By Dylan Matthews
Shorter Jonathan Chait: "I cannot believe that international and domestic politics are distinct phenomena."
Okay, that's a bit unfair. But the point he's making is pretty odd. True, most liberals support increased engagement with "unfriendly" regimes abroad, and many also think negotiating policy with some domestic opponents is counterproductive. Chait paints this picture with way too broad a brush, but it's a fair observation.
That said, it's just silly to chalk this off to differing "assumptions about human nature", as Chait does. Positions on negotiation aren't first-principles convictions rooted in political philosophy, they're strategic arguments rooted in empirical observation. I don't support negotiating with Iran out of a belief in the inherent goodness of man; I support negotiating with Iran because the US has pursued the opposing strategy for the past 30 years, with fairly disastrous results. Similarly, I don't think liberals should avoid negotiating with, say, anti-abortion activists because I believe humans are nefarious creatures that can't be trusted, but because the right-to-life movement has demonstrated that piecemeal concessions like partial-birth bans and parental notification laws won't stop them from agitating for more far-reaching restrictions. The only contradiction here is between the history of US-Iran relations and the history of the American abortion debate. I don't think one can pin that on the hypocrisy of liberals.
And with that I'm off. Thanks to Ezra for letting me stop over again, and to the commenters for the feedback, most of it helpful, and much of it entertaining.
