Left Flank

I have a small problem with foreign policy analysis of the sort Mathew Yglesias and Reihan Salam are doing in this fast-talking, book-plugging bhTV diavlog—old school! Instead of taking American capabilities and interests first, both go through a shopping list of «problems». It's a recipe for over-extension. There might be this underhanded attempt to backdoor multilateralism, by saying, «Hey, we can't do it all!» But, there's already a principled argument for that, since multilateralism eases burdens and undercuts foreign criticism that the US is too unilateral, and thus fosters American interests. Also, America thrives when trade thrives, too, and security fosters business. I prefer to examine American military assets—air, sea, land, and near-earth orbit—and ask, «What can America do, and in the most efficient and cost-effective way?»

I've watched coverage of Senator Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright pinching my nose. Perhaps, as Ross Douthat argued in another diavlog, the MSM's coverage and performances, showcasing a midrange between platform wonkery and character, are as good as Americans can expect.

Yet, I'm still dismayed. I expected more honesty about all the communities in America, and I expected Obama to lead the discussion. His dismissal of Reverend Wright smacked of opportunism, from a candidate, who, although speaking of transcending race, has the rhetorical ability, intelligence, and pulpit now to distance himself from his opponents. He could speak his mind to the people, as the people speak truth to power. If Douthat is right, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb for me to trust him now. Instead, he's balking.

I worry about the compromises I will have to make between the two Democratic candidates, between two politicians whose platforms I do not fully support. Both support universal health care, so I can hold my nose and vote Democratic. But, I'll be holding my breath for four years, on foreign and fiscal reforms.

Here's an excellent discussion about Reverend Wright, probably the best I've read or heard in the past few days.

Senator Barack Obama reminds me of Uncle Fluffy right now. Michelle Obama needs to slash her husband's necktie, to get him stoked, and not just be wallpaper on The Colbert Report.

So, Michael Goldfarb, troublemakers? I guess, to be generous, this is the Jeffersonian perspective on IR. Or, is PRC just a dumping ground for unwanted Hollywood performers?

Lest I be unfair, Robert Farley, could you sound any more wishy-washy? Odious events, but odious? What, are we splitting metaphysical hairs? What do you care about?

I hope this is not the best on PRC American academia and punditry have to offer!

Along with yesterday's bhTV diavlog between Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus—as good an example of mainstream fractiousness on race in America as one will find anywhere—here's an excellent discussion. Period.

I neglected to add yesterday—admittedly I have a personal reason to care, but that's not the limit of my angle. There's no hope for Native Americans, Asian-Americans, or Hispanic Americans in America if African-Americans, like Barack Obama, cannot peacefully and constructively mold what "We, the People" means in America. It's more than whites, the 50.1% who bother to vote every election, or the media. It's always changing.

Slate's Fred Kaplan plugs his new book, Daydream Believers, and talks about post-hegemonic America, terrorism, and the Iraq War.

Kaplan's best plug sounds as if this book is competition for Thomas P.M. Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett's great service was an insider's look at the 1990's Defense Department attempting to articulate a post-Cold War vision for American global leadership.

Kaplan also soberly discusses the neo-conservative movement.

Heather Hurlburt and Daniel W. Drezner agree on how to increase funding for the State Department. Yet, it's a little too expansive.

Hopefully, a Democratic Congress can fund Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's transformational diplomacy without just giving State what Defense gets now, and still giving Defense more. It's all a matter of priorities, and, in the short-term, the priority should be funding State.

As for giving more money to Drezner's employer, I like the idea of competition. But, let Tufts find its own private benefactors.

This diavlog is an example of how to arrive at a bipartisan foreign policy.

LiberalOasis' Bill Scher is the optimist in the superdelegate debate today, and I need some optimism. Here's hoping for a blowout, just so that the Democrats don't look undemocratic. But then, Conn Carroll (who's the liberal here?) ruins it with his progressive coup scenario.

Fortunately, Kevin Drum rebuts the progressive presumption and Daniel W. Drezner skewers the logic of this incipient undemocratic reaction to what is the result of not establishing a national primary system. If states can decide when to hold their primaries and caucuses, then the two parties will just have to deal with the mess. Ultimately, it's the DNC's fault for not doing at least what the GOP did, taking half the delegate count.

Speaking of democracy, here's a primer on how delegate selection works.

Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb argues that "nothing possibly could be any worse" in DPRK? I think this is the first bloggingheads TV diavlog that so well captures the humdrum Washington debate between Clintonians and Neo-cons on the DPRK issue right now. Just as in Iraq, no one can think beyond the fall of the government, or to consider the non-proliferation regime as a whole, and Neo-Cons assume that there's a nascent government waiting to stop an even more tragic catastrophe from ensuing.

Actually, Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell, Goldfarb's interlocutor, is still just too optimistic about the disablement of the Yongbyon plutonium reactor, and both fail to mention the HEU (highly-enriched uranium) issue. The Syrian connection is a red herring, most probably more of the Israel-Bush administration echo chamber seeking to stir up a controversy to derail the Six-Party process.

In the end (and in "What happens if the Kim regime collapses?"), this is at best a much more civil, yet equally as arid and boilerplate a discussion, as the Korean blogosphere produces on a daily basis.