 |
March 27, 2006RecommendedLouis Menand on Francis Fukuyama, in the New Yorker. Excerpt: The End of History and the Last Man” is a deeply interesting book (“scandalously brilliant,” Krauthammer says on the back cover, in a blurb evidently written when the marriage was still good). It is a meditation on world history—via the influential lectures of the French-Russian philosopher Alexandre Kojève, given in Paris in the nineteen-thirties—in the tradition of Hegel, Marx, and Weber. Because the original article appeared the year the Berlin Wall came down, and because the book appeared right after the formal demise of the Soviet Union, Fukuyama’s thesis about the “end of history” was taken to be a kind of celebratory meta-historical frosting on America’s victory in the Cold War. History (in Hegelian terms) had realized its Idea, and the Idea was us. Fukuyama has spent a great deal of time since 1989 explaining that this was not what he meant. His book was not about America or even about democratic ideals. It was about modernization, a subject on which his take is closer to Marx’s and Weber’s than to John Locke’s or Adam Smith’s. Read the whole thing, as they say. I should note, somewhat relatedly, and in case it isn't already blindingly obvious, that as between the Krauthammer and Fukuyama wings--I am squarely in the latter. Particularly given the stunning spectacle of late among some in the former wing who, rather than be chastened by the massive difficulties we've confronted in Iraq, clamor as panacea for more robust intervention in Syria or Iran. This is not the time for gung-ho under-informed adventurism, but an all out effort to salvage the situation in Iraq and continue to patiently move to further stabilize Afghanistan (in itself a massive challenge). An Iranian bomb, at least from the intelligence assessments reported in public, is likely some 10 years away yet. The Ahmadi-Nejad government will almost certainly no longer be in power, and it's hard to imagine a worse government coming to power. Regardless, Administration rhetoric on Iran is uneven, with different Administration actors saying different things. Sometimes Iran will never be allowed the bomb, we hear. Other times, it is this regime specifically than cannot be allowed the bomb. (And with John Bolton, let us recall, Iran policy is: "whatever happens at the State Department, the President knows what he needs to do".) Let us at least start by rationalizing the rhetoric, so as to speak with a unitary voice. And let us, by all means, pursue the UNSC track on the Iran portfolio, where we already have our hands full getting Russian FM Lavrov on board with our (and soi disant the Euro-3's) desired language. But let's be very careful not to get hysterical that a Hitler like madman is about to get the bomb in two weeks and lob it at Tel Aviv. We live in a time when, at least from what I read written by prominent op-ed writers, think-tankers and bloggers (re: this last even, nay, especially those who are viewed as major opinion leaders on the right side of the 'sphere), Iran represents an existential threat to these United States. There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, comandeered by seasoned adults, not idealogues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses (Iran bombed the Golden Shrine!) Color me concerned, at least somewhat. Given the dearth of competence in this Administration and the imbecility that has gripped large swaths of the commentariat, it is not impossible to espy another ill-fated perfect storm of hyped intel, mass fear spurred on by varied hyperbole, evangelical fervor etc. conspiring to force another potential geopolitical misstep upon us. Posted by Gregory at March 27, 2006 03:41 AM | TrackBack (1)Comments
Neo No More http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/books/review/26berman.html - Francis Fukuyama has decided to resign from the neoconservative movement — though for reasons that may seem ambiguous. Posted by: post pc at March 27, 2006 04:50 AM | Permalink to this comment
The 10-year estimate for an Iranian Bomb would be more comforting if US intelligence had a better track record predicting such things. By all accounts, the US was "surprised" by India's tests in 1998. And our our keen awareness of North Korea's activities from 1994 thru 2002 is also underwhelming. So you may or may not be right that statecraft is the solution for Iran. But your proposal would be more compelling if it didn't start with such a dubious assumption. James (BTW...does anyone know what our estimate was in 1998 for years-until-bomb for India? I've done some cursory searches, but haven't found anything that specific?) Posted by: James at March 27, 2006 06:27 AM | Permalink to this comment
Suppose We Just Let Iran Have The Bomb http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19sanger.ART0.html - Some experts in the United States have been thinking the undiscussable: If all other options are worse, could the world learn to live with a nuclear Iran? Globalization 2.0 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/magazine/326wwln_lede.2.html - It's not just economics, stupid. Emerging powers like India get to go nuclear, too. Posted by: post pc at March 27, 2006 12:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
