Reflections on L’Affaire Lebow

Something completely new here at the Semi-Spew: a guest post.  Dr. Nora Bensahel puts the Lebow Elevator controversy into perspective.  She is a Distinguished Scholar inResidence,School of International Service, American University, and Contributing Editor, War on theRocks.

When I first heard about The Elevator Incident, I started thinking, like most of my female colleagues, about what I would have done in that situation.  Lots of ink has now been spilled about whether Simona Sharoni did the right thing in filing a formal complaint against Richard Ned Lebow about the sexist comment he made in an elevator at the 2018 ISA Convention.  But then I realized that this debate, while important, has overlooked a deeper question that also needs to be asked: to what extent does the profession as a whole bear responsibility for this and other similar incidents?

I’ve been thinking about this question a lot, because I was one of Lebow’s students many years ago and was utterly appalled by his unprofessional behavior.  This is not a #metoo story; I’ve already written one of those.  To be crystal clear, I do not recall Lebow saying anything in class that could be interpreted as gender discrimination or sexual harassment.  But it is a story about the larger themes of the #metoo movement.  It’s about a professor who took advantage of the students in my class and failed to meet one of the most basic obligations of the profession, and yet remains among the most highly regarded scholars in the profession.  And that means it is a story about the profession itself, about the questions we should be asking ourselves – including whether the fact that he has never been held accountable for his behavior helped create the sense of entitlement that led him to dismiss Sharoni’s complaint as “frivolous.”

In the spring of 1992, I was a junior at Cornell University, and as an eager IR-nerd-in-training, I enrolled in Lebow’s course on the transformation of the international system since 1989.  My enthusiasm for the course quickly dissipated, however, as my classmates and I witnessed the astonishingly unprofessional behavior of our professor.  The class featured many guest lecturers, but Lebow failed to attend some of those class sessions.  He arrived to lecture one day clad in a sweaty running t-shirt and shorts, and spent the class doing cool-down stretches while he lectured.  Even as a student, I could overlook those things as among the (gross) eccentricities common to university professors.  But with three weeks left in the semester, Lebow crossed the line into absolutely unacceptable territory: he abruptly announced that he was done teaching the class, and that we should not bother showing up again until the final exam.

My classmates and I were utterly outraged, and I remember calculating how many of my parents’ hard-earned tuition dollars had just been wasted.  Our fantastic TA, Marc Lynch (now one of the foremost scholars of Middle Eastern politics) pulled together a final lecture to at least try to tie up the mess that Lebow left behind.  The Cornell Daily Sun published a blistering editorial denouncing Lebow and calling for some sort of clear punishment, and I was stunned that the university did not respond (at least in any public way).  I then learned that it was Lebow’s last semester at Cornell, and that he was about to move to the University of Pittsburgh.  In my naivete, I was sure that this abuse of his power over his students would lead Pitt to pull his job offer. 

But of course that did not happen.  Lebow went on to teach at Pitt.  And at Ohio State.  And at Dartmouth.  And at LSE.  And now at King’s College London.  Even more universities considered hiring him, which means that they all implicitly condoned his behavior.  He has continued to be rewarded throughout his career, winning some of the most prestigious awards in the field, and was even named a Fellow of the British Academy.  I’ve watched these developments from afar over the years, angered anew with each public recognition.  But it wasn’t until The Elevator Incident, occurring within the context of the #metoo movement, that I started thinking about the story I told above as one of power and privilege, and about the role of the profession in fostering a culture of entitlement and impunity.  I realize that it is one anecdote that happened a long time ago – but I suspect that it may not be the only such story in his lengthy career.

Nothing that I’ve written is explicitly about age or gender or race.  But it is absolutely about power and entitlement, which cannot help but be related to those things.  Replay the story I told above, but replace Lebow with an untenured junior colleague.  Or a woman.  Or a minority.  Or a minority woman.  Or a junior minority woman.  Does anyone believe that the story would have the same ending, without any sort of censure or professional consequences?  I hope not, because that shouldn’t be the end to the story.  The problem isn’t that a junior or female or minority professor would face consequences.  The problem is that this senior white male professor didn’t face any.  How many other Lebows are out there, colleagues who have benefited from the same culture of privilege and yet are not making news headlines – who would have had the good sense to apologize, even in the most insincere way possible, just to make the story go away?

