the Arab world ought to be more informed by academic work on the region and less informed by rank prejudice.
Welcome Matt. It’s an honor, truly. I’ve been a reader and fan of you for some time now. Thank you for your brilliant writing, astute observations and effective and relevant solutions when you offer them. You are a “must read” on my list!
Since you live in the “company town” of DC, how accurate a general perception is there in the District (absent the real toadies) of how screwed up our foreign policy is under Bush?
My understanding is that he’d have to be out of uniform for another couple of years (2010?), but Tony Zinni would be a really bold choice for a Democrat. He sees eye-to-eye with them on a lot of issues, and is tremendously respected within the military.
Zinni’s ineligible until 2010 (though I think you can ask congress for a variance or something) for the SecDef job, but it’d be great to see him brought back as some kind of envoy (maybe to convene a regional summit about Iraq?) or something. He’s knowledgeable, well-respected, and I think does share Democrats’ basic view of the strategic issues in that region.
Kurt Campbell from CNAS remarked the other day that he doesn’t know of anyone who’s on the list as a potential Dem SecDef — I kind of felt like he was suggesting that he should be a candidate.
I think it’s tragic that Powell opted for Sec of State, If he’d fought for Sec of Def, I truly believe we wouldn’t be in Iraq… Rummy and all the neocons from the OSP wouldn’t have been there to stovepipe or cherry pick the intel…
Everyone knows it’s screwed up, but there’s a real range of views as to how deep the rot goes. I think an unfortunately wide swathe of people think that if you remove Bush, Cheney, and a few allegedly incompetent subordinates that a basically similar strategic framework can be made to work. Certainly that’s John McCain’s view.
Yeah, but Powell wasn’t eligible for SecDef, you need to be retired ten years. According to Jim Mann’s book, America’s fate hinged on the fact that Bush felt Powell was insufficiently respectful at the press conference where Powell introduced Bush’s nomination. If POTUS’ feelings hadn’t been hurt, then Tom Ridge would have been a figurehead SECDEF with Richard Armitage running the show as Deputy Secretary. But Bush was miffed, decided that would give Powell too much power, and brought in the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz team on Dick Cheney’s advice.
matt at 13-”…they tend to reek of defensiveness even at a moment when the Bush administration has really thoroughly discredited itself……”
matt, there is something i’ve been wondering and maybe you can answer it…syrian president slams bush administration and his merry band of negotiators, major put down, basically calls them doofuses, day or two later, bush releases ’secret’ documents about syria, without showing them to congress first, releases them to the press……congress screaming why why why…..
and noone says a word about what the syrian president said the day before or even wonders about it.
did you hear about what assad said? and what do you think about the timing of it? i just couldn’t help but wonder about it.
(from fdl newsboard)
”….Assad said the United States is the only country that can sponsor direct Syrian-Israel negotiations. But he said the Bush administration, which leaves office in January, ”does not have the vision or will for the peace process.”
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....AD908E8HO3
thanks for coming to fdl!
Mahalo, for that insight, Matt… ;-)
Of course. His political fortunes rise and fall on the idea that the problem is not the entire right-wing wackaloon movement, but Bush individually.
I can see Cheney working the “Powell disrespected you” angle with Junja in order to get his pal Rumsfeld as SecDef.
Two persons from legislative ranks that I believe you’ll see in a potential Obama Administration are Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar. Nunn could do either Sec. of State or Defense, but Lugar is clearly associated with State. Both of these men are very close to Obama — and Lugar in particular has more or less served as his Senate Mentor in Foreign Policy matters. Appointing Lugar would make a major case for Obama’s cross aisle ideas.
Matt, as noted above you do live in the “company town” and have been there for a while now. What is your take on why Pelosi & Co oppose opening an impeachment investigation and have since 2006. Are they somehow afraid of being shown as more complicit than we know in the goings-on in DC?
And this is where you get the problem with the pro-war Democrats. It’s hard for, say, Joe Biden (who I mostly like) to argue that McCain’s complicity in Iraq should disqualify McCain from the White House while simultaneously maintaining that his own complicity shouldn’t damage his status as the press’ go-to foreign policy Dem.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease no Sam Nunn. He has a reputation for being an extremely bad manager. Remember the disaster that was the Aspin Pentagon? Just because you’re brilliant and right-on doesn’t mean you can be a good secretary.
