Here's the thing. Steve Walt is wrong about everything and wrote a antisemic-adjacent book about the "Israel Lobby" that got him way too much purchase with people who should know better because it critiqued Israel policy.
Yes and no. One of the strange things about that book is that JJM and SW wrote it because they were so miffed that their lone stand against the Iraq war (despite the fact that most IR scholars opposed it) didn't mangae to stop the march towards war, so they had to blame someone so they blamed Jews.
He was Dean at the Kennedy School when I was there. Let's just say, after having attended an event on ME Politics that he moderated while I was their, I was less than shocked that he blamed Jews. I have had no reason to take him seriously since then.
On the contrary, Academia is EXACTLY the meritocracy we imagine it to be. It turns out that the definition of "merit" depends on whoever happens to be at the top of the hierarchy at any given time.
One of the biggest issues facing the world is that these extremely-wrong experts just get to continue being extremely-wrong and are still, somehow, wildly, considered experts.
But the reverse is a bigger problem. In science, for example, it is the job of experts to correct other experts and thus to reach a consensus about a scientific issue. Which is always about probability; it’s rarely settled science. Too many people misunderstand how science works and despise experts.
In the case we’re focused on, the expert tried to predict the future, which isn’t something that any of us can do with assurance. The best anyone can do is offer a guess with a big dose of humility. Then, if we’re wrong, reflect on why. And write about it. I don’t know if this fellow has. He should.
Anyone who was paying attention understood this. The reason US foreign policy was kind of normal during the first term is because he needed normal Republicans credibility. Now he doesn't need them and it's sycophants all the way down because the US Senate is controlled by Republicans that are scared
Folks like that probably still believe in that age old myth that Reps are stronger on national security issues 🙄 They can’t comprehend the extremism of the current party
The problem has been a total lack of imagination on the part of professional prognosticators.
It’s the only way to explain how they could have looked at the assembled data points and _not concluded that something like this was the likely outcome
(Also, this is the second time in last few days on this site that I’ve seen a “follow back” notice for someone I was sure I was already following. Anyway, I clicked it.)
Walt's had multiple articles in FP arguing for an appeasement policy with Putin, citing Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics.
His argument really collapsed after the Russia invasion.
I just started revising my US foreign policy syllabus for next quarter and realized I had assigned this last year, as an example of realism. Thinking I might keep it on - as an example of the pitfalls of realism.
Interesting. I would have thought maybe an inclusion of The Israel Lobby as an illustration of the limits of realism. There's a reading of that book that about realism's limits and what to do when that analytical tool fails as an explanatory resource.
At the time it came out, I was still doing the international relations of ethnic politics and was offended at how little work they did on diaspora politics--that is, there are many ethnic lobbies.... how is this one different or not?
That was absolutely the take within DOD too. I heard several senior leaders express slightly different versions of, "policy might change slightly, but the nature of the threat won't change."
Wishful thinking is a hell of a drug. Walt is a prisoner of the theory he drank as a grad student. The DoD types didn't want to think about what might happen. For those whose job is to do worst case thinking, it was just too dark.
This was my experience both w/ many European NATO folks in Norfolk and others over in Europe as well, holding out hope for business as usual both last spring and post-November. Not so much anymore.
Another really useful piece - thanks for sharing (+ writing)! In emphasizing the individual leader, though, it may slightly (only slightly) underemphasize the importance of cult of personality / party shift from 1st term to 2nd term. Same leader personality but no checks = big policy shift.
I think the realist counter will be: the system has been changing in a way that necessitated a fundamental shift from Europe to Asia and Trump is the earthquake that is bringing policy in line with underlying systemic conditions. Just not clear how much he is really shifting to Asia, though.
That might make sense if there was nit a munkey ripping the wires out of the machinery, reducing state capacity. Plus siding with Russia against Ukraine is shitty balancing
Don’t want to defend realism, but the argument will be that retrenching in one region to meet a rising challenger in another makes good sense (see British retrenchment from the Western Hemisphere in late 19th c). The deliberate destruction of state capacity is the more anomalous behavior.
I will never understand how (offensive) realists concoct arguments that the structure of the intl system compels the United States to surrender to the poor rump state of the empire the US defeated. They should argue that PRC and US should divide Asia at the Urals
I've often thought this is a long term PRC goal. People east of the Urals have been mistreated by Russia including a disproportionate part of the Ukraine War. If nationalism grows in Russia, China will make a play for the areas closest to its borders. They have a superior claim there than Taiwan.
There’s nothing structural about pivoting to actively help the rump state of a former rival—which has 1/10 the military budget and less than 1/10 the GDP, not to mention fewer allies—gain relative power against yourself and your allies. If anything, the opposite.
Still doesn't quite top Paavo Väyrynen's 1988 PhD thesis, in which he confidently asserted that the Soviet Union was going to remain and that the split of Europe was permanent. Väyrynen had been Finland's actual foreign minister for the 10 preceding years.
Comments
Walt is a Berkeley grad, studied under one of the very sharpest IR scholars.
For him, it is "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". That guy's name keeps popping up wherever Kremlin interests are lobbied.
I daresay it appears to be his DAY JOB.
But I bet he still has a job.
I have poor impulse control and am easily trolled.
And I have referred to those two as the trolls of IR for some time.
#cheerio
exhibit a: Clash of Civilzations
b: anything Robert Kaplan wrote.
It’s the only way to explain how they could have looked at the assembled data points and _not concluded that something like this
(Also, this is the second time in last few days on this site that I’ve seen a “follow back” notice for someone I was sure I was already following. Anyway, I clicked it.)
His argument really collapsed after the Russia invasion.
At the time it came out, I was still doing the international relations of ethnic politics and was offended at how little work they did on diaspora politics--that is, there are many ethnic lobbies.... how is this one different or not?
But parties and politicians apparently matter.
There’s nothing structural about pivoting to actively help the rump state of a former rival—which has 1/10 the military budget and less than 1/10 the GDP, not to mention fewer allies—gain relative power against yourself and your allies. If anything, the opposite.