Maybe that’s why this story, in the end, may be a #metoo story after all.  Maybe what happened in that elevator, and the sense of entitlement that Lebow displayed, isn’t solely about one man being a jerk.  Maybe it’s the type of behavior that partly results from spending your entire career having your behavior being excused or overlooked by your peers, without ever being held accountable even when you abuse your power by failing to meet some of the most basic requirements of the profession.  And maybe that’s why the broader debate about l’affaire Lebow needs to extend beyond the (legitimate) questions about sexual harassment and grievance procedures, and to also debate the extent to which the profession itself bears responsibility for the bad behavior of members who operate in the culture of privilege and entitlement that it has created.

Measuring Time in the Trump Era

Time always seems relative but especially now.  We often see people complain on Tuesday whether the week is over yet.  This is doubly true for comparing the tenures of the various ex-Trump officials. 
People have been using Scaramucci or Scaramooch to measure something in between a week and a fortnite (although wikipedia has him as lasting six days), but that is not the only unit of time we have:

• Flynn lasted twenty-four days or 2.4 Scaramooches
• A Preibus, also known as a Spicer, is six months (Preibus was 6 months, 11 days and Spicer was 182).
• A Gorka, or Do-Nothing Nazi, is 217 days or almost 22 Scaramooches.
• An Over-Rated Adult is 400 days (Tillerson was 405, McMaster 412) or 40 Scaramooches or about 17 Flynns.

The conversions are pretty awkward, so this is definitely not a metric system.   Indeed, it is more like the conversions for currencies in Harry Potter.

All this speaks to how short the terms are in Trumpworld.  These are not the best people--far from it.  And Trump seems to like chaos and turmoil.  So, when folks ponder John Bolton, it is not so much whether he has done damage yet, but how much damage he will do while he lasts, whether he is in office for a couple of Flynns or lasts as long as an Over-rated Adult.

Oh, and yes, a Trump is, alas, four years, even though it feels like forever especially if you think of it as being  146 Scaramooches or more than 60 Flynns.  The bright side is that 1 Trump is also 1/6000 of an Old Republic. A blink of an eye, really.

Declaring Victory and Minor Travel Observations

I have several hours before I go to the airport and am procrastinating my transcribing of my last few interviews.  So, I blog, of course.

I am very, very grateful as always for the kindness of strangers.  My work on this project (and the one before it) would not be possible without people willing to make connections for me and without people willing to chat with me about their country.  Last night, I had dinner with Robert Kelly and most of my research team.  I know Professor Kelly due to our overlapping membership at the Duck of Minerva.  He provided me with the names of some folks who could help me.  Well, those people couldn't but they referred me to some of the young women in this picture.  Yunyi, the women on the right, is just an undergraduate but proved to be a fixer par excellence, arranging interviews with retired generals, representatives on the National Assembly defence committee, Ministry of National Defense officials and more.  I was somewhat panicked three weeks ago, thinking that I would not be meeting with anyone, but Yunyi pulled my schedule together.  The other two women, Cathy and Annika, were excellent interpreters, making it possible for me to interview anyone who was willing to talk to me.  They were also quite sharp, giving me insights into the tone of those speaking with me.  They are both learning to be professional interpreters, and, in my opinion, are ready to start their careers.

Seoul and South Korea have been very kind to me.  I also got to drink and dine with a student who I last saw twenty years ago.  He is now a Lieutenant Colonel with the American troops based here.  The night before last, I had dinner with a group of American professors, officers, and contractors as well as a couple of other academics and a Canadian officer.  They were not shy in sharing their views.

So, what did I learn or observe along the way?