BD, I'm not fixated on the Republican Party, but for the fact I see no plausible alternative on the other side. For all your criticism of the current administration, whom within the Democratic Party do you feel has feet planted firmly enough on the ground to lead the next administration -- should they win -- and why? Posted by: sbw at March 27, 2006 01:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Excellent, sensible remarks, Mr. Djerejian. I've been repetitively stunned these last three years by the shoddy logic coming out of right-wing foreign policy "thinkers". But even after all that, they can still surprise. A few months back Kristol suggested, in his impish "What, me worry?" fashion, that bombing Syria would be just the thing. This week, the Israeli press quotes Perle discussing how destroying Iranian nuclear facilities would be a trivial operation. I won't speculate about their real motives. For now, it's enough to say that these guys are cognitively damaged. They are obviously completely impervious to experience, and perhaps even external reality. They just don't learn. That said, this would be a good moment for my nominal party, the Dems, to act like the leaders they claim they are and start injecting some honesty and plain facts into the discussion. Posted by: sglover at March 27, 2006 03:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
George Bernard Shaw once described Christianity as a great idea that had never been tried. I'd like to think that Krauthammer's [or Bill Kristol's or my own] vision of neoconservativism could be described the same way. Bush has discredited that idea for a generation by pursuing Wilsonian ideals with a Coolidge-like frugality. I do not favor military adventures in Iran, and I think you're puffing somewhat when you say serious people are proposing it, but I don't think taking the "bad cop" rhetoric off the table is very wise either. I think Mr. Assad should know that we know the neighborhoods in Damascus where Saddam's relatives are moving money around is a ripe target, just as shaped IED's coming across the border from Iran should not be off limits to some hot pursuit type raid. Put me in the slobbering warmonger camp if you must, but I still think Krauthammer has a better grip on reality than Fukuyama. Posted by: wks at March 27, 2006 03:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
Your Menand link doesn't seem to work .... Posted by: Anderson at March 27, 2006 03:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry, forgot the Marine rule (never point out a problem unless you have a solution). http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/060327crbo_books Took a class from Menand at CUNY a while back. Smart, tho with a touch of that pragmatist glibness that Richard Rorty also has. Posted by: Anderson at March 27, 2006 03:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
(BTW...does anyone know what our estimate was in 1998 for years-until-bomb for India? I've done some cursory searches, but haven't found anything that specific?) yes, the estimate was about minus 24 years. India tested its first nuclear bomb in 1974. I would agree that 10 years is an incredibly "optimistic" timeframe for an Iranian bomb, considering the fact that Iran is likely to have access to many/most of the same Iraqi scientists and technicians that supposedly made it possible for Saddam to get a bomb in "months" back in 2002. But the people actually running Iran are the Ayatollahs, and they aren't insane, so even if Iran does get a bomb, they aren't going to be irresponsible about its use. The far greater threat is Pakistan, where there is considerable antipathy toward the USA among the populace --- and that particular situation is not improving.
Thank you, P.L. I am convinced that history-readers of the future will find themselves utterly puzzled. "So then the U.S. invaded *Iraq*? Why? What about Pakistan? Didn't their intel agency nurture the Taliban? Wasn't the founder of their nuclear-bomb program selling his tech on the black market?" Posted by: Anderson at March 27, 2006 04:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
yes, the estimate was about minus 24 years. India tested its first nuclear bomb in 1974. True enough. But...Fission in 1974. Fusion in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction I recognize this is the same unsatisfying formulation that led us into Iraq. But calculating expected outcomes in the face of uncertain information is part of the grim reality of decision making (as opposed to post-action bloviating). What is the liklihood Iran will soon have weapons? What are likely consequences? Multiply the two and then compare to expected outcome from other available choices. Again, it's possible that diplomacy is the right answer. (I don't pretend to be well enough informed to be too strident on the issue.) But I'd be more comforted if our intelligence were better or if diplomacy towards Iran had produced more useful results in the last few years. James
If "hysteria" consists of believing that thugs intend on doing what they say they intend to do, then I submit to you that "hysteria" is a very rational response. Much more so than believing that within every ranting tyrant there is a friendly Barney the Purple Dinosaur just waiting for the opportunity to emerge. Hitler pretty much stated what he was going to do in his book Mein Kamf. He wasn't just a misunderstood child saying outrageous things to get attention. And Osama Ben Ladin was pretty clear about what he intended to do, and in retrospect that wasn't exactly a rhetorical device either. Just consider for a moment the possibility that the Iranian regime means to do exactly what they've been saying they will do once they have that capability. How does that change the equation? A little more "hysteria" might be in order. Posted by: tcobb at March 27, 2006 06:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Jihadism is an antibody generated by our way of life, not a virus indigenous to Islam." There's some truth in the idea that Jihadism is a reaction to globalization and that engineering faculties in progressive Europe are where it grows best but this appears to be a slight refinement of saying they hate our freedom. Bin Laden refuted this rather nicely asking the question: