Democracies, Scandal and Oversight: A Mighty Long Day

As a dual citizen of the US and Canada, I was quite conflicted: which country should be more embarassed, and should I be upset at the scandals or thrilled at the oversight being exercised?  Let's compare the two crises du jour and how they played out.

First, for those not familiar with the Canadian situation, here's the summary: The Trudeau government is in crisis because it kept pressuring the Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to push the prosecutors to give SNC-Lavalin (a big firm mostly based in Quebec and constantly mired in corruption controversies) a deal rather than prosecute.  Yesterday, JWR, who was shuffled out of that role to be Minister of Veterans Affairs and then left the cabinet when this story broke, testified after much discussion about confidences and prerogatives.  And when she did, she ripped a hole in the Liberal government, as she was quite persuasive that she was pushed out because she would not make a deal despite much pressure and much concern by the government that they would lose jobs, and, more problematically, votes in the next election in Quebec. To be clear, SNC-Lavalin did not pay off the government--they threatened to leave to London (UK), which is a dumb threat in the age of Brexit.  This whole thing is very problematic for the Liberals since the last couple of Liberal governments had their own scandals. 

There had been debate about who should be hearing what.  That a parliamentary committee (whose agenda is usually controlled by the government when it has a majority) gave JWR plenty of room to provide her side of things in an election year showed ... that parliament is not utterly irrelevant (my usual starting point), that it can do oversight, as it can put the government's feet to the fire. 

Meanwhile, in the US, the President's lawyer revealed that Trump has probably engaged in at least 14 felonies.  Oops.  That this happened in Congress is due entirely to the Dems winning the House.  The House under the GOP never did anything like this, and the GOP did not cover itself in glory yesterday.  They tried to defend Trump by attacking Cohen, rather than taking seriously that, well, yeah, the President might be a criminal.

So, which hearing wins?  Depends on what you mean by winning.  If you mean:

• Salaciousness: then US wins as Cohen's stuff addressed all kinds of illegal activits.
• Impact on elections: Canada wins since this scandal and yesterday's testimony may cause the Liberals to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
• Identity politics: a draw as the first Indigenous woman to hold major office in Canada spoke out against mostly white men BUT in the US you had a white man use a Black woman as a stunt and then got called on it.*
• Perfomance on TV: the big winners are the new women on the Oversight Committee who demonstrated discipline, focus, and strategery.  AOC did a great job of providing investigations with more names, more trails to follow on tax and insurance fraud.  Tlaib did a great job of calling out Meadows.   Pressley pushed on both the Trump Organization as a fake enterprise essentially for Trump's ego and then focused on Trump as racist.
• Exhausted academics who had much grading to do: nope, we didn't win. 
• Thrilled academics studying comparative legislative oversight (well, over the armed forces, bu close enough): winners all around!

I do think these events put the Trudeau government into deep trouble.  I don't think this will actually change things in the US--it may force the Dems to try to impeach Trump, but as the GOP showed, they will defend him, so the Senate will not convict. 

A good day for oversight, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.  It is going to be a mighty long year.

*Spare me the pity party for Mark Meadows--he knowingly tried to argue that Trump is not a racist because at least one Black person works for him and says he isn't a racist.  And no, this is not the first racist act for Meadows since he repeatedly made birther arguments.  

Social Media: Why Do It?

I teach a 3rd year PhD workshop that is mostly focused on getting students through their dissertation proposals (a roadmap for their dissertation research).  Along the way, we cover other topics, like how to get on conference programs, what kind of non-academic employment there is, and, yes, social media.  Last night, we covered the latter category, and I was surprised at the response: why don't I make money off of it?

