Heads in the Sand

I'm reading Matt Yglesias's first book, Heads in the Sand. It's great. You may think a book on foreign policy would be dry, but how can you not love an introduction that quotes both Nietzsche and Peanuts?

In the beginning of chapter 3, Matt says that 9-11 in fact changed nothing in foreign policy, continuing his argument that Bush had already chosen a stance of nationalism v. liberal internationalism. Whereas, the policy itself may not have been changed, is foreign policy enacted solely in the vacuum of Washington, D.C.? The electorate in some way must exert itself upon the process. With that in mind, 9-11 did, in fact, change things. The very fact that the U.S. was attacked on its soil (the first such attack of the mainland since the War of 1812), 9-11 had deep psychological effects on the electorate. Certainly Bush used that to solidify his nationalism in foreign policy. The fact that the great majority of Americans cannot define nor even understand the terms isolationism, nationalism, or liberal internationalism, just makes the foreign policy makers in DC that much more powerful. We are a nation of farmers and workers and you can insert your elitist joke here, but powerful and altering events like 9-11 scare the average American to death. That changes everything in our minds. The politicians just played off of it.

Comments

[the Reverend boy]

This looks very interesting! Thank you.