why didn't we attack Sweden? Outbists like Bin Laden may hate Jews but are not motivated by a distaste for growing gender equality in Lubbock or the latest Britney video being available in Wallmart. It's simpler than that, US foreign policy is extremely unpopular in the Arab world and most Arabs would say there are many rational reasons for this and a few of those are hard to knock down. The strategic logic of the far enemy ideology is also simple: Apostate Arab regimes, the near enemy, rely on US support, destroy this support and they will fall. That Bin Laden has nothing politically coherent to offer as a replacement is certainly true and this could cause you to class him as a nihilist. However three years after the fall of Baghdad it's not looking like Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol et al had any useful ideas on the Middle East other than kicking over the applecart, trusting to luck. I'll be reading the book; Fukuyama’s often wrong but always worth the effort. Posted by: ali at March 27, 2006 07:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
If "hysteria" consists of believing that thugs intend on doing what they say they intend to do, then I submit to you that "hysteria" is a very rational response. So when you were in 3d grade & some punk said "I'm gonna kill you," it was rational for you to literally fear for your life? Posted by: Anderson at March 27, 2006 07:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
So when you were in 3d grade & some punk said "I'm gonna kill you," it was rational for you to literally fear for your life? If the little punk had a track record of psychotic behavior like the current regime of Iran has, yes it would be. Posted by: tcobb at March 27, 2006 07:49 PM | Permalink to this comment
It was well known in 1998 that India had nukes, had had them for many, many years (since 1989 or so). The intelligence failure was in not knowing that India was going to conduct tests. Previous such tests had been identified correctly and the US had put enormous pressure on India to desist. So its still a failure, but not in terms of evaluating India's nuclear capability. Posted by: erg at March 27, 2006 10:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
"There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, comandeered by seasoned adults, not idealogues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses" Speaking words of wisdom my dear Greg. What you say about the Neocons’ Nejad neurosis also applies to Zacharyas Moussaoui: How an inoffensive (except maybe for himself!) unstable Moroccan prole eager to get his proverbial 5 minutes of glory through the grandiloquent use of outlandish statements and other “jihadist verbiages” can attract the attention of so many “conservative” minds shows the extent to which conservatism, once the ideological home our nation’s virile and rational minds, has become of sub-ideology of sensationalist pussies and other Neocon carpetbaggers… TEX-AVIV NEWSWIRE: Jeez! The goateed brownie said “and I shall destroy the un-white house of the koffir Emir Bôoch may the Almighty curse his tribe’s camels and women for 40 consecutive decades Insh’Allah” Posted by: Dr Victorino de la Vega at March 27, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
Just to give a second source -- basic rule of intelligence -- erg is right about the intelligence on the Indian bomb test. Posted by: spencer at March 27, 2006 11:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
If the little punk had a track record of psychotic behavior like the current regime of Iran has, yes it would be. This is no serious assessment of Iran's behavior. A serious assessment of Iran's behavior would start by looking at, shock and awe, Iran's actual behavior over the past couple of years. Let's see. They got invaded by Iraq and made deals with the Reagan administration. They funded inhumane elements in the Lebanon and Palestinian wars - like every other state in the region, including our Lord and Savior, Israel. They often said not nice things about the US, but they cooperated against the Taliban with America. We invaded their next-door neighbor and they've taken steps to control the vaccuum, as we or anyone else would. They've gone through various internal governance fluctuations of openness and repression, and sucked up to the outside world a whole lot on energy and economics. How many countries have they invaded? Psychotic behavior? All you've got is inflammatory statements, and if we took every inflammatory statement in this world seriously, we'd act like idiots consistently. On the internet or the world stage, it's the same. And on the internet or the world stage, some dysfunctional people take everything as the coming end of the world, and interpret everything in the worst possible light. Iran is full of inhumane jerks who hate us, like half the world. More invasions do not solve this problem. Posted by: glasnost at March 28, 2006 12:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