I answered thusly:

1. As a professor, I feel an obligation to share what I know beyond the classroom.  We have had endless talks/posts/publications/tweets about reaching beyond the academy--beyond the ivory tower.  This is an easy (cheap!) way to do it.
2. As an endowed chair which has the name of the school on it (now I am really seeking a physical chair that actually has the name on it), I feel obligated to help make the school more visible.
3. As a recipient of grant money, where the application asks for a knowledge dissemination strategy, I feel obligated to disseminate knowledge in any way I can.
4. Doing something where others profit is nothing new--the rents twitter gets from me are far less rapacious than what journal publishers get, and twitter (and google) don't charge people to see my stuff, unlike Elsevier and their ilk.
5. Um, who would pay for it?  Someone mentioned Jordan Petersen raking it in, and I don't think I want to be the leader of a cult.  Reasonable people will not pay money to see me youtube-lecture.
6. Not everything is about money.  I do ask for money if the engagement requires significant time or effort, like if a newspaper asks me to write an op-ed that I had not planned to write or if CBC radio wants me to spend three hours talking to radio stations across the country.

I get heaps of benefits from doing social media--more friends around the world, contacts in interesting places/professions, quicker access to the latest research, simply more info about more things.  I got into this business because I am a deeply curious person, and social media helps me satisfy that urge to know more.  Oh, and I have long had a deep-seated Fear of Missing Out Syndrome, so social media eases that quite a bit.

Oh, and it is fun.  I enjoy it.

Obnoxious Sauce

It has been a long time since I have added a new sauce to my selection of Saideman's Sauces, but I was inspired this weekend to create a new one: Obnoxious Sauce. The basic idea is that someone makes an important and indeed valid point that becomes impossible to agree with because it is made in such an obnoxious way.  I was originally thinking of calling it "dick sauce" as the idea is that a person delivers a good point in such a dickish way that one cannot support it.  But that seemed problematic.

Friends suggested Walter Sauce:


However, that seemed not quite so intuitive to those unfamiliar (gasp!) with the Big Lebowski.  Given that the other sauces have names that are pretty descriptive, obnoxious sauce it shall be (even I have other words in my head).

Foreign Relations vs Defense: A Quick Look at Some Interesting Patterns of Overseers

I saw this tweet

Interesting profile of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen - the only woman on the 22-member Senate Foreign Relations Committee https://t.co/xQnlPe2J7y

— Robbie Gramer (@RobbieGramer) February 25, 2019

and my first response was to consider the Senate Armed Services Committee:
 
 Nine women are on the SASC.  So, it clear is not that national security ain't too cool for women or women are too cool for international relations.  The same pattern, although less extreme applies in the House of Representatives with six women on the Foreign Relations committee and fifteen on the Armed Services committee.

Here's a quick couple of guesses:
1)  Follow the money.  DoD has a huge budget AND this committee (along the House Armed Services Committee) can move money in the budget (unlike damn near every democracy I am studying right now), and there are big electoral benefits to increasing defense spending in one's state and protecting the existing bases in one's state.
2) If one has Presidential aspirations, having experience on the Senate Foreign Relations may have been seen in the past as key to developing one's credentials (Obama, HRC), maybe one consequence of our forever wars is that it may be more important these days to be conversant on defense than on foreign policy (not great).  Notice Warren and Gillibrand choosing to be here and not on SFRC.
3) Who does the media cover?  Related to 1 and 2, one is more likely to be televised overseeing DoD and scrubbing the Acting Secretary of Defense and asking Generals/Admirals to contradict the President than asking State flunkies stuff.

The key assumption behind all of this is that committee service is a drain of time and effort and does not tend to get much votes back home, so Senators try to be strategic.  How much of a role does the party have in assigning people versus Senators choosing?  That is for one of my co-authors to figure out, but I do think this pattern is interesting--that women get assigned/prefer to be on the harder side of security.  Given that female Senators are still relatively scarce, that so many are on SASC and so few on SFRC, it says something about what we value these days.  Unless one thinks that serving on the Armed Services Committee is a punishment or lesser service, which it is most clearly not.

Anyhow, I am sure scholars will be pondering this pattern and others like it.

Globalist? WTF

Over the past few years, I have seen the term globalist on twitter many times over the past couple of years.  Sure, it is mostly an anti-semitic dog-whistle--that those called globalists tend to be prominent Jews.  But besides that or in addition to it, I think the core of the idea/accusation is that a globalist is someone who prefers the outside world than the homeland.  So, today, I saw something about free trade/globalism vs. protectionism and it miffed me.  Why?  Because we already have labels and distinctions for those who prefer freer trade and those who prefer less free trade.

