Comments on: Where Have All the Realists Gone?

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:52:55 +0000

Dave, Nye is tough to classify as a realist since his focus on "soft power" bears distinctly liberal and even some constructivist elements. And I view Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" hypothesis as an intrinsically constructivist theory.

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:51:15 +0000

LOL - A discussion without the threats of banning or editting.

And then you had to go and ruin it already by taking a gratuitous, unprovoked swipe about something you already know we don’t welcome comments about. Please consider this your final warning.

By: daveinboca

daveinboca — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:01:35 +0000

Uh…, I spent a couple of years at CSIS in the early ’80s & worked with fellows like Bulent Alireza [who wasn't at CSIS at the time] & Bob Ebel [also a later addition] and Tony Cordesman. I consider Tony & Bob the only "realists" among the people I worked with who are now at CSIS, and consider Bob Kagan smarter than just about any CSISers even though he’s been called a "neo-con." I have problems with Walt myself & think his book with Mearsheimer a classic case of non-experts working out their biases in print.

I consider Nye and Huntington two great realists, so that’s where I’m coming from. And Frumkin on the Middle East, along with Fouad Ajami. I worked with Frank Gaffney & consider him slightly deranged. Now he’s Huckabee’s advisor!!

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:37:02 +0000

I had a bit to say about this op-ed myself. I think it’s a fairly silly assertion to say that realists are underrepresented in the MSM. I spent about ten minutes on Google and found plenty of opinion pieces from and news stories featuring the opinions of just two noted realists. Realists have plenty of voice. They’ve also held a near monopoly on our foreign policy for longer than I’ve been alive. What more voice do they require?

Walt’s quibble is that the Times hired a "neocon". One. Good grief.

By: Rudi666

Rudi666 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:27:55 +0000

OK - But what about the lack of realists in media? If one digs enough realism is there. Prior to the surge, Zig and Scow talked but no one listened. Here’s your "who’s who of realists.

MSM handles news like ReadersDigest handles serious literature. LOL - A discussion without the threats of banning or editting.

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:32:05 +0000

I have lots that I would like to say about Walt, but I have to be careful what I say about a widely-respected senior scholar in my own field even though I feel very strongly that my comments would be justified. So I am, in this instance, self-censoring.

By: Rudi666

Rudi666 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:28:07 +0000

One more point, how many comments do you expect on this post? I bet 3 or 4, it lacks the emotion of a typical post.

By: Rudi666

Rudi666 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:09:41 +0000

LOL - It’s just that reading the realists is boring compared to the likes of the neo-cons and rabid anti-war liberals. The realist are on many op-ed pages, they just don’t write as featured columnists. The foreign affairs periodical feature realists, but their websites are pay-per-view. One of my favs is Cordesman, but look at the exposure he recieved, compared to O’Hanlon. PBS and Charlie Rose feature realists, yet only "girlie men" watch PBS and Charlie Rose. Granted MSM does ignore Zig and Scrow, but PBS gives them more than lip service, but nobody watches them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/iraq_02-01.html