More Praise for Heads in the Sand

Blogger, economist, foodie, and author Tyler Cowen says:

Everyone who reads books on foreign policy should read this book. It is well-argued throughout and gets at fundamentals, rather than just slinging the latest epithets over our latest blunders in Iraq. I don't in every way agree with the author's recipe for liberal internationalism but overall this is a smarter book than whichever other tome you are likely to pick up on foreign policy.

I, however, am somewhat indifferent as to whether or not you read the book, the main point is that you should buy it. Reading, though nice, is strictly optional.

Comments

Wow. Trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias gets the endorsement of Tyler Cowen and the Cato Institute for his foreign policy tome.

Next he can write a book about how universal healthcare is evil and get the same folks to endorse it.

Hasn't his daddy bought the New Republic for him yet?

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Now, THAT'S, an honest post!

Posted by Will Allen | April 14, 2008 4:39 PM

Matthew's new pitch:

Folks who don't like the book are racist and bitter.

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 4:40 PM

Matthew's alternate pitch:

Buy the book so my grandchildren can be as set from birth for life as my children will already be. I am your better, and my family should be so generationally.

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 4:44 PM

I've not been reading comments much recently but has Al gotten a lobotomy and highjacked Petey's nick?

Posted by riffle | April 14, 2008 4:45 PM

I love these shameless self-promotion threads. Can't hate on me for mentioning my blog which BY THE WAY now has an exclusive report on John McCain and Hillary Clinton's plans to fuse their bodies to create an unstoppable monster-president to attack Obama.

William Kristol says I'm a communist*.

(*if I were Barack Obama)

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 14, 2008 4:46 PM

Get the book put on Kindle, and I'll buy it. :)

Posted by Anthony | April 14, 2008 4:47 PM

Shorter Petey: Satanic Verses is an international bestseller, whereas Matt is Satan. Coincidence or conspiracy?

Posted by phil | April 14, 2008 4:48 PM

Petey,

Please do yourself and all of us a favor - buy a hand gun, load it, take the safety off, put the barrel in your mouth, point it to the rear and upward, and pull the trigger.

Posted by LarryM | April 14, 2008 4:58 PM

"I've not been reading comments much recently but has Al gotten a lobotomy and highjacked Petey's nick?"

Al's got a problem with Matthew being too far on the left. I've got a problem with Matthew being on the royalist trust fund scumbag right.

If you've got the wattage of a 60 watt bulb, you should thus conclude that Matthew must be perfectly in the middle of the two extreme road, holding his finger up to the wind, and thus must be correct. Though 60 watt bulbs provide lousy illumination.

When the Iraqi war came along, Matthew held his finger up to the wind and declared it good. When universal healthcare came along, Matthew held his finger up to the wind and declared it very bad.

Careerist slimeballs have a talent for such zeitgeist positioning. After all policy doesn't really matter to them. Social positioning take precedence over the governmental effects on the American electorate they hold in better contempt. It the ghetto form of windsurfing.

Why any sane human would seek out Aldlai Stevenson as a role model is beyond the rationale of even mildly same chimpanzees.

Matthew's and the Democratic Party's interests diverge dramatically.

But that's not news, now, is it?

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 5:01 PM

Remember when Petey made serious, reasoned arguments in favor of his candidate (Edwards), thoughtful critiques of the other candidates, and generally didn't act like a raving lunatic troll? I do. It was awesome.

Posted by Dylan Matthews | April 14, 2008 5:06 PM

You know, if I had a blogger who I thought was a "royalist scumbag" who was wrong about everything, I imagine my reaction would simply be not to read him.

As opposed to, say, posting 4 comments in a single thread including a longish post that probably took me 20 minutes to write but still contained typos.

Just as a hypothetical.

Posted by Andrew Edwards | April 14, 2008 5:12 PM

"Petey, Please do yourself and all of us a favor - buy a hand gun, load it, take the safety off, put the barrel in your mouth, point it to the rear and upward, and pull the trigger."

While I understand that your fervently wish for my death, bloodthirsty, LarryM, I'm not sure you are on Obama Talking Points when you issue such threats.

I'm sure that if the 50%+ of Demcoratic voters who've voted Clinton over Obama were to vaporize or commit Seppuku, it would make your delegate counting operation a bit easier. But that ain't the American way.