What I am getting at is this: "globalist" is a myth.  There are few people who care more about the stuff outside their country than inside.  We may care about the plight of others, wherever they are, but those who prefer not to undo globalization--the ties among countries--do so mostly because they think the gains of increased ties outweigh the losses of increased ties.

Oh, and disentangling is expensive.  Brexit should demonstrate the costs of removing a country from the web of economic and political exchanges.  The British have already sacrificed a hunk of economic growth, and that has happened even before firms flee, even before students and scholars are deterred from moving to the UK. 

So, in the rhetoric wars, globalist means selling out one's country, I guess.  And, yes, of course, folks will associate Jews with this, as any attack on cosmopolitanism tends to do.  It is the case that globalization has costs, but the answer is not to avoid globalization but to figure out how governments can compensate those who pay the costs and re-train them and develop new jobs for them. 

And, yes, the biggest threat to jobs recently, now and in the future ain't what is happening over there, but the automation revolution at home.  It can be easy to blame free trade, but the machines are taking over many jobs, so perhaps we need to figure out how to provide meaningful employment for those displaced by automation.  This is hard and not emotionally satisfying, so blame others at home and abroad...

All I really want to say is that we should not use the word globalist--because that category is empty.  It can be a slur, but it has no real meaning.  Let's not give it any.

Existential Threats? Oh My?

I missed VCDS Wynnyk's talk,
arriving for the Q&A

I was at the big CDAI Ottawa Conference on Defence and Security last week, even sneaking aboard the final panel after one of the speakers couldn't make it.  As usual, it was a mix of government types and academics and others trying to figure out where Canada stands and what will be needed for the Canadian Armed Forces down the road





Part of the fun of this is watching the defence contractors flog their stuff.  For instance, see this pic and laugh.

Laugh?  Because I can't imagine the Typhoon winning the next fighter competition.  Well, this conference was different from the past in a couple of ways.  The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff spoke as CDS Vance was not around--so I could not ask him a pesky question and he could not give me a snarky answer.  Also, I only asked one question, of the Turkish ambassador, so I didn't get buttonholed by Lockheed or General Dynamics.  Oh, what did I ask the Turkish Ambassador?  His panel was on whether the NATO shield should face east or south, and, as readers of the Semi-Spew know, I have argued for a focus east.  Anyway, I asked what does he want NATO to do in the southern direction (Africa/Mideast)?   He said basically that the allies should not support terrorists (the Kurds in Syria [and Iraq, maybe?]) or cultists who have asylum (the Gulenists).  Since neither of those are really NATO things but mostly gripes about the foreign policies of allies, I am still not sure what NATO should be doing about the southern front.    How does NATO stop migrants? 



My panel was about how the world sees Canada and how Canada can shape that.  I was very proud of Aisha Ahmad, who is to the left in this picuture.  She was sharp and insightful as always, and sometimes even agreed with me!  Bessma Momani of Waterloo is the silly one with the bunny ears.  Christian Leuprecht, off to the side, was the one who got me going.  He kept on referring to existential threats facing Canada.  I did refrain from screaming that Canada faces only one existential threat--nuclear war.  This is not a new threat nor one that Canada can do much about.

But let me address this topic, since this is the weekend of threat inflation (emergency!!!)  Canada, as always, is far away from most of the problems of the world.  For war to visit Canada, it would have to travel across a big ocean or cross the border from the US.  While Trump is very problematic, he is not an existential threat to Canada.  He poses a threat to the Canadian economy--that tariffs on autos would be very damaging, but Canada would be here the day after.  Russia investing in its Arctic?  Let them--it is freaking expensive and it does not help them much in terms of threatening Canada.  It does help Russia manage its warming problem--that folks will start using the northern passage over Russia to get from Asia to Europe and vice versa.  But those bases are not so helpful for seizing Canadian territory in the far north.  Such an effort would be of dubious gain and would be easy to interrupt and hard to sustain.