1. Hotel buffets teach me that my diet habits are not the worst.
2. I really don't need someone else to push the elevator button to summon one, but thanks I guess.
3. I think wishful thinking is a thing since the Koreans are mostly cautiously optimistic about the state of things with North Korea and Trump. The outsiders?  Much closer to my stance of relentlessly pessimistic.
4. Tom Petty was right as I woke up each morning knowing that I had a day's worth of email waiting for me and yet no word from the grant application that I had busted my ass for in March.  Oy.
5. Seoul is super-hilly.  If I hadn't known it before, I know now why nearly every Korean war battle seemed to be named after a hill.  But not much in the way of earthquakes.
6. The gas masks I have seen are not due to the threat of NK WMD but apparently due to a spate of fires a decade or so ago, which has produced much greater fire preparedness.
7. Paying one's research team in cash (far easier than wiring to students in a foreign country) with thick envelopes felt, um, Michael Cohen-eseque.
8. I still feel the pain of embarrassment when watching a teenager approach a person with romantic interest in mind with the probability of failure being quite--tis why I am stuck on episode two of Cobra Kai!
9. I think South Korea's flag may be in the top two or three prettiest flags.  

Anyhow, I have heaps of travel ahead, and I wanted to note what I had seen before the travel addles me further.  As always, I am very, very lucky.

ISA Sexual Harassment in the News

Ah, the ISA never gets in the news in a good way.  Last time, it was my blowing up an ISA proposal on blogging.  This time, it is their reaction to a complaint about sexual harassment at a conference.  I have been reluctant to comment because: a) I am in Korea doing fieldwork and spent most of my typing in poor ergonomic conditions on transcribing notes; b) this is very much a tempest in a teapot kind of thing, getting far more attention than other, more severe problems in the discipline; and c) as a white guy, I am probably not the best to judge whether this joke/complaint/reaction/counter-reaction is problematic or not. 

Having said that, of course, I have thoughts, and as someone who has commented much on sexual harassment in the discipline, folks have asked what I think about this episode.  So, here I semi-spew about this incident.

First, tone matters a great deal, so we don't know how snide or not Lebow's tone was.  But making a joke to the guys at the expense of the women, which is how the story sounds, is not good and not appropriate.
Second, Lebow has a reputation in the discipline which makes it hard to judge things--he is seen as a difficult person, so I am not surprised that he is, in my view, overreacting.  He should have taken his lumps: "I am sorry.  I made a bad joke, and I offended you" and moved on.  Instead, he pushed back and wanted to publicize it all.  Congrats to him on blowing this up. 
Third, hierarchy matters--Lebow is a big name in the field so with great power comes great responsibility.  Contra to Roseanne Barr, punching up with jokes is more acceptable than punching down.  Indeed, that is one way to challenge the powerful. I remember quite clearly that I made a joke about a junior woman's appearance (her height) at a conference, the person called me on it, I felt abashed and ashamed, I apologized, and I don't think I repeated that behavior since.  Would I have behaved differently had it gone directly to an ISA procedure?  I don't know, but I probably would not have been looking for media outlets to air my side. 
Fourth, I feel for the ISA folks, as they faced no good choices in this, and now they look like humor scolds.
Fifth, contra to this piece, yes, one can make jokes that involve sex at conferences but you do it with your friends and not complete strangers.  Context matters and audiences matter.  So, saying you can't joke at conferences and can't joke about sex is simply wrong.  But the content and context of the joke matters. Sure, "ladies lingerie" does not have much content to it, but in a small box full of strangers, it is a bad context. 
Sixth,  I can't really judge Simona Sharoni as I don't know her and have not been in her shoes.  But I have seen enough sexism in academia to understand that senior women are fed up with a lifetime of accumulated grievances and react when they see more of it.  Would this be a hill I would die on?  No, but again, white guy who has faced not much sexism or other identity-based difficulties over my career. 

