I don't know who Joseph Nye is listening to that he's still hearing a lot of realists whine about abandoning the UN, but his column seems rather the wrong way to go about answering them. He's right to distinguish the institution's hard and soft power, and right to note that its paralysis isn't endemic to the body but the result of disagreement amongst member states, but that's exactly what the so-called "realists" loathe. They don't think American power should be constrained by disagreements with other states. That's their point.
The answer, rather than clarifying that this is what the UN does, needs to center on why this is a good thing, and how voluntarily restraining our power works to further our overarching interests. Happily, The American Interest magazine has a forum this month on exactly that. And if you don't like reading magazines, the long-awaited Yglesias book has much to say on the topic. But one way or the other, folks need to grow more comfortable with this argument, as it's not only the contemporary dividing line between liberal and conservative foreign policy visions, but it's actually a rather necessary argument to have.