Climate change is a huge threat to Canada, as well as to any other place.  Existential?  Again, no. 
Diversity?  Ah, that came up--that with so many foreign born, it will be difficult to have a national conversation about foreign policy.  Whuck?  Yes, each ethnic group will care about its kin abroad (I wrote a book or two on that), but each immigrant group becomes good Canadians, which means buying into multilateralism, making a difference, and all that stuff.  Canada has done a great job of absorbing the flows of immigrants, and I really don't expect that to change much.  Of course, xenophobia may threaten that, which means we must push back on threat inflation as that feeds fear of foreigners.  Oh, and also, Canada doesn't have national conversations about foreign policy, so that's not really a threat either.

With Trump making a big stink of an emergency that isn't an emergency, we all have to be a bit more cautious about making things seem worse than they are (see this forthcoming book on Clear and Present Safety).  While nuclear war is possible, it isn't likely.  What is likely, certain even, is climate change.  Yet we panic about other things.  How about we don't panic about "existential threats" and focus on the stuff that will, if unaddressed, harm the lives of our children and grandchildren?

Is Trump a Realist?

Given that I am likely to teach IR Theory next year (for the first time in a long time) and given that some folks like to argue that Trump is a Realist, I can't help myself but respond to this Pence speech in Munich (at the big security conference):

.@VP Mike Pence spoke at #MSC2019 today to lay out the U.S. administration's view on international affairs and the U.S. role in the world. pic.twitter.com/Wy7xHqBk8A

— Security Conference (@MunSecConf) February 16, 2019

 While there are now many versions of realism (Classic, Structural, Offensive, Defensive, Neo-Classical, Constructivist and soon Neo-Neo), there are some core aspects and "seeing the world as it is, not as we would like it to be" is about as core as it gets.  So, too, is focusing less on institutions and law and norms and what is right, but what is best for a country, putting it "first."  That Trump occasionally says that the US should get out of various wars plays well in the Realist Restraint crowd.

However, the fundamental shared component of most, if not all, flavors of realism is that countries pursue either security or power, and that a Realist foreign policy would focus on maximizing one or or the other in a rational way.  That means gathering as much info as one can about the capabilities of the adversaries (and allies), trying to assess which options will lead to which outcomes, and picking the ones that are most likely to do the least harm to one's own standing and perhaps pick those that are most likely to improve one's standing. 

Is Trump Kennan or Kissinger?  That is, focusing on how best to maximize American security or power? Just focusing on the intel end should be instructive---that Trump blows secrets when he pays attention and he mostly does not pay attention to the intel.  How can you maximize security or power if you don't pay attention to the capabilities of the adversaries and the allies? 

Realists tend to disagree about the value of allies, although they are generally seen as more valuable in a multipolar world.  Antagonizing allies by levying tariffs on them is not something most realists would recommend.

Realists would generally argue that allowing one's country to be penetrated by the intelligence efforts of an adversary to be a bad thing.  While realists vary in how important they consider domestic politics, I am pretty sure most would find interference in one's own elections to be problematic and that they would recommend both penalizing the perpetrator and improving one's defenses.  What does Trump do?  Cut the folks doing the defending.

Realists would never give up a bargaining chip without getting something for it--again, maximizing power or security tends to mean not giving things away.  Agreeing to move the US embassy to Jerusalem without getting anything from Israel is the example in my head at the moment, but I am sure we can think of others.  Oh wait, how about meeting with the leader of North Korea, a key concession that they wanted and getting nothing for it?

Containing adversaries is a favorite Realist tactic, so the Trans Pacific Partnership, aimed at containing China, would seem to be a good thing, but was one of the first things Trump rejected.

The whole North Korean situation should drive Realists mad.  That the US bargains hard with South Korea over the costs of basing troops at a time where the US is negotiating over North Korea's weapons programs would seem strange to any Realist, right?  Unless the cost of basing is more important than NK's nuclear weapons programs?

I could go on and on.  The key thing is this: has Trump acted to protect American security and/or maximize American power?  Mostly not.  He has frittered away key elements of American power, mostly for his own personal interests, partly due to his embraced ignorance.  Would Pence have a more Realist foreign policy?  Maybe, hard to be less Realist than Trump's.

Pity Party for the Pardoned Liar

I have no pity for how Elliott Abrams was treated today:

Tense exchange between Ilhan Omar and Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams over his support for US-backed coups in the 80s.

