Matthew Yglesias
The Other Side of the Glass
I'm really in overwhelming agreement with what Fareed Zakaria's written below, but I thought I might alienate the audience by noting that while China panic genuinely "is largely a product of the right" one shouldn't let the left off...more »
Posted on May 5, 2008 11:34 AM
Michael Gerson Weighs In
Almost as if he's been reading our exchange, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson weights in with a column on how to define the international architecture of the 21st century. It's a great example, I think, of the shoddy logic...more »
Posted on April 25, 2008 9:09 AM
Don't They Know There's a World Out There?
This isn't strictly relevant to the issues we've been discussing, but very much relevant to Heads in the Sand as a whole is my disappointment that foreign policy issues really seem to have dropped off the radar as the...more »
Posted on April 24, 2008 4:30 PM
China and Internationalism
Apropos of the previous post about the rise of China, John Ikenberry had a very good treatment of the issue from a liberal internationalist perspective in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs that's well-worth reading if you're interested in...more »
Posted on April 24, 2008 1:07 PM
Hopefully Not Fighting the Next War
Blake's point about China is extremely well-taken. I don't think you can write a book about the present day politics of foreign policy without a heavy focus on Iraq, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that when people from 2108...more »
Posted on April 24, 2008 9:04 AM
Conceding a Bit Less
I hope it's not breaking the rules to respond to something Kevin Drum wrote on his blog . . . anyways, he says I was conceding too much in my last post. I think that's true in one respect....more »
Posted on April 23, 2008 9:25 AM
The Kosovo Precedent
J-Lo, who I like to keep on hand to make me look mainstream, has gone and written a second post before I got around to responding to his first, but I'm gonna take them in order and write about...more »
Posted on April 22, 2008 3:37 PM
Do We Need Unilateral Prevention?
Dedeist speaks up for unilateral preventive war, saying "I also think military action without U.N. approval is generally a bad idea, and should be used only as a last resort. But to rule it out entirely is insane. I...more »
Posted on April 22, 2008 9:04 AM
Liberal Internationalism: What Is It Good For?
I thought I might reply to some of the comments left on my opening post before engaging with any of my esteemed co-bloggers. First off, Reece observes that "lots of liberals--presumably liberal internationalists--supported most of Bush's policies. Policies that...more »
Posted on April 21, 2008 4:11 PM
Foreign Policy After Bushism
Greetings TPM Café! Its good to be back. I'm not sure how many readers out there remember, but I was a regular member of the TPMCafe gang for about a year back in its early days. I left to...more »
Posted on April 21, 2008 10:52 AM
-
The other/real issue, which I agree is not dependent on ownership per se, and which I presume you do agree on, is the existane of SCLM? and MSM and Beltway consensus echo chamber?
Right -- that's the real issue, but it's only loosely related to the question of ownership and I don't think has anything at all to do with the concentration (or lack thereof) of ownership.
Posted at June 16, 2006 12:02 PM in response to How Concentrated Is The Media?
-
I don't really care . . . it's properly credited and has links; my goal is to maximize audience size. Josh as the proprietor of this enterprise may have another point of view.
Posted at May 12, 2006 5:57 PM in response to Where My Ho's At?
-
They say that the best way to cope with Iran is to convince our European allies to implement economic sanctions if Iran won't give up its nuke program, and that the best way to get Europe to agree to that is for the USA to promise to lift our own sanctions if Iran does give up its nukes. That all seems sensible enough to me.
Posted at May 11, 2006 6:54 AM in response to Nothing to See Here
-
In response to both, voucherization would improve the incentives at the margin and have some impact. Marginal influence is what policy is all about.
Posted at May 9, 2006 7:45 PM in response to Vouchers in Newark
-
I think it would be too strong to say changing the law would have no effect whatsoever, you always get some change at the margin. But I think the change would be tiny -- almost un-noticeable. The current law does almost nothing, in practice, to stop three or more consenting adults from living together as a polyamorous union. Such arrangements are rare because not very many people care to enter into them.
For just the same reason, my guess is that political pressure to change the law will remain pretty weak. There are few would-be polygamists out there, and America's existing polygamists tend to be socially marginal. It's an interesting subject for a TV show, but not, in practice, a very big deal.
Posted at March 17, 2006 12:23 PM in response to It's Slippery
-
Extrapolate our 3% growth and their 8% growth very far into the future and things don't look so sanguine.
Sure, but he wrote that China now looms as a peer competitor. That's very different from saying that if the current economic growth trends stay in place for the next 30 years China will be a peer in 2035. If the trends sustain themselves, it will. And if they don't, it won't. And it's obviously silly to just assume China can keep maintaining 8 percent annual growth for three decades. It might. But it might not. If you had looked at Chinese growth from 1965-1975 and done a straight-line projection forward to 2005 you would have gotten a laughably wrong result.
Posted at February 23, 2006 10:30 AM in response to Peer Competitor?
-
I dunno, that looked like a West Coast Offense (in the "like the 49ers in the 80s" sense) to me watching tonight.
Posted at February 5, 2006 9:24 PM in response to West Coast or Not?
-
I don't find it funny either -- fire the scumbag!
Posted at January 25, 2006 3:23 PM in response to Unexpected Benefits
-
It's important not to have illusions about JFK's 1960 race. His national security campaign relied heavily on a strategy of, well, lying -- missile gap, etc. -- and an array of hawkish posturing that led to the near-destruction of the world (Cuban Missile Crisis) and the Vietnam War. It's a precedent for a Democratic win, but not a very encouraging.
Posted at January 14, 2006 11:23 AM in response to Say Anything
-
Two different formats. On the one hand you have the two-pundit talking head thing. You see that a lot interspersed with other programming throughout the day on the cable networks and also on a bunch of radio shows.
The other format -- more frequently seen on the Sunday morning shows, or after major news events (presidential debates, state of the unions) -- involves a multi-person panel where some straight reporters will be "balanced" by conservative columnists.Posted at December 29, 2005 5:16 PM in response to TV Troubles