Most importantly, I worry that this incident will be used to trivialize complaints about sexism and sexual harassment.  I saw this every year when I was at Texas Tech, as the yearly sexual harassment training session turned into a competition among the senior men in the department to undermine the presenter.  As that department was thoroughly toxic at the time due to the sexual harassment by one of my colleagues, this trivialization of the issue was incredibly problematic.  Sexual harassment is real, and sexism matters a great deal (see all of the work on citations, on leaky pipelines, and all the rest), so focusing on whether "women's lingerie" as a joke distracts us from the more serious issues facing women in political science and international relations.  For some, this is an opportunity to do exactly that--distract us from the serious issues.  For others, they see this as part of a larger pattern.  And I stand with the latter, as I have seen the former do too much damage. 

Trump and IR 101: Iran Edition

I am not an expert on Iran or on nuclear proliferation, but I have taken Intro to International Relations, so I apparently know more than Trump and his guys.  Yes, taken.  You don't have to teach Intro to IR to know more than these folks--the bar is low.  So, what did I learn in that class and what did I teach over the years that Trump,  Bolton and whoever else simply do not understand:

1. Sovereign countries have agency. Sure, countries may pay costs for disagreeing with the most powerful actor, but they have the ability to decide.  So, you can't just do X and expect everyone to go along, whether they are friends or foes.  Indeed, every country has its own domestic politics and its own national interests.  Sucks, but there it is. 
2. Which leads to: cooperation is not easy but generally required.  For instance, unilateral sanctions do not work unless one is the only supplier or buyer of a good/service.  The US sanctioning Iran can do some modest damage, but to really punish Iran, the US will need Europe and probably Russia and China to get on board.  Why should they?  Wishful thinking?
3. Strategic thinking is key.  To be clear, this means that one needs to figure out not just what one wants, but what others want, so that one can figure out ways to get others to do what you want.  My best illustration for this was always my dogs--who remain more strategic than Trump despite both dogs being dead for seven and ten years respectively.   
4. The security dilemma is a thing: unilateral efforts to improve one's security will cause others to react, improve their defenses, which ultimately leaves every less secure.  So, yeah, Iran pursuing nukes may very well lead to Saudi Arabia pursuing nukes.  Good times. 
5. Which leads to this: repeatedly issuing threats is a bad idea.  We IR folks tend to teach WWI for many reasons, but one of them is that the Germans thought they could cow everyone into bending to them.  Instead, they provoked alliances against them.  Trump thinks he got denuclearization in Korea (nope, he didn't) because he threatened a lot, so now he is going to apply "maximum pressure" everywhere.  This will only come back to bite in a big way.  I won't get into the details of Prisoner's Dilemma vs. Chicken here, but the basic idea is that if you keep on playing chicken, at some point, someone is going to escalate and it won't end well.  

Drezner blogged today (ish, since I am living in tomorrow for the moment), arguing that agreements are always flawed so the question is not whether an agreement is flawed, but do you have a better one in mind and a plan to get there.  Trump has no plan because that would require some knowledge of international relations, some ability to engage in strategic thinking, some discipline, and some work.  So, nope, not going to happen. 

One last thing: as old IR colleague of mine commented on my fb page: individuals matter.  Trump reminds us of this everyday.   Not all Intro to IR classes take individuals seriously.   I had a lecture or two on individuals, but spent most time talking about the importance of domestic politics and the dynamics of the international system.  Why?  Because the "great man" view of IR, including its inherent sexism, is what students get before they show up at college.  But if I were teaching Intro to IR these days, I would probably spend a smidge more time... not just because of Trump but also because folks are thinking more seriously about it (we did in our NATO book).  

Trump and the Iran Deal: We Need More Hot Takes! Stat!

Perhaps we don't need more hot takes on Trump's decision, but I often use this blog to clarify my thinking or at least enumerate my outrage.  So, the question du jour is: is this the dumbest decision in US foreign policy history?  The contenders are: Vietnam, invading Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi military overnight, and ditching the Iran deal.  Recency bias tells us we can forget about the Vietnam War.  Ok, maybe not. 

