Tuesday, February 21, 2006
I don’t particularly want to play counterweight to GipperClone with respect to foreign policy for several reasons. Two of which are, I’m grossly under qualified and, well, to be honest, significant portions of foreign affairs doesn’t really interest me all that much. It’s not that I don’t care, or that I think it is unimportant, but rather because I’ve always been a domestic law and policy wonk, preferring to leave the international stuff to others. Want to talk constitutional law, I’m your man. If it’s monetary policy, health care, minimum wage, see me I’ll gladly debate the merits of these ideas for hours and hours (as far too many readers and contributors of this blog well know). If you want to discuss the world at large, well I’ve got my own opinions, to be sure, but I’m not really the best person on many of those subjects. That said, the cross over that has taken place recently has peeked my interest. If anyone has failed to notice I’m an institutionalist, I like to study and discuss how the various institutions of our government work both internally and how they work together or against each other to achieve policy or legal goals. Hence, this article in Foreign Affairs caught my attention. It appears to have caught the attention of at least one columnist today as well. I’ve always maintained that I never believe 100% of anything that I read, however, this piece seems to come from a non-media, reputable source (though I’m not sure Foreign Affairs could be considered the MSM). With that in mind, take a gander at both the article and the column; I think this could be fodder for an interesting comments section.