Anti-Climacus

VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THOUGHTS ON THE DEAN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH: which are not mine:

TNR has a piece that confirms my long-time suspicion that people will stick to their party affiliation rather than a rational collection of their policy interests (translation: people are kind of sheep when it comes to politics.*)


Matt Yglesias' thoughts on TAPPED: "Yesterday, though, the impassioned Howard Dean seems to have vanished in favor of an earnest policy wonk." Fabulous! We'll get that Bush-Gore rematch, after all.


David Brooks writes critically about Dean. I think this is spot on:

"Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.

The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.

At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible."


Pejman says quite a bit I agree with:

"Dan Drezner does a great job taking apart Dean's speech. I'll just add the following:

1. Do a "Ctrl F" search for the word "Iran." See what you find.

2. Nothing? Well, maybe that's a fluke. Try a "Ctrl F" for "China." Do you get lucky?

3. No? Good grief. Try "Japan." Anything there?

4. Nope? How about "Africa"?

5. Still nothing? Try "India," or "Pakistan" or "Kashmir." I mean isn't a potential nuclear clash supposed to be deserving of attention?"


*Not that there's anything wrong with that. In some ways, it makes more sense: why not follow the people whose outlook you generally agree with who know more about the subject than you do?