"I fail to understand why members of this committee of the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful." pic.twitter.com/BeprHzPkfy

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 13, 2019

It is pretty basic: if you appoint someone who has pled guilty to lying to Congress, expect them to get some heat when they appear before Congress.  It is not that hard and definitely not surprising.  That it is a particularly controversial new Congressperson is really beside the point.  Someone has got to confront a guy who lied to Congress, especially if he didn't pay for it because he got a pardon.  Pardoning those who lie to Congress tends to give a signal to future folks in the executive branch that you can get away with it.  And, oh, yes, this new administration has been putting out the pardon carrot again and again, and then they appoint a guy who has a very checkered history--not just lying but subverting the will of Congress via Iran-Contra and condoning human rights violations by proxies.  So, the Trump Administration, by appointing Abrams, was telling Congress to fuck off.

So, one Congressperson noted that he has a record as a liar so why believe him?  Then she asked a basic and very important question--do the ends justify the means?  In fighting for democracy or whatever (this administration's record on being pro-democracy is just a wee bit, um, weak), will Abrams and this administration mind just a little bit of human rights violations.  Again, this is basic oversight stuff--Congress asking the executive if they will bend their responsibilities (to faithfully execute the laws of the US) to pursue a goal.  Has this administration given Congresspeople any cause to think they might not respect the law?

So, of course, given the very recent controversial where Congresswoman Omar tweeted about money and Israel (which I criticized), some folks are saying this is an anti-Semitic attack because Abrams is Jewish.  Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.  That is utter bs as Abrams did, indeed, plead guilty for lying to Congress (to avoid trial and perhaps bigger penalties) and was in office when proxies of the US committed human rights violations.  It is surprising that no one else asked these questions and would have been awful had no one done so.  Saying Abrams is being attacked is simply wrong--he is testifying and she is asking questions and put the whole thing in context by reminding folks that he lied to Congress and got away with it.

Maybe we forgot what oversight looked like because the GOP sucks at it. Omar focused on the facts and raised relevant questions about future behavior given past behavior.  What else would one expect of the co-equal branch of the US government, especially of an administration that lies often and does not seem to treat Congress as a co-equal branch?

So, yeah, all those making excuses for Abrams really have no leg to stand on.

Oh, and to bring in Harry Potter, maybe, just maybe, Abrams should show a little remorse.

Criticizing Israel and Its Supporters

I have seen a flurry of stuff online about American politicians and their stances on Israel (for a better thread, see here).  Folks have been talking about the role of money in shaping attitudes and/or policy.  Jews are sensitive to this since anti-Semites have long been blaming Jews for using money in all kinds of unsavory ways.  Also, Jews get upset when folks lump them all into the same basket.  So, we see accusations of anti-Semitism whenever support for Israel is criticized.  So, I am going to take the pieces apart and play the game of "anti-Semitic or not."

Before I get started, a few caveats.  I was born and raised Jewish, but do not believe/observe. I feel my Jewish identity more keenly these days as Trump has given aid and comfort to those who would want me dead, preferably discarded in an oven.  I have never been to Israel, in part because I never wanted to give my father the satisfaction. Now that he has passed away, it may be no accident that I am going to Israel this summer on one of those trips people talk about--where Israelis will try to convince me of the merit of their side of things.  Will that work?  See below.  I tend to resent those who think I should have specific opinions about Israel because of my background.  I tend to see both (all) sides having severe flaws.  But I also believe strongly the #notallx is important here because generalizing about entire groups is how we get into this morass in the first place (despite the fact that my academic work on the IR of ethnic politics tends to treat ethnic groups as actors, oops).

First, the most obvious one: criticizing Israel for various policies is not anti-Semitic on its own.  Criticizing Israel for allowing settlers to build in the occupied areas so that it becomes harder and harder to negotiate a two-state solution is fair game.  So is noticing that Israel has been launching poorly conceived wars.  And, oy yes, it is quite fair game to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu for all kinds of things.  Saying Israel has no right to exist?  That is more problematic--what is the argument?  That no state should enshrine a single religion?  Ok, then lots of states should not exist.  If it is because of its violent origins?  Um, ditto.