Congressional Dems think things are going their way, politically, in 2008 and don’t want to do anything to rock the boat. The “i-word” definitely rocks the boat.
They can do it if they, unlike McCain, admit that they were totally fucking wrong!
Nunn’s got to be too old. I think you’ll see Nunn, like Lee Hamilton, play an elder statesman / eminence grise role and pass on some of their younger associates to fill the ranks of an Obama administration (as Ted Kennedy will on his key domestic priorities) but that still doesn’t answer the question of who does the top jobs.
I think that’s right. But the past of least resistance is to avoid any admissions of error even though it makes it much harder to make the strong case against McCain.
Fear of being wrong is one of the most destructive traits of human nature.
It reminds me of the episode of Happy Days where the Fonz had to apologize, and he just couldn’t quite squeeze out the words, “I’m sorry.”
Choosing Senators to “promote” to the next Cabinet will be problematic depending upon the party of the governor of their state, who will appoint the Senator’s successor.
More reason to run the table (Rice, Noriega, et al) this fall. Give the new President a cushion.
So basically they want to be rewarded for spineless behavior? Jesus-on-toast, what a bunch of power-hungry tools. They really aren’t much different from their republican opponents are they? As long as they get parking spaces, their asses kissed, and fat lobbying jobs at the end of their terms it’s Damn the Republic, full steam ahead, right?
Disgust is too moderate a word.
Nunn’s 69 years old this year.
I think one has to look closely at the people Obama sought out when he arrived in Washington four years ago, and intentionally built more than passing relationships with. I am not saying I like them, it is just my observation of who influences Obama.
More than anything, look at what will be on the table for the next persons to take these jobs — and who fits. As far as Defense is concerned, it is going to be FORCED to become more economical, and ability to work an insider track with Congress will be critical. Defense is not just a military thing — it is a huge Jobs Program on which many congressional incumbancies depend. So who can collaborate with congress in some sort of economic rationalization plan?
Though a messianic sense that one’s ideas are the One True Path is worse — witness our current plight.
I’ve really enjoyed reading this thread.
Is But the past of least resistance a typo or intentional.
‘Cause if it was meant, you’re an even more brilliant writer than I thought before.
(thank you for answering so many questions so well.)
True dat!
Thank you Matt for all your answers.
Hemp uniforms?
Sorry for the server glitch. Matt and Spencer needed to move on but both wanted to make sure everyone knew how much they enjoyed the conversation.
I had a heart attack. Thanks Matt & Spencer! LOL Just kidding. ;-)
Yeah, thanks to both! That was a really excellent convo!
Hi folks, a bit late, heh.
I’d be interested in what sort of server glitch was observed by others today.
Basically, even with cookies turned on & page refreshed till it smelled of fehbreeze, still I was presented with no way to sign in, and could read none of the comment thread.
In addition, the Header was for BlueAmerica, not FDL, if that provides a clue.
Overwhelming response swamped servers, rather than something more nefarious? Sure hope so. I was far from unhappy though, as I simply went to local PBS and watched/heard Jane do a fabulous job on PBS’s “To the Contrary” http://www.pbs.org/ttc/ Bravo to Jane!
I look fwd to less “traffic” on the toobz tomorrow so I can finally take some time to read what went on here.
Hi Matt,
Just wondering about your thoughts on Anne Marie Slaughter for SecState in a prospective HRC or Obama administration? I’m not aware of her having close ties to either camp, though I am hopeful both are aware of her talents. At least to me, it seems she is well positioned, but the view has far more stakeholders in the academic world of IL and IR, than the world of media punditry.
Also, I would like to know whether you have given much thought to endorsing one of the competing nascent intervention doctrines that exist, even as Iraq has tempered the lustre of all such projects. I’m speaking here about both humanitarian intervention and R2P, the latter of which received the Papal seal of approval just the other day in the speech to the GA.
Cheers,
I wouldn’t put it that way. It’s just that politicians can read the polls and they know that there are basically no endangered Democratic incumbents and a bunch of endangered GOP seats. Politicians aren’t a risk-taking group unless they think it’s necessary.
To be sure, but these are two