Heads in the Sand

If you have spent the last several weeks perusing the blogosphere and asking yourself, "Self, do I really want to order a copy of prominent American political blogger Matthew Yglesias' new book Heads in the Sand when I could just as easily pay no money to keep reading 200-word posts on the Internets?", then keep in mind that Heads in the Sand just won the Jamie Kirchick primary.

When your copy of the book arrives, you'll find that one of its many key insights is that the process of international institution building is long and slow and requires plenty of refinement over time, but is ultimately the stable and liberal way forward. The fact that one can point to moments in the last half century when international institutions weren't up to the tasks at hand or failed to engage certain problems isn't evidence of their obsolescence--it's to be expected. The problems are hard! One ought to look at those failures aside the the myriad successes of those same institutions and conclude that the system should be allowed to mature, not left to crumble. I don't really have any interest in fisking Kirchick's whole review, but if you want to get a sense for the bad-faith manner in which conservatives conclude the opposite--argue, in essence, against the basis of liberal international order--you should give it a read. If, however, you're familiar with Kirchick and that line of thinking, then you might as well just go enjoy your Friday.