When I saw the announcement that Yglesias was moving from the Atlantic to an explicitly progressive outfit, I speculated to myself that of the two sides of Matt Yglesias, the snarky, righteous partisan must have won out of over the self-honest observer of discourse that made him popular in the moderate right. The discussion on Georgia confirmed my prejudice. This is an important and vital point, and Chait deserved to be smacked down a bit for that glib morality line. But, perhaps by way of condescending concern-trolling, I hope Matt will remember that Chait being wrong there really only helps Matt make his own point, and anger only leads to mutual recrimination, which forces people to take sides, which in turn puts tribalism over argument (as sides are taken for sides' sake), which in turn makes the inevitable ascension of Matt's worldview less inevitable. In other words, the idealism that Matt is right actually has the consequence that Matt being right doesn't do much. Anyway, again, in high condescending mode, this sort of thing was why The Atlantic -> ThinkProgress was cause for concern in my mind. Balance! Stay away from the dark side!

Quoting bramble: MY's god-like echo effect does not help his prognosticatory skills. Chait calls it correctly.

I like Matt, but his voice is too high pitched to be god-like even with an echo.

Quoting Xelgaex: I like Matt, but his voice is too high pitched to be god-like even with an echo.

He is lacking in broadcast vernacular "a set of pipes." John

Dear My Georgian Friend Chait: I have news for you Wake up and smell the coffee! I have been blogging here on Bheads for several weeks in anticipation of my victory in November and my inauguration on January 20. Matt Yglesias is an illegal alien with ties to Al Qaeda. That's a fact. But from you, Chait, I expect more. You should start paying more attention to the Blogosphere and less to the MSM, where the liberals try to eviscerate me every day. Here's something else you may not know about me: I was a prisoner of war for 5 years during the Vietnam conflict. My narrative as an AMERICAN WAR HERO and a POW is concealed from the American people because the MSM and Madonna want to portray me as a war mongerer. Here's some straight talk: As the wisest man in the world, 9-star General Surgin' Dave Patraeus once said to me, "Americans do not mong. Yellow bellies mong. Americans fight." We are all Georgians, my friends. Ba-ba-bomb Iran (that's just a joke). Surrender is not an option. God Bless (not God damn) America!
War is peace (think about it; it's subtle), John

I don't want to directly comment on Russia's actions in Georgia, but should American voters expect that both presidential candidates have a consistent foreign policy in the matters of human rights and frozen conflicts. Next time get Chait and Yglesias to discuss the position of the candidates (not their own) on the following: 1. Georgia and South Ossetia
2. Ukraine and Crimea
3. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh
4. Cyprus
5. Moldova and Transdniester
6. Denying Ethnicity: The Kurds of Turkey (Human Rights Watch)
7 Denying Ethnicity: The Macedonians of Greece (Human Rights Watch) For example: All "western" politicians support Georgia in its war with Russia.. Is this a message to Azerbaijan to re-take Nagorno-Karabakh? Also, as I have pointed out many times in the past, Turkish and Greek human rights values are by definition ... Nato values. Should Nato make reparation payments to the Kurds of Turkey and the ethnic Macedonians of Greece? If Georgia re-takes South Ossetia, the ethnicity of the Ossetians could be wipe off the map without a whimper from Nato. That is a fact! Discuss!

I found a striking contrast between Chait's narrow near-sighted snapshot view of what is a very complex political situation, and Yglesias' historical and contextual view, with projections into the future consequences. It isn't so much that actual concrete opinion that each one holds, but rather the process by which they reach it. Chait makes assumptions, takes the most limited recent historical events and assigns value judgments to each of the sides. Then he pulls the pitiful "morality card" which confirms his immature partiality. Yglesias tried to bring him to reason historically and to have him take a less biased view, but Chait didn't get it. Why is so hard to think of what is the real problem, what are the goals, and what course of action will cause the least damage? That would be responsible morality, not Chait's simplistic view. It seems that the only point of uncontroversial agreement was the promotion of the new rating breaker "John's Straight Talk Show". In the first episode John will invite ten POW's who after a minute of silence, will share with the audience their experiences, and will culminate in an emotional melt down

Chait calls it correctly.

True. But Nunn would have been interesting. His big issue now is the abolition of nuclear weapons. He would have been to nukes what Al Gore is (was?) to global warming. A lost opportunity for world peace. I hope Biden is worth it. The Dem Convention: One of the most boring television events I've ever seen. Pure soporific schmaltz.

