A few weeks ago, I wrote about a review of my book by Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman. I thought that she had a lot of good points, intriguing notions worth thinking about.
But I was very annoyed that she just plain ignored the facts of my argument. She wrote, “It’s hard to see how the horse-trading that achieved partial compensation for dispossessed investors was terribly different from any other bruising business transaction.” Only I presented lots of evidence that there was no horse-trading! The American investors got everything they wanted, and more.
Now along comes Arnold Kling to write about the decline of American empire hegemony. He writes of a possible cycle in which the U.S. feels less prosperous because there is less globalization, making its government less willing and able to intervene in the world, leading to more disorder and less globalization ... repeat. It is an intriguing notion, worth thinking about.
Only he goes on to just plain ignore the facts. He writes, rather unbelievably, “On a related note, what should we make of the fact that in response to the murder of one of its citizens, the United States is less forceful than Jordan?”
What??? Between February 5 and February 8, Jordan launched 56 airstrikes. And as of January 19, the United States Air Force alone had launched 9600, not counting sorties by U.S. Navy aircraft. Moreover, our F-22s escorted all of the Jordanian F-16s on those retaliatory raids that have Kling all kvelling.
So what in the name of God is Arnold Kling talking about? I find his speculations interesting and I am fine with his opinion. But I am very annoyed that he is just plain ignoring the facts.
Hegemony!
*fist pump*
Posted by: Will Baird | February 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM
In all seriously, WTF is Arnold Kling talking about? Where does the impression come from? I'm not asking if it's crazy; we know it's crazy. I want to know from whence the craziness and if it's serious inability to process unpleasant facts or just superficial pseudo-partisan posing.
(BTW, and I do mean this as a compliment, Tyler Cowen is one of the few truly non-partisan serious bloggers that I know of. And that includes his orthodox libertarian co-bloggers, who really do fit quite well into the Republican mainstream.)
Posted by: Noel Maurer | February 14, 2015 at 07:37 AM
Comments were decent after the first few...
I think the original post by Fonzy Shazam is not very clear, and that effectly led to Arnold Kling just taking three isolated and out-of-context points and running to the Marianas Trench with them.
From what I can gather what Cowen talked about, I'm like..."get thee to a political economy professional, pronto!"
Posted by: shah8 | February 14, 2015 at 08:29 PM
It's easy for Arnold Kling to opine about the US not being forceful enough. He just turned 60 so it's pretty unlikely he will be drafted in the event of a "more forceful" response.
Posted by: Jonathan | February 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM
Partisan posturing, ja. But also the nature of this odd little war against ISIS. 9600 sorties, you say, but where are the statues toppling, where are the "These Colors Don't Run" t-shirts? Libya in 2011 was like this. Obama's wars are carried on with a sort of meek domestic propaganda that leaves you wondering if he was truly serious about them to start with. Kling wants chest-thumping, Bush-in-a-flight-suit speeches, Stormin' Norman trading cards, etc. I'm nearly 35, and all the wars in my lifetime were like this, save maybe the abortive Lebanon intervention in the 80s. Even Grenada had a better press.
TL;DR. For a certain type, you have to kill foreigners *and brag about it*.
Posted by: Cherry Venoy | February 19, 2015 at 12:30 AM