This passes for thinking at Netroots Nation?
Kevin Drum reports the following from the big how-down: According to an anonymous but well-connected source here at Netroots Nation, the First Law of Foreign Policy Punditry states that the less you know about a region, the more dangerous it must be. Thus, when a foreign policy expert knows nothing about a region, it automatically ...
Kevin Drum reports the following from the big how-down: According to an anonymous but well-connected source here at Netroots Nation, the First Law of Foreign Policy Punditry states that the less you know about a region, the more dangerous it must be. Thus, when a foreign policy expert knows nothing about a region, it automatically becomes elevated to the gravest national security threat we face as a nation. Unfortunately, this sounds oddly plausible. No it doesn't -- if this was true, television and print would be replete with people warning about the manifold dangers of sub-Saharan Africa -- only to find themselves shouted down by the people predicting doom in Bangladesh. There is, however, a selection bias at work in IR punditry. In my experience, TV producers and op-ed editors aren't interested in hearing you say, "nothing has changed" in response to the news du jour. Therefore, one is more likely to hear and read statements by pundits who genuinely believe that recent events are threatening. [So is there a First Law of Foreign Policy Punditry?--ed. Blame any situation on anti-Americanism.]
Kevin Drum reports the following from the big how-down:
According to an anonymous but well-connected source here at Netroots Nation, the First Law of Foreign Policy Punditry states that the less you know about a region, the more dangerous it must be. Thus, when a foreign policy expert knows nothing about a region, it automatically becomes elevated to the gravest national security threat we face as a nation. Unfortunately, this sounds oddly plausible.
No it doesn’t — if this was true, television and print would be replete with people warning about the manifold dangers of sub-Saharan Africa — only to find themselves shouted down by the people predicting doom in Bangladesh. There is, however, a selection bias at work in IR punditry. In my experience, TV producers and op-ed editors aren’t interested in hearing you say, “nothing has changed” in response to the news du jour. Therefore, one is more likely to hear and read statements by pundits who genuinely believe that recent events are threatening. [So is there a First Law of Foreign Policy Punditry?–ed. Blame any situation on anti-Americanism.]
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