[quote=Wonderment;88580]True. But Nunn would have been interesting. His big issue now is the abolition of nuclear weapons. He would have been to nukes what Al Gore is (was?) to global warming. A lost opportunity for world peace. I hope Biden is worth it. The Dem Convention: One of the most boring television events I've ever seen. Pure soporific schmaltz.[/Q Oh, I forgot to write anything with this quote. Yes, the convention is boring. This morning I heard the entire show is being paid for by the lobbyists. The Republican will be even worse - probably being paid for by the same big wigs. Whatever happened to keeping big money out of it? Perhaps, that among many other fables pushed by the two main parties is why I have been an independent for at least the last 10 years. John

Quoting Ocean: I found a striking contrast between Chait's narrow near-sighted snapshot view of what is a very complex political situation, and Yglesias' historical and contextual view, with projections into the future consequences.

It isn't so much that actual concrete opinion that each one holds, but rather the process by which they reach it. Chait makes assumptions, takes the most limited recent historical events and assigns value judgments to each of the sides. Then he pulls the pitiful "morality card" which confirms his immature partiality. Yglesias tried to bring him to reason historically and to have him take a less biased view, but Chait didn't get it. Why is so hard to think of what is the real problem, what are the goals, and what course of action will cause the least damage? That would be responsible morality, not Chait's simplistic view.

Agreed. I'm a Chait fan (I preordered his book -- it's terrific), but Matt was completely right here, once he moved from the glib shorthand and to the substance of his argument. Arms control and terrorism trumps Georgia. And like MY points out at the end, Georgia itself will be better off if American takes a sane

Quoting threep: In other words, the idealism that Matt is right actually has the consequence that Matt being right doesn't do much.

There's something to that, but I think it's really only true in the short run. If the US is going to make a mature transition to the new realities of the planet, we're going to need to think a lot more like him, and a lot less in knee-jerk, good-guys-vs-bad-guys ways. It's going to take some time to get the majority of those in power to adopt this way of thinking, but that's no reason not to start pushing for it now. Ocean's first two paragraphs add to this belief of mine. As for Matt moving to Think Progress, aren't you a little quick to assign guilt by association? Why not just keep judging his blog in and of itself? It's even possible to see this as TP intentionally looking to broaden the range of voices they present, along the lines of, say, the NY Times hiring Safire, Brooks, and Kristol.

Quoting Wonderment: The Dem Convention: One of the most boring television events I've ever seen. Pure soporific schmaltz.

Did you see Michelle Obama? Her speech was spectacular. And the family interaction afterwards was the kind of magical moment that could make the difference in a close election.

claymisher:

I'm a Chait fan ...

Me, too, usually. I do have a problem with his instinct for hawkishness, though, and I'm glad you added your criticism about this.

Quoting Wonderment: His big issue now is the abolition of nuclear weapons. He would have been to nukes what Al Gore is (was?) to global warming.

A lost opportunity for world peace.

How naive, to put it politely, one has to be to equate nuclear disarmament and world peace? Were you sarcastic? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.
The day Russian nuclear arsenal is, in one way or another, neutralized is the day American foreign policy establishment, including 90 percent of bhtv pundits interested in foreign affairs, starts preparing intellectual justification for assaulting Russia militarily. It would be matter of months before Russia is attacked and its territory taken apart.
There is no need to look any further than the time of Bill Clinton’s presidency: America would have surely intervened on behalf of Chechens had Russia not possessed nuclear weapons.

Quoting TwinSwords: And the family interaction afterwards was the kind of magical moment that could make the difference in a close election.

Too "sentimental" for my taste... But, who cares? As long as it works for some people, I'll put up with it.

JoeK: I think you're somewhat right, in particular that abolishing nuclear weapons is not the same as guaranteeing world peace. On the other hand, I think you go too far to say that the only thing keeping the US from invading Russia is their nuclear arsenal. Come on. For one thing, how many other countries have done things that we strongly disliked, who didn't have nukes, that we didn't invade? And for another, I think Iraq has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt how hard it is to accomplish anything, and how many problems are loosed, by unilateral action.

My Fellow changelings; Now you understand why I love my life partner. I did not realize before today, that like me her father was a drunk Lothario, that fathered children from 3 or was it 4 or 5 different women, abandoned them all and died in a tragic accedent in an over inebriated state. How could you not love this woman, abandoned by her mother to be raised by her grandmother who like my own is frightened by black men at the buss stop. She like me has been confused by her blackness and spent years under the influence of Reverend Wright and his version of Black Liberation Theology to find the true meaning of her blackness and disavowal of middle classedness by finally realizing her dream of reaching beyond and rubbing elbows with the rich elites of Hyde Park in our fake Georgian mansion. Sincerely Barack

Total lack of creativity. Deplorable racism. Don't you hate yourself? You should, it would be healthy... I hope you get lost soon. Your post isn't funny or smart or inspired. You are wasting time. Totally hopeless...