I realize that this will make you bitter like Matthew, but free societies are the American way, not your Zimbabwean fantasies.

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 5:12 PM

Al's got a problem with Matthew being too far on the left. I've got a problem with Matthew being on the royalist trust fund scumbag right.

Yglesias is too far to the right for my taste, but you know who's even further to the right? Hillary fucking Clinton, your current, randomly anointed messiah. Which takes some getting used to for me, Pete, since the last time I was reading these comments (around January or so) you were arguing that Clinton was the worst possible choice for the Democratic Party and that's why we had to nominate Edwards. It's clear by now that Edwards's loss left you completely unmoored, and you've gone psychotic on Obama supporters, blaming them for your candidate's loss. Well, suck it up and deal. In the meantime you're currently rooting for the DINO ticket. And hey, if that's the way you want to go, fine, but you might as well go whole hog and sign up for the Connecticut For Lieberman Party.

And Matt, seriously, tone down the fucking book plugs. Yeah, yeah, I know that a successful book is your ticket out of your shitty little Atlantic Monthly cubicle and into a biweekly column at the WaPo as Roger Cohen's apprentice, but seriously, begging does not become you, even when the begging in question is dressed up in a mock-ironic, kidding-on-the-square "ha ha I'm only in it for the money, no please really buy my book" tone.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 5:15 PM

Is there an audio version of the book available?

Posted by Pioneer10 | April 14, 2008 5:16 PM

Matthew's and the Democratic Party's interests diverge dramatically.

Almost as dramatic a difference as Hillary's recollection of the circumstances of March 25, 1996 and the truth.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 14, 2008 5:17 PM

While everyone is hating Petey for being a douche, don't forget that I have a blog that, god willing, will be the most heavily self-promoted item on the planet along with HEADS IN THE SAND.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 14, 2008 5:21 PM

Matthew's and the Democratic Party's interests diverge dramatically.

And Hillary Clinton's interests and those of the Democratic Party are in perfect alignment? Please. Get a grip and lie down for a couple months.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 5:21 PM

"Remember when Petey made serious, reasoned arguments in favor of his candidate (Edwards), thoughtful critiques of the other candidates, and generally didn't act like a raving lunatic troll? I do. It was awesome."

I'm the exact same guy I was before with the exact same principles. In the meantime, an endorsed fantasia is being held tightly to by the majority at the moment.

But given that the spineless majority always has their finger up in the air, their position is a moveable feast.

Are we repeating Kerry or Dukakis? I honestly can't tell which.

But whichever one we end up with, you can know for sure that the unserious folks like Matthew will come down with the consensus.

They we'll all lose, and the trust fund scumbags will suffer no adverse consequences from the loss. Daddy will still pay for Matthew's healthcare. Daddy will still have a trust set up for Matthew to avoid the tawdriness of Social Security.

And Cowen and Cato will invite Matthew to a glorious cocktail party. And happy ending for all, as long as "all" is defined as "the few".

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 5:21 PM

Is it me, or has it become totally easy to predict which of Matt's posts Petey will comment on?

Posted by Ryan | April 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Petey, do you not see foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton? Or do you think that Clinton is better on those issues? Or do you not care?

When Edwards left the race, I gave up hope of dramatic progress on health care -- Obama doesn't have the stomach for it, and Clinton isn't going to be able to pull it off. So I picked the person whom I trusted to set American foreign policy right, because that's really important too. For reasons that Matt has been chronicling here for a good while, that was Obama.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Man, Petey has become very angry lately

Posted by Wilson | April 14, 2008 5:27 PM

Remember when Petey made serious, reasoned arguments in favor of his candidate (Edwards), thoughtful critiques of the other candidates, and generally didn't act like a raving lunatic troll? I do. It was awesome.

Agreed.

The voice is almost unrecognizable. Say something Peteyish to prove it's really you.

Posted by sangfroid826 | April 14, 2008 5:30 PM

Petey, do you not see foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton? Or do you think that Clinton is better on those issues? Or do you not care?

These are questions I've wondered about as well. I've not made a thorough study of his oeuvre but for the life of me I cannot recall Petey ever expressing an opinion on foreign policy. He seems to sing only in the key of health care.

Posted by Ryan | April 14, 2008 5:33 PM

I'm the exact same guy I was before with the exact same principles.