When I think of ranking dumb decisions, I focus not so much on the total damage (Vietnam and Iraq war will contend on body counts, financial costs, ramifications for alliances, etc) but on comparing the likely upside/downside ahead of time.  That is, was this a difficult decision or was it a no-brainer that the opposite should have been done.  Via that standard, today's dumbness competes only with disbanding the Iraq army as decisions that had very little going for them and very much going against.  Vietnam?  Each incremental decision was a tough one--help France or abandon an ally?  How best to confront communism? Once in, do you go with the corrupt, incompetent government you have or one that might be better? And on and on. 

To be fair to the Bush Administration, Iraq was a tough policy problem as the sanctions were harder to sustain and they were punishing the people without hitting the regime very hard, that Hussein was trying to have it both ways--that he did and didn't have weapons of mass destruction programs, and so on.  Still a dumb decision given how likely it was to empower Iran, but one could see some upside in eliminating Hussein (which was the goal of the effort, not much more than that really).  But disbanding the Iraqi army?  No upside as we know that firing lots of young men with guns is a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. 

So, let's consider the pro's and con's of getting out of the Iran deal:
Pro's

1. Makes Trump feel good about ditching an Obama legacy
2. Makes Netanyahu happy.
3. .... 

That's all I got.

Con's 

1. Removes key impediment for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
2. Antagonizes allies even before Trump starts punishing European firms for trading with Iran.
3. Should make it harder to make a deal with North Korea since it shows that the US won't keep its end of a bargain.
4. Increases the probability of conflict with Iran.
5. Plays into the hands of China and Russia.

That's just a start.  I am sure we can add to this list.

Why is this happening?  One could argue that perfection is the enemy of the good enough, as the Iran deal was not perfect BUT this is giving the anti-deal folks too much credit.  What if Iran was willing to have intrusive inspections forever and was willing to stop developing missiles forever?  Opponents would say it does not stop their support of terrorism.  The only way to get a country with its own domestic politics and its own agency to do everything you want is to ... invade it and replace its regime with your own occupation forces.  And we kind of tried that and it hasn't worked out so well.

It comes down to this: the US can't impose its will and get everything it wants.  It simply can't.  This is the neo-con dream, I guess.  Trump?  He is just a dreamer, I suppose.  No, this is happening because Trump has a dumb and disproven view of international relations--that one can just wish things and they will happen.  Recent news suggests that Trump and his folks believe their own press (that is, their own press office and maybe Fox)--that being tough on North Korea has led to this momentous deal that they will have at the summit, and that this is the answer to all of US problems--bluster and threats and aggression. 

Not only is this reminiscent of the stance of the Kaiser before World War I (worked out great for him) but runs against everything we know about international relations.  It almost seems as if it is the mission of the Trump folks to hasten American decline--by alienating allies, by undermining American credibility, by spending lots more money on the forever wars of the future, by strengthening adversaries, and on and on. 

This might not be the dumbest foreign policy in US history if there was even a half-assed plan to replace the deal.  I am pretty sure the plan really is two parts: Trump saying fuck Obama; and Bolton and the other anti-deal folks saying: woot, regime change!  Does that count as more or less than half-assed?  So, yeah, I may have to stop saying that disbanding the Iraqi military is the dumbest decision in recent US foreign policy history.

Is the DMZ the Oxiest of Oxymorons?

The Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea is the most militarized places on (and below) Earth.  Yesterday, I went on a bus tour to see it and lived to tell the tale.  I have always regretted not going to West Berlin during my summer eurailing a few years before the wall fell.  I guess I got this visit to the DMZ just in time before it becomes a zone of peace and happiness with the magic fairy dust that Trump is sprinkling (ok, I no longer see war as likely because it is now perhaps somewhat less likely than simply selling out Japan and South Korea... woot?).