Glad you enjoyed it John M and I shall endeavor to keep this campaign on the clean and honest side no mater what the voters decide. Yours until I change my mind Barack

How naive, to put it politely, one has to be to equate nuclear disarmament and world peace? Were you sarcastic? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.

No, to put it extremely politely, it is you who are naive if you think nuclear weapons are sustainable. Even Henry Kissinger has given up on that idea and joined Sam Nunn in the call to abolish nukes. I also think Obama understands that nuclear weapons are obsolete and must be abolished. We'll see. Of course, many naive (remaining polite) hawks share your view, and not just in Russia. You can hear the same argument in Israel, India, Pakistan and Iran.

Did you see Michelle Obama? Her speech was spectacular. And the family interaction afterwards was the kind of magical moment that could make the difference in a close election.

I saw snippets of it, including her Brady Bunch reference (which I had heard before). The entire convention is orchestrated by Obama handlers down to the most minute detail. I preferred Michelle when she still had some spontaneity in her, several months ago. Now the whole spectacle strikes me as corporate and sterile. Sort of like the "It's a Small World After All" ride at Disneyland. Of course, McCain's convention will be nightmarish. Disneyland gone demonic, starring Freddie Kruger and Dr. Strangelove.

Quoting bjkeefe: On the other hand, I think you go too far to say that the only thing keeping the US from invading Russia is their nuclear arsenal. Come on. For one thing, how many other countries have done things that we strongly disliked, who didn't have nukes, that we didn't invade?

It is not always clear what motivates people to care about one violent conflict in a faraway land, while not giving a dam about some other similar situation. Is it naked interest, or some psychological quirk such as a passionate attachment to a nation not their own, or high-minded idealism? One way or another, for some reason I have an impression that American foreign policy establishment will not just let Russia be. I am sure the likes of Jonathan Chait and Robert Kagan would, under right circumstances, be able to make persuasive case that there is something immoral about a country like Russia - given its dreadful history, awful past and appalling present – covering one eight of the Earth’s land area and ruling the peoples it is ruling.

Quoting bjkeefe: And for another, I think Iraq has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt how hard it

1. I agree with Yglesias' point about Kagan's Orwellian campaign. 2. I agree with Chait that TNR and WaPo have run some good articles. 3. I disagree with both that the Georgia episode will be forgotten, because it will become part of the debate about democratization. It started with the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Clinton administration, to Iraq, to Kosovo, and it will continue to Taiwan and Mindanao (and, possibly some African states). The significance, to answer Yglesias, is that this is the moment when global multipolarity exposed American dithering. I agree with Kishore Mahbubani that the US needs to choose between Russia and China. It can no longer do it all. And, this silly debate about means and ends is a consequence of being unable to espouse goals in foreign policy and execute them. Old-school libs like Yglesias and Chait (as well as Beinart and the Truman Dems) annoy me to no end, because it's as if Vietnam never occurred. America is no longer the most powerful state and the norms of the post-WW2, pre-Nixon floating exchange rate regime are no longer viable. It's one of many historical relics.

Quoting JoeK: Similarly, it would be relatively easy for NATO to defeat Russia in a conventional war, in support of separatist movements within Russia.

Possibly, but it might start WW3 too. The current thinking on wars is that the eventual scope follows a power law distribution and that, like earthquakes, you can't predict how big they're going to be. Not that anyone needed complexity science to figure that out. The Peloponnesian War was kicked off by a revolt in a border town in Albania, and raged on for 30 years. Then there's the old Archduke Franz. So you never know.

Quoting JoeK: Similarly, it would be relatively easy for NATO to defeat Russia in a conventional war, in support of separatist movements within Russia.

Why should NATO want to defeat the Soviet Union in a conventional war? When I am president I will use my profound ability to bring both sides together such that the lions will lie with the lambs. The Germans, and most of the NATO countries are already convinced, given the fact that they won't let their troops actually fight, it should be easy to convince President Medvedev to quit being such a bother, around the world, and take into his heart the words of We Are The World. Barack

Quoting Wonderment: I saw snippets of it, including her Brady Bunch reference (which I had heard before).

The entire convention is orchestrated by Obama handlers down to the most minute detail.

I preferred Michelle when she still had some spontaneity in her, several months ago. Now the whole spectacle strikes me as corporate and sterile. Sort of like the "It's a Small World After All" ride at Disneyland.