Same guy, sure. Same principles? Bullshit, unless you mean to imply you never had any to begin with. Again, you frequently went on at length about how Clinton wasn't a real liberal, about how she'd doom the Democratic Party. You also said many, many times that if Edwards didn't make it you'd "happily vote for Obama." You said all of this after the candidates' various health care plans had been revealed; it was your line, in fact, at late as Iowa.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 5:33 PM

Christmas - right on on both counts.

Posted by Kalkin | April 14, 2008 5:35 PM

"Man, Petey has become very angry lately"

When Matthew started accusing working class whites who were voting for Clinton for universal healthcare and defense of Social Security of being racists, despite all the polling evidence showing they were voting their economic concerns. he outed himself as someone syphilitic on the body public.

Matthew doesn't need to hew to intellectual honesty because he's got a trust fund to fuel his endeavors. He's our mini-Marty Peretz. I'd love to know the difference between Yglesias and David Cameron, other than the occupying the opposite sides of the Pond.

Perhaps Cameron has more of a commitment to intellectual honesty than Matthew, but that's about the only difference that seems worth noting.

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 5:35 PM

Folks, don't feed the Zombie Remains Of Petey. It just encourages it.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 14, 2008 5:39 PM

Petey used to comment on topics other than health care. Basically, he'd comment on anything that made Edwards look relatively good - which at times extended to foreign policy and environmental policy. Now, of course, Petey doesn't give a shit about war, foreigners and the environment, because his preferred candidate is fond of bombing brown people and loves her some coal.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 5:39 PM

Man, Petey has become very angry lately

Yeah, being called a bigot will sometimes do that to ya.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 5:42 PM

Same principles?

My sense is that Petey's only consistently held principles are tactical, not substantive. Attack, attack, attack, never retreat, take no prisoners, burn all bridges. Then, if necessary, switch candidates and repeat.

Oh, and always be the center of attention. At least in this he's still having good success.

Posted by Ryan | April 14, 2008 5:43 PM

Petey, hearing you critique someone else for intellectual dishonesty is like watching Joseph Merrick judge a beauty contest.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 5:43 PM

You know, up until the primaries really heated up and I became unhealthily obsessed, I never read comment threads very often. I was vaguely aware of someone named Petey who would throw out provocative comments on several lefty blogs, but didn't have too much sense of who he was.

When Edwards dropped out, at least a couple of bloggers -- I think MY and Ezra were among them -- specifically took time to say a few kind words for Petey in their Edwards campaign eulogies. They said that his consistent, passionate advocacy really made them see Edwards in a new light.

So when did that guy turn into this douche who sneers at "Trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias" and spouts inane "Obama-is-Dukakis" Clintonista talking points? It's kind of disappointing. I was hoping to see more enlightening discussion.

Posted by ResumeMan | April 14, 2008 5:44 PM

Petey,
Cato is saner on foreign policy than it is on economics and—surprise!—this is a foreign policy book, as the, er, subtitle would indicate to the discerning reader. If MY writes an economics book for which Cato staffers give an equally good a review, then your criticism will be coherent and sensible. Until then, a logic course might do you a world of good.

Also, would you rather MY continue to support the war? One would think so from your posts. Or is it just that he can oppose the war but must suddenly keep his opinions to himself on this topic, even though now he’s, actually on the correct side? Do tell.

Posted by jason | April 14, 2008 5:46 PM

I told you that Petey would go in this direction. Petey has always been of the "if I assert it confidently enough and often enough, it must be true" school.

He has always been a bullshitter, in the Frankfurt sense of the term (that is, he might utter things that are true or false, but the truth or falsity of the claim isn't why he makes it).

The fact that the bullshit has become meaner and less plausible doesn't change the fact that he was always bullshitting.

Posted by PTS | April 14, 2008 5:49 PM

Petey,

I'm Matt's editor at Wiley, and I have a stake in the book doing well, career-wise. I also grew up poor in rural Pennsylvania, and signed Matt without knowing he had more than two nickels to rub together. Does that make you any more likely to buy the book?

Eric

Also, at the moment, no plans for an audio book.

Posted by Eric | April 14, 2008 5:53 PM

"Man, Petey has become very angry lately"

The mot juste is 'bitter'.

