Comments on: Oh Not Again

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

This is a typical argument made by both sides. I’m sure I’m guilty occasionally as well.

While I tend towards conservatism-ibertarianism, and indeed have a PhD in international politics concentrating on security policy and played Army a little while, I would think the greater percentage of IR scholars are lefties. That’s certainly true of the average ISA meeting. Now, the security studies subdiscipline is much more dominated by conservatives—and men, for that matter—for reasons of natural interest. Which, conversely, at least partly explains why the academy as a whole is skewed left.

Both sides also use Nazi, Fascist—and, of lesser problem but more frency—”extremist” far too easily.

And that Gray guy made a mint on his silly Mars-Venus thing. Surely, you can let DD have his builders and defenders?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Man, I need to spell check these things.

Translation key: “ibertarian” = libertarian “frency” = frequency

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

And that Gray guy made a mint on his silly Mars-Venus thing. Surely, you can let DD have his builders and defenders?

No, because John Gray got his Ph.D by mail order from Columbia Pacific “University”, whereas Dan got his by hard work from Stanford. So I apply higher standards to Dan.

By: ArchPundit

ArchPundit — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Sweet, but the best mail order degrees are from Patriot University

By: Michael J. Totten

Michael J. Totten — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, I never used the word cosmopolitan. My point is that conservatives are more interested in the history of foreign countries than liberals are. Daniel Drezner used the word cosmopolitan, not me.

I assure you I’m not looking for an “angle.” It has bugged me for some time now that my fellow liberals are more likely to have a shallow understanding of history. Yes, this is a huge generalization, and of course there are plenty of exceptions. You might be one of those exceptions, and if so there is no reason to take offense. You write and think well, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I never cited Rush Limbaugh as an example of a historically-informed conservative, and I’d like to make that clear for your readers who don’t follow your link to my piece. He’s a right-wing jackass who apparently reads no history at all (like Ann Coulter) and is primarily interested in invective and name-calling.

By: taktile

taktile — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

“insisting that his $50,000 speaker fee be paid in quarters”

You stole that joke from The Daily Show! Pah!

By: Michael J. Totten

Michael J. Totten — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Kieran,

I had not seen your page until you linked my piece. I see now that you are an assistant professor. So in the comment above where I gave you “the benefit of the doubt,” well… I realize that may come across as insulting. Sincere apologies. Pretend I am able to edit it out.

Michael

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Michael,
Since there’s no comments section on your blog, I’ll post this here. Kieran’s point doesn’t seem to me to be that you’re saying ‘Conservatives are the true Cosmopolitans,’ but rather that you have no actual argument in your post. And if that’s what he is saying, he’s right. One post at Indymedia, the filtered set of conservatives on your blogroll, your intuitions, an assertion by Gary Farber, and the contents of two liberal magazines do not make for evidence, especially given that you just as easily cite two more liberal magazines for which your comments are not true. (And I’ve just noticed ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ essays cited on your page…)
The structuwre of your argument seems to be ‘I think x,’ and these people agree with me, therefore it’s true. There may be a germ of truth in what you’ve said, but it’s completely unproven in your piece.

By: rpc732

rpc732 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Sorry—last post is from me.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I find this whole “conservatives are interested in foreign countries, liberals aren’t” to be a whole load of hooey. Maybe it’s true with some individuals, but as a whole, I find it not the case. I find the conservatives to be entirely myopic – unable to see the world outside of their own domestic prism – witness the inability of the Right in 1998 to consider Clinton’s bombing campaigns against Saddam as anything other than “wag the dog”. To then turn around and have these people lecture us that they are the true internationalists is kind of mind-boggling – but then so much is in this looking-glass world of the 21st century.