Second, one can criticize American support for Israel without being anti-Semitic.  That Israel has developed policies over time here and there that conflict with American interests.  That unthinking and unconditional American support for Israel may not help lead to a peaceful resolution.  That moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea especially trading in this chip for nothing.

Third, and the topic du jour, explaining American support for Israel is a bit tricky.  The go-to move is to focus on AIPAC--the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee--which is widely known to be one of the most effective lobbying organizations.  Others push back, saying AIPAC is mostly pushing on an open door since the American people support Israel.  Here, arguing all or nothing are both problematic moves.  I think the best way to treat AIPAC is to compare it to other lobbying organizations--that it does not represent all those who have some kind of identity affiliation--the NRA does not represent all gun-owners.  Nor is it all powerful as it has lost on some key issues over the years. It is not responsible for all of the big bad decisions in the Mideast (hint: invading Iraq).  Politicians are always agents, having their own agendas so lobbying efforts don't determine what happens.  BUT lobbies do influence.  After all, why spend so much effort on public relations, on meetings, on attempting to persuade if they have no impact.  Why fly folks (such as myself this summer) to Israel if not to make them more sympathetic?  It worked to a degree when Japan flew me to Tokyo although I was already pro-Japan.  It worked a bit less well when Canada flew me to Afghanistan, as I did support the mission before and after, but was more informed and thus more critical after.  The actors that are investing resources in this kind of stuff are betting that it has an impact.

Getting back to the American people's support for Israel--maybe those lobbying for Israel have had some influence on this?  After all, the best way to get a politician to support Israel is to try to get his/her supporters to support Israel.  Again, this is nothing magical nor evil in this--lobbies do this all the time.  Those who study those who lobby for Israel (notice, I don't call it the Israel lobby--more on that in a second) should again consult the literature on lobbies and even on diasporas.

But the key here is this: AIPAC is just one actor.  Another key is that Jews are divided on Israel and are not alone in advocating support for Israel.  To see Jews everywhere as a unified force is problematic and anti-Semitic because it is generalizing about an entire group based on the behavior, actual or imputed, on a segment.  To ignore that others have agendas concerning Israel is also a problem--evangelical Christians have become more uncritical in their support of Israel than Jews.  To be clear, not all of them, but enough of them that the GOP has become more fervent in its support of Israel than the Democrats despite the fact that Jews tend to vote much more for the Democrats.  The rise of "Christian Zionism" is not pro-Jew, as it views Jewish control of a slice of the Mideast as means to an end--the end of days.  I posted before about Steve King and his being pro-Israel.  Indeed, folks have noticed that some throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism have used anti-Semitism for political gain.  Kevin McCarthy, that is you.

k pic.twitter.com/5MsHckVvzg

— Zeddy (@Zeddary) February 11, 2019

One last set of concerns: BDS--Boycott, Divest, Sanction.  Is this movement anti-Semitic?  Damned if I know.  In the abstract, the idea of sanctioning Israel for its policies is not inherently anti-Semitic.  If one can criticize Israel for having bad policies, then it is logical than one can try to impose costs upon Israel for such policies.  But we do not live in the abstract, and this movement includes people who are anti-Semitic.  I also think it is problematic because it is too much of a blanket policy.  I get the idea of not playing Sun City--targeting specific activities and denying the economic exchange--but denying the interaction of Israeli academics (one can say one is targeting institutions but the effect is the same) with academics elsewhere is extremely problematic, using the example I know best.


So, for me, the key moves that make something anti-Semitic in this kind of discussion are:

1. Asserting that Israel or agents of Israel control US policy.  Try to influence?  Sure, but control is going too far and starts whistling the usual tropes.
2. Asserting that Jews are behind everything.  Some Jews, to be fair, give to lobbying groups, fund campaigns, are in government.  But this tends to assume that all Jews are on the same page and that other folks/interests don't matter.  Jews have not made the GOP uncritical supporters of Israel--lobbyists representing segments of the evangelical community have done that.  Asserting the existence of a single Israel lobby is problematic--it is not a single actor.
3. Asserting that everything Israel does is evil.  Some of what it does is bad, much of what it does is misguided, but considering it a source for all evil is problematic.
4. Arguing that American Jews are not loyal Americans.  Every diaspora has members who focus on their homeland, some of these people care more about the homeland, but most are loyal to their new country.  Most American Jews are not Jonathan Pollard (who spied for Israel and was also paid for it).
5. Asserting that it is all about money.  