Posted by otto | April 14, 2008 5:55 PM

"So when did that guy turn into this douche who sneers at "Trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias"

Precisely, it happened back in early March when Matthew repeatedly explained that working class Dems who were voitng for Clinton to gain universal healthcare and to defending Social Security were racists in Matthew's (explicitly sophistical) mind.

His abandonment of intellectual honesty to advance his professional and class interests turned a mildly misguided economic royalist into a full-blown trust fund scumbag.

Matthew knows his inheritance means universal healthcare and Social Security are irrelevant to him, and he's ridden his self-interest all the way to the bank.

I say trust fund scumbag, you say self-interested dilettante. Scumbag. Dilettante. Scumbag. Dilettante. As Gershwin penned, let's call the whole thing off.

Posted by Petey | April 14, 2008 5:56 PM

I bought the book. I even plan to read it.

Eric, you made a smart choice.

And good luck with Petey, everybody, but I'm afraid he's gone round the bend.

Posted by southpaw | April 14, 2008 5:58 PM

1) I've started reading HITS. While I like parts, I think it's flawed in some respects.

2) One of which is Matthew's argument that we should use a vaguely defined "rules-based liberal internationalism". Vague because --as Matthew acknowledges -- the rules have to morph over time to reflect changing circumstances. Matthew seems like the Neocons in that he argues we should be governed by a constructed virtual reality. Admittedly, his virtual reality is different from theirs. But I argue we should look at reality itself.

3) I really cracked up over his argument that we should work to accomplish the vision of the long dead Woodrow Wilson -- whose fake morality, hypocrisy, deceit and corruption was responsible for the deaths of millions.

4) 7000 years of history show that Leaders Lie -- Order of Battle and Self-Interest calculations do not.

5) The standard to which I will be comparing HITS is Sun Tzu of circa 400 BC:

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."

"For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited"

"Thus those unable to understand the dangers inherent in employing troops are equally unable to understand the advantageous ways of doing so."

"Where the army is, prices ar high; when prices rise the wealth of the people is exhausted. When wealth is exhausted the peasantry will be afflicted with urgent exactions.

With strength thus depleted and wealth consumed the households in the central plains will be utterly impoverished and seven-tenths of their wealth dissipated."

[Compare with: "They will welcome us with flowers"]

"One who confronts his enemy for many years in order to struggle for victory in a decisive battle yet who, because he begrudges rank, honours, and a few hundred pieces of gold, remains ignorant of his enemy's situation, is completely devoid of humanity. Such a man is no general; no support to his sovereign; no master of victory."

[Compare with: tossing 25 percent of the Intelligence Community out on the street in the late 1990s, being totally surprised by a Sept 11 attack on your own homeland, and then wasting 4000 lives /$1 Trillion on an unnecessary war to seize non-existent WMDs.]

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 6:00 PM

Eric will be pleased to know that I bought the book, but I'm still wondering why Amazon charges $3.50 less for it than Barnes & Noble does.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 6:04 PM

Petey started out in 2003-2004 consistently claiming that it was our duty to support a Dem who gave full-throated support to the Iraq war because this might make it marginally more likely to get universal health care.

Petey, unfortunately, didn't realize that this was the precise strategy the Dems had tried for in 2002 which dramatically tanked. Heck, it tanked when the Dems tried it in 1968, too. But he persists.

Posted by Tyro | April 14, 2008 6:17 PM

For people not familiar with Petey, the ironic reality is that he is far more hawkish than Matthew; before Petey lost the last few remaining shreds of his sanity, he was a constant presence on these boards arguing that the Dems needed to be much more hawkish (though his reason for that wasn't that he thought that the hawks were correct, but purely for reasons of political expediency. He has made it clear that he is more than happy to countenance the death of innocent Muslims if it will help to bring about UHC).

Posted by LarryM | April 14, 2008 6:31 PM

Petey,

I think you misunderstand me. I don't want you to kill yourself because you support the Monster, I want you to kill yourself because you are a verminous piece of shit; the world would be a much better place without you in it, and honestly you would probably be better off dead in any event. Certainly in the unlikely event that you have any family members they would be better off with you dead.

Posted by LarryM | April 14, 2008 6:33 PM

Petey,
Since you’ve commendably managed to isolate a very specific complaint about MY’s positions, here’s a thought:

Avoiding argumentum ad hominem completely, devise a clear, courteous request for a clarification and rethinking of MY’s analysis of the motivation of the voters at issue. Ask for a rehearsal of any relevant evidence that may have convinced him of views he expressed. Provide countervailing evidence. And see how he responds.