"There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, commandeered by seasoned adults, not ideologues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses" Well, I am going to go way out on a limb here, because my antennae tell me that something quite interesting is going on. Broadly speaking, statecraft operates at two levels: (1) the public discourse full of posturing, threats, public analysis often lacking in rationale, etc., and (2) quiet, behind the scenes talking that can lead to breakthroughs simply because no one is looking, publicizing and micromanaging. Could it be that something of the latter is going on?? Recently, the mullahs in Iran went public with the notion that the US and Iran should sit down and work together on solving the post war Iraq problem. The US, as its public response expressed reluctance and skepticism. The perfect origin and the perfect response. I suspect (and this is just my own opinion) that this subject has been discussed sub rosa between the parties. Obviously, had the US initiated the idea, Iran would have had to dismiss it. On the other hand, with Iran going public (as agreed??) the US could be publicly dismissive while quietly exploring the issue. It seems clear to me that regardless of religious affiliation, there is no love lost between the Iraqi Shia Arabs and the Iranian Shia Persians. There is simply too much awful history and too long memories. The convenience of supporting al-Sadr as a counterweight to Sistini and to the Americans made perfect sense from an Iranian perspective, but al-Sadr cannot but appear to the Iranians as of limited usefulness were things to get straightened out. What Iran wants most is to get the Americans out of the area and if they are listening to the President, he is making it clear that that is not in the cards until considerably greater stability takes hold. So, Iranian support for al-Sadr is possibly waning and that little hothead responds by attacking American forces to show how important he is only to get his nose bloodied. In the meanwhile, behind the scenes, negotiations are proceeding and we haven’t heard much nutty talk from Ahmadi for awhile. Could this mean that the mullahs have told him to cool it for awhile?? I share Greg’s belief that careful and quiet engagement with Iran is the most promising path to some acceptable resolution of the Iraq situation. It won’t be a New York Deli styled democracy, but it will be close enough for government work and far enough away to be acceptable to Iran. And while we are sitting here talking about that, how about us talking about the nukes. Stranger things have happened. Michael
Michael Pecherer, you are cute. Right-Wingers can not explain the irrational decisions of their alpha-male….so they assume there must be some esoteric magic being performed by the head magician. Maybe, behind the scenes, Bush actually wanted the Iranians to have greater influence, in the region, because he’s looking to really piss off the Sunnis and the Arab monarchs that back them. Maybe, behind the scenes, handing Iraq over to Iran was Bush’s brilliant response/revenge for his “friends” support of the deadly attack on 9-11. Maybe, behind the scenes, Bush knows that the Arab aristocracy has his nuts in a vice, and he really can not address their duplicity in public, so he hands a chunk of the Middle East to our new allies, the Iranians. Yeah, I bet Bush is really brilliant when no one is looking.
Bill, I am not a right winger. But that's ok, lots of folks haven't mastered the wall switch either. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 28, 2006 02:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
"There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, comandeered by seasoned adults, not idealogues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses" A really saddening realization came to my mind when I read this: - not that you aren't right: quite the contrary, IMO: every word you wrote rings true: but what, exactly, are the chances of actually getting "sober statecraft" from the present crew in charge of US foreign policy? The Bush regime's (and this really is more of a "regime" than the typical American "Administration") blunders in Iraq have, for the first time in years, backed them against the wall when it comes to implementing policy options in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East (not to mentional a LOT of the rest of the world). And since maintaining their hold on political power in Washington is their first, last and only goal: it is REALLY hard to see that they would be likely to do anything to jeopardize their electoral chances this November: least of all engaging in any sort of foreign policy that might not fit the simplistic black-and-white, Righteously-Angry, Blow-em-all-away, Kick-Ass-Cowboy template that the Administration has sold to the voting public as its principal persona in the conduct of external affairs. A shame, too, since a more "adult" foreign policy probably COULD be "sold" to the country without too much difficulty, and gain the Administration a good deal of credit in the public eye: but, alas, I think electioneering will once again trump all. Although foreign policy, IMO, will take a back seat to divisive "social-agenda" issues. Posted by: Jay C at March 28, 2006 04:31 AM | Permalink to this comment
"There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, comandeered by seasoned adults, not idealogues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses" A really saddening realization came to my mind when I read this: - not that you aren't right: quite the contrary, IMO: every word you wrote rings true: but what, exactly, are the chances of actually getting "sober statecraft" from the present crew in charge of US foreign policy? The Bush regime's (and this really is more of a "regime" than the typical American "Administration") blunders in Iraq have, for the first time in years, backed them against the wall when it comes to implementing policy options in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East (not to mentional a LOT of the rest of the world). And since maintaining their hold on political power in Washington is their first, last and only goal: it is REALLY hard to see that they would be likely to do anything to jeopardize their electoral chances this November: least of all engaging in any sort of foreign policy that might not fit the simplistic black-and-white, Righteously-Angry, Blow-em-all-away, Kick-Ass-Cowboy template that the Administration has sold to the voting public as its principal persona in the conduct of external affairs. A shame, too, since a more "adult" foreign policy probably COULD be "sold" to the country without too much difficulty, and gain the Administration a good deal of credit in the public eye: but, alas, I think electioneering will once again trump all. Although foreign policy, IMO, will take a back seat to divisive "social-agenda" issues. Posted by: Jay C at March 28, 2006 04:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