End of Week 1 in Seoul: Random Observations

I haven't been blogging much as I have been pretty fried by the joy of transcription.  The downside of super-interesting interviews is the process of turning my handwritten notes and recordings into documents on my computer.  On the bright side, doing so in an ill-setup hotel room has reminded me that my ergonomic setups at home and at my office are, indeed, ergonomic.  I manage, but it makes additional computer work not too attractive.  Still, I learn and I observe.  So:

• Douglas MacArthur would have tenure here.  That is, old soldiers don't die or fade away--they become professors.  My fixer lined up a bunch of interviews with profs, and I said that I didn't need to meet so many of my kind.  She told me that I wanted to meet retired mil types and that is where they are.
• Anecdata once again gets trumped by reality.  If I didn't know South Korea had declining fertility (it is super costly to have kids and educate them), I would swear that this place has no problems.  I have seen many of kids and many young canoodling couples, but what I notice ain't representative.  
• I learned today that Seoul used to have the awful, unhelpful system of Tokyo where instead of streetnames and clear addresses, they had the numbers that represented quadrant-subquadrant-subsub-quandrant.  Yuck.   Only five years or so, it was changed.  
• I don't know why I feel more comfy with Japanese food than Korean, but I do.  Tonight's street fair made it less challenging as the food trucks had more English so that I could avoid intestines and raw octopus easily.
• I learned some Korean history thanks to the National Museum, which reinforced some of the stuff I noticed at the War Memorial.   The history of patterns of kingdoms unifying the peninsula and dividing it was kind of striking.  As was the history of invasions from Japan and China and relying on the Chinese to thwart the Japanese.
• Can't help but think about M*A*S*H when I see destinations on the subway that seem familiar, such as Gimpo.  Or when I see helos like this: 

• The National Museum is huge.... which I guess is what usually happens with such places.

• Oh, and the right wing types here also wear red hats apparently:

Anyhow, I have not done that much tourism since I have been very busy interviewing--I even had one today on a Saturday.  Next week, I will be averaging 2-3 interviews a day, which is quite good.  I was concerned that I would not get many interviews, especially with elections next month, but once again, better to be lucky than good.  I have a great fixer who has lined up really interesting people and two great interpreters.  And I definitely depend on the kindness of strangers--these folks willing to talk to me. 

Irredentism Redux!

Funny how old research agendas never die--they just find new cases.  Long ago, in a country far away, I used to write about the international relations of ethnic conflict, and my second book focused on irredentism--efforts to unite "lost territories" with one's homeland.  The book with Bill Ayres compared the dogs that barked in the 1990s--Greater Armenia, Greater, Croatia, and Greater Serbia with those that did not--Hungary, Romania, and, oops,  Russia.  We got to provide a new intro for the paperback version of the book (only a penny more expensive than the kindle version!) to cover Russia's renewed romance with irredentism in the 2010s. 

Anyhow, the reason why I raise this now is that I was amused to discover that South Korea has a Ministry of Reunification.  Yep, an office o' irredentism, not unlike the ones I found in Eastern Europe--Hungary's Office of Hungarian Minorities Abroad had a somewhat less overtly irredentist name.  Of course, I am sure there is a dueling office up north.  The Southern version focuses on settling defectors and perhaps imagining what a peaceful reunification would look like.  It is also in charge of N-S negotiations, apparently, when those arise, and, well, arise they have lately.

When I was briefed by many offices in Tokyo two years ago, one of the places we visited was the Office of Territory and Sovereignty (or something like that), which was also an irredentism office, focused on both what Japan has (Senkaku Islands) and what it laid claim to--pieces of the Kuriles the Soviets took and the Russians kept AND the Takeshima Islands (more in a second) that the South Koreans grabbed during the Korean War when Japan had no navy.  

This last dispute was illustrated nicely for me as I have seen signs about the Dokdo Islands (what the Koreans call Takeshima) around town, but most clearly at the War Memorial:

 This display is in the middle of the entry way on the main floor.  My only regret is that I had no one with me to take a picture of me as I stood on the Dodko Islands (no porgs, appparently).