He may not answer you at length or at all, particularly since you’ve undertaken to demean his motives in terms some would consider harsh. But you have a better chance of convincing him and his other readers of the merits of your views with this strategy than you do with your current one, no matter how tempting it may be to employ. Is self-righteousness more important to you than persuasion or accuracy? I would hope not. And I daresay it takes a bit of courage and grace to change one’s tone—practicing these qualities in discussion does more to evoke them in others than any other strategy I’ve come across.

Posted by jason | April 14, 2008 6:33 PM

Let's dissect this blurb.

"Everyone who reads books on foreign policy should read this book."

And only those who only read books on foreign policy should read this book.

If you're a reader of fine literature, philosophy - or comic books - not so much.

"It is well-argued throughout and gets at fundamentals, rather than just slinging the latest epithets over our latest blunders in Iraq."

Like Matt's blog does.

"I don't in every way agree with the author's recipe for liberal internationalism..."

I'm getting paid for this blurb, so I don't care, but usually Matt's an idiot.

"but overall this is a smarter book than whichever other tome you are likely to pick up on foreign policy."

Like Goldberg? Damning with faint praise, I believe is the concept here.

Personally, I suspect "Mein Kampf" was better on foreign policy than Matt's book is.

Doesn't matter, though - all copies are going to North Korea as of tomorrow.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Since this has turned into a Petey thread, Petey must be deliriously happy that it appears Carter and Gore are going to weigh in and ask Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race.

It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp

Money Quotes:

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

Clinton remains publicly defiant, insisting she will continue the battle with Obama all the way to the Democratic convention in August - when superdelegates, or party top brass, will have the chance to add their weight to primary votes.

But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.

Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen - in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.

Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.

Gore blames his loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election on the impeachment of Clinton triggered by his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Carter, who has carved out a successful career as an international mediator, is believed to detest the flashy style of the Clintons. He recently told an interviewer that his entire family are committed Obama supporters.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 6:41 PM

Hey Zombie Petey, do you have a link to the post where Matt called you a racist?

Posted by Tim | April 14, 2008 6:41 PM

The whole Petey saga is bewildering and sad. You used to write such good comments, man.

Posted by dr. zeuss | April 14, 2008 7:48 PM

Don Williams: "I've started reading HITS."

I only now realized the acronym of Yglesias' book is HITS. That's pretty awesome.

Posted by Korha | April 14, 2008 7:52 PM

"You used to write such good comments"

Unlike me, who never did that.

Ah, the freedom of not being constrained by one's past history!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 7:54 PM

Re Richard's comment "Personally, I suspect "Mein Kampf" was better on foreign policy than Matt's book is."
--------------
You may be right. Hitler spent years in the WWI trenches, saw hundreds of his brothers in arms killed, endured a gas attack, saw the Weimar revolutionaries lay down Germany's arms due to Woodrow Wilson's preachy assurances in the Fourteen Points, and then saw Germany buttfucked with a broken beer bottle at Versailles and in the succeeding years.

Experiences like that certainly gave Adolf a clear-eyed view of "liberal internationalism".

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 8:08 PM

Go ahead and divert a few thouand pallets to Kim Jong-il, Richard.

Who knows, it may become Kim's Little Blue Book. Stalinist dictators don't have time to research things themselves --and hence have no immune system against ideological viruses.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 8:50 PM

You know, Petey's fall is so breath-taking that I really wish MY could verify for us that it's the same person through some kind of IP check. But even that, I suppose, wouldn't eliminate the possibility of Petey's evil twin having taken over posting duties. The whole saga really makes me wonder if I should re-evaluate the opinion I have of others based on online communication. Who else out there is a time bomb of crazy waiting to explode?

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 9:41 PM

Kim's not likely to read it. My goal is just to get all copies to sit in North Korea and never be seen by ANYBODY.

At least not until Matt answers my two questions on Iran - which would probably ruin his whole rep with the book anyway.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 12:11 AM

Who else out there is a time bomb of crazy waiting to explode?

We're all living on the edge, man, at MY.com.

Posted by otto | April 15, 2008 1:38 AM

"Who else out there is a time bomb of crazy waiting to explode?"

I already did mine in 1993.

As they say, now I'm just amused.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 2:50 AM