Here is an article by Jack Kelley that seems to support my hypothesis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/sundays_gunfight_in_iraq.html Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at March 28, 2006 06:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
There is a whiff of pervasive hysteria in the air, still very present in the post 9/11 polity. Now is the time for sober statecraft, comandeered by seasoned adults, not idealogues careening sloppily forth in an atmosphere of mass hysteria--that they themselves encourage via their exuberant analyses Sadly, this is going to require a statesman to rise above party politics to do what's right (like FDR and Truman), and the only ones I can see doing that would be a Feingold or a Hagel. And the chances of either of the two seeing the White House are slim. Posted by: Doug H. at March 28, 2006 10:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, you say,'as between the Krauthammer and Fukuyama wings--I am squarely in the latter'. Fukuyama does say - and this is the point that is missed by many of those that crow about his 'defection' - that we need to stay in Iraq and defeat the insurgency there and in Afghanistan. That is the most important point - what needs to be done now - but he also says we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, stirring up the terrorists and so on. As for Fascism and Bolshevism, in their day they were seen as paths to modernity. Maybe we now see that they were wrong turnings on the road. Posted by: DavidP at March 28, 2006 01:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Sober statecraft" -- like Clinton in 1994 "no genocide in Rwanda"? Or the response to 1993 WTC bombing -- building an intel wall? Or is the UN, with pedofiles and peacekeepers wanting sex for food -- they'll give the sober statecraft? If Iran gets a nuke, and then terrorists do, and then Tel Aviv gets mushroomed, will that mean you were wrong -- or will the Dems blame it all on Bush? Since I see more blame on the US for the post-Vietnam Killing Fields, I guess the blame will be on the US, no matter what. So I think it more rational to publicly posture and claim that Iran getting a bomb is unacceptable, and even a cause for war. Posted by: Tom Grey at March 28, 2006 02:49 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mike, Trying to give credit where it's due, if the Bush admin was actually thinking along the lines you suggest, i'd have few complaints. it's obviously to people really interested in the truth that a) Iran is really behind a bomb, both the fundies and the average Joe, but b) generally speaking, Iran is generally conservative in its risk calculus and sensitive to international pressure, more so than say, Saddamn. Possibly not being ineligible in the Sunni Gulf Dick-Swinging contest helps that be true. Sadly, I agree with others that it's hard to believe that the Bush administration has anything close to that smart of a plan. As far as I can tell, they govern entirely - entirely- with the goal of winning US elections. If anything as smart as what you suggest happens, I imagine it'll be mostly by luck. But hey, i'd still welcome it. I'd even praise the Bush Admin. Anyone who gets us out of this train ride to another two decades of war and anti-american terrorism is to be welcomed. Posted by: glasnost at March 29, 2006 05:27 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg did you read Krauthammer in the WaPo lately. the speech he made wasnt about Iraq, and he didnt say in it that everything is going fine in Iraq. Kraut seems to think Fukuyama lied about the speech, and hes none too happy.
In fact there are "neocons" who are quite sensitive to empirical reality, and who use their ideology as a basis for some very real insight. And there are "realists" who are ideologues after a fashion, refusing to face empirical realities.
"as between the Krauthammer and Fukuyama wings--I am squarely in the latter." So, of course, was John Kerry. Posted by: Thucydides at March 29, 2006 08:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
If Iran gets a nuke, and then terrorists do, and then Tel Aviv gets mushroomed, will that mean you were wrong -- or will the Dems blame it all on Bush? I'd tend to blame it first on the people who used the bomb. They could have done something else. And I'd secondarily blame israel. They've had close to 40 years to get a peace with palestinians, and they mostly haven't tried. Like, "Arafat never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Like Lucy with the football. "Hey, Arafat, here's an opportunity for peace!. Whoops, you missed it. OK, here comes another opportunity. Whoops! Missed it again! O Arafat, you're just too clumsy a diplomat, you'll never get peace at this rate. OK, here's another opportunity coming! Whoops, too slow again! Poor, poor Arafat, there's been no palestinian we could ever deal with to make peace before, and there'll never be another after you're gone. Ready for another try? Here it comes.... Missed it again!" Maybe they had a chance for Rabin to make peace. But it turned out Rabin never had a chance. If there's a nuclear war in the middle east and israel doesn't come out untouched I'd certainly give the israelis themselves more of the blame than americans.
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