Well, yeah. It is a show, after all. These things are intended to introduce the candidate and his family to people who haven't paid attention until now. This is for people who up till now have only heard whispers about the "radical activist wife." It's not at all for political junkies like us. You might watch the whole thing. It has its sappy bits and its elements of shameless pandering, to be sure, but it also has a lot of good and genuine moments. I think she connects well on a number of points, and comes across as "someone like us." That's the whole point. (Some great crowd shots, too, even though the clip I found was from C-SPAN.) Be sure to catch the last four minutes. I don't care how cynical you are about the

Yeah those last minutes with the kids were adorable. Actually, I cringed because I thought the little one would really gaffe. Notice how they fought for mike time, too. I think Obama wanted to do much more with that family in KC, too. I thought Michelle outdid Hillary. The Rodham's are not even remotely middle class. I think Michelle communicated the struggle between family and work much better than Hillary, with some activist creds to boot. I also think she relieved Barack of talking about his family, so he can talk about policy. On my blog I argued that she came across as Barack's touchstone, where Barack's experience made him unique but not very marketable. I can't see Cindy McCain topping this, because there's too much reporting out about her family in Arizona.

Greetings from Tbilisi, the capital of the "meaningless country" Matthew so glibly dismisses. I think he meant to say a "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom I know nothing."

Following up on reactions to Michelle Obama's speech ... Roy Edroso, more cynical than I, put it this way:

The wife of a Presidential aspirant need only resemble a likable human being, and this Michelle Obama achieved. She was also complicated enough to hold interest. She too is only an amateur speaker, but she has just enough poise to draw our admiration, and not so much that we don't appreciate the effort she expends in maintaining it. I was aware that her address was crafted to appeal to a wide audience, but the patriotic tells didn't bother me, because I could see that she wasn't there for her own sake, or even just for her husband's or her family's. The harsh necessity of countering the ugly stories that have been circulated about her may have forced her into a speech more programmatic than she, or even we, would have liked, but it would take more than a little boilerplate to conceal that she knows both how fortunate and how worthy of fortune she is. People tend to like a person like that, even if they first encounter her when she's giving a speech at a Rotarian dinner.

Quoting Baltimoron: I think Obama wanted to do much more with that family in KC, too.

Yeah, I had the sense he was thinking the camera on him was going to be able to pan or something. That's probably for the best, though -- they probably don't need Michelle Malkin posting their pictures on her blog (along with "investigative reporting" on what kind of countertops they have).

I can't see Cindy McCain topping this, because there's too much reporting out about her family in Arizona.

I hope she uses her private plane line again.

Quoting Jonathan Kulick: Greetings from Tbilisi, the capital of the "meaningless country" Matthew so glibly dismisses. I think he meant to say a "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom I know nothing."

Say hello to Borat, or does he live in Tskhinvali?

Quoting Jonathan Kulick: Greetings from Tbilisi, the capital of the "meaningless country" Matthew so glibly dismisses. I think he meant to say a "quarrel in a far away country between people of whom I know nothing."

I agree it was a very poor choice of words.The U.S. picks and chooses among the many important international conflicts that exist, whichever serves its own purposes at the moment. It's a shady tactic. Matthew was trying to make that point rather than demean any country. Again, a poor choice of words for a worthy attempt to bring some perspective.

Quoting Ocean: I agree it was a very poor choice of words.The U.S. picks and chooses among the many important international conflicts that exist, whichever serves its own purposes at the moment. It's a shady tactic. Matthew was trying to make that point rather than demean any country. Again, a poor choice of words for a worthy attempt to bring some perspective.

Oh, give me a break! Matthew doesn't have anything to apologize for. It is perfectly normal not to care about the fate of strange people in faraway lands. Those who report different preferences are real freaks here. And, by the way, I suspect foreign-policy hawks are more motivated by anti-Russian than pro-Georgian sentiment. There is only one shitty little country they sincerely care about and that ain't Georgia.

Here is an interesting report from blogger/reporter Michael Totten who went to Georgia to report on the story (he has also reported from Iraq, Lebanon and the Balkans).

Quoting JoeK: Oh, give me a break! Matthew doesn't have anything to apologize for. It is perfectly normal not to care about the fate of strange people in faraway lands.

OK, I'll give you a break. sort of. I would say that not caring is perfectly common, not necessarily normal. Otherwise, we would get into a discussion about what is considered normal, and I suspect we don't want to do that.

Those who report different preferences are real freaks here.

Do you mean those who may care are real freaks?
I'm a real freak then, with some caveats. Although in principle one should equally care about all countries (I think), I know that I don't. Furthermore, I don't know whether anybody does. There are countries way up on my list, and others way down. But I wouldn't have the arrogance to say that any country is meaningless. And I tend to think that people that have certain principles would agree with that. But you are right. I don't really know what Matthew thinks.

And, by the way, I suspect foreign-policy hawks are more motivated by anti-Russian than pro-Georgian sentiment. There is only one shitty little country they sincerely care about and that ain't Georgia.

I agree with you. That's the shady part. Whether it's a