The challenge is that some folks will touch on some of these deliberately as dog whistles to their anti-Semitic audiences and others may bump into them less deliberately.  I tend to try to separate people by whether they seem to be operating in good faith or not.... so I don't buy Kevin McCarthy's indignation for a second.  But again, that might be my confirmation bias at work.  Ok, not in that case.  Not all criticism of Israel or American support of Israel is anti-Semitism, but some of it is, and given these times, I can see why folks suspect anti-Semitism to be at work.  It often is but not always.

Academic Surprises

Today seems to be a day where I blog about academia and what I have learned over time.  John Holbein inspired this post via:

Things that surprised me about academia:

▪️turf wars
▪️flavor of the week nature of topics/methods
▪️obsession with “framing”
▪️how tired you can get of a project
▪how excited you can get for a project
▪ the # of super smart people who are also super generous

What about you?

— John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) February 8, 2019

What has surprised me, looking back? 

• How strong confirmation bias is a guide.  Since I started, I kept hearing that women and minorities were favored, getting all of the jobs.  As a white male, I found this both threatening and puzzling. Threatening for the obvious reason that I might remain unemployed or employed where I don't want to live/work.  Puzzling because of the stats--that women are 30% or so of IR and that minorities have not made major gains over the years--this view of hiring simply ain't true and yet it persists.
• How the profession would change to become so dependent on adjuncts/sessions/temp faculty and the decline of tenure track positions.
• How little reading of books I do.
• How much reading of graduate student drafts I do.
• How generous folks are with their time--interview subjects in and out of government, friends and acquaintances looking at drafts, etc.
• How the division between profs and staff can be in status and such can be so wide, and how few folks reach across it.
• How much grant-writing there is and how important it is to universities, even for us social scientists.

 Personal surprises: 

• Where my curiosity has taken me--from thinking about arms races when I applied to grad school to maybe something about civil-military dynamics to the international relations of ethnic conflict to the domestic sources of ethnic conflict to alliances to comparative civil-military relations.
• That I didn't manage to dodge principal-agent theory forever.
• How much travel I do these days.

What about you?

The Academic 10 Year Challenge

Thanks to Josh Kertzer, I was inspired to wonder how much has changed in ten years.  He tweeted:

10 years ago, my dissertation looked like this: pic.twitter.com/sc8arAaypi

— Josh Kertzer (@jkertzer) January 26, 2019

For him, ten years ago takes him back to his dissertation.  For me?  Well, I was still at McGill, still an Associate Professor (sigh), still a Canadian Research Chair, and still having pubs on the international relations of ethnic conflict (see old cv here and most recent one here):


No pubs on alliances or civil-military relations yet.  There was no evidence of Canadian defence anything.  On the bright side, no mention of a grant for diaspora research that, well, didn't produce much in the way of results. The research in progress lists as many now dead projects as those that were quite productive:


I was still doing talks on the previous book, which featured xenophobia before it became hip, although I started giving talks on the caveats/alliances/comparative civ-mil project that became my destiny for the next decade.  The co-authors have changed a bit, reflecting the new research agendas.

The list of service stuff got more extensive, including some testimony in Canada and yes, much more reviewing.  In the old CV, I didn't list the PhD students I had supervised, perhaps because only three had completed by Feb of 2009.  Now, I list all of those who have finished or who are past their dissertation proposal.

Oh and one more difference: no twitter address and no blog address.  Those things happened a few months later--spring and summer of 2009.  Pretty sure my reputation, whatever it is now, has a key piece tied to social media presence/activity, and that simply didn't exist ten years ago. 

To be clear, while I liked my career and where it stood (mostly) ten years ago, I am much happier and satisfied where I am now.  I, of course, still suffer from academic guilt--that I could have been more productive, and rejection still is inherent in the enterprise.  Yet, I know that I have been lucky, which is why this is where I usually put Joe Walsh. 

The only real question left is whether this #Academic10YearChallenge is also an effort by facebook  to improve its algorithms.