To be clear, the Takeshima/Dodko Islands is not likely to be a center of real conflict (the Senkakus are different story).  But, yes, as if South Korea and Japan needed more irritants.  Indeed, in one interview I had this week, the person was talking about the need for South Korea to adapt to the various threats, such as China and .... Japan.  I didn't push back because I was collecting info, but, jeez, Japan ain't a threat.  But history is really hard to shake around here.  In interviews with military types, they get it that Japan is an ally against China and North Korea. But in the public?  Not so much apparently.

Anyhow, my old nationalism/ethnic conflict stuff may apply here, and I am now thinking of comparing all these offices o' irredentism some day. 

Seoul Research, Week 1: Good Research Problem

I was initially frustrated as it did not look like I would be talking to enough people or the right ones, but thanks to keeps of generous folks and a great fixer, my two weeks here are going to be very fruitful even if elections next month mean that I only talk to a few legislators.   Indeed, I will need to shop this weekend for more writing pads! 

I still have time to do some tourism before or after interviews, so I did return to the War Memorial when it was open yesterday.  Good thing I did since at least one interview subject said South Korea had not been in Afghanistan--the displays at the War Memorial suggested otherwise!  What else have I learned there or elsewhere since my previous post?

• The tour guide brings you to a memorial room first and then when the lights go on, you realize you are standing on glass over some bones (fake or real?).  
• I felt kind of like I did at the Hermitage in Leningrad (it was Leningrad at the time) where the group behind us was German.  Yesterday, the group behind us was Chinese.  Without Chinese intervention, there would be no North Korea, and Seoul would have only been lost and taken once.
• The coverage of a NK raid aimed at the Blue House made me realize I had taken a picture of the President's residence/White House equivalent.

• 

  Blue House

   The War Memorial also had some "4D" experiences-shaky benches and 3 movies for the invasion of Incheon that turned around the Korean War and for a film featuring a hypothetical F15 raid of NK

• Really moving sculpture of a tear drop made of dog tags to mark the sacrifices and sadness that came with the international effort to reverse the North Korean invasion.

• How about some more perspective sauce: gas masks in the subway stations?  Not for fire (ok, probably not) but for the WMD that Trump will demand NK gets rid of.

• Great names for coffee places here:
  

Anyhow, things are going great.  And the South Koreans I talk to seem to be cautiously optimistic about the situation with Trump and North Korea.  Wishful thinking for the win?

Day 2 of Seoul: Excellent Research, Mediocre Tourist Decision-Making and Random Observations

Well, if I have to have great interview and meh tourism or great tourism and meh interview, the former is obviously superior.  Today started with a meeting with one of my interpreters.  She is still in interpreter school, but is doing great.  Since she majored in strategic studies as an undergrad, she knows what I am looking for.  So, then we went to meet what I thought at the time would be the only legislator I would be interviewing.  My fixer found another one willing to talk to me--the challenge is that there are elections in June so folks are busy.

Anyhow, the interview subject du jour had only 30 minutes, but he filled that time with heaps of research goodness.  He had a copy of our questionnaire and was giving very complete answers while not filibustering us too much.  I just let him and the interpreter go back and forth rather than getting the interpretation and then asking follow ups since we had a strict time constraint.  I may end up asking more questions by email.   Anyhow, this interview was exactly what I needed, and South Korea may prove to be a very interesting case as it seems to be much closer to the US than to Brazil in terms of relevance of legislatures in civ-mil in Presidential systems.  Many more conversations this week and next to see if what I heard today is just one person's view or a good depiction.

This row after row of plaques naming all of the South Koreans
killed in the war provided a heavy dose of perspective

Because I had few notes to transcribe and my interpre er had to take the recording and turn them into English for me, I didn't have to spend the afternoon transcribing.  So, I decided to do some tourism (the last bit of grading and such is for rainy days ahead).  Turns out Monday is a lousy day for tourism as I decided to go to the War Memorial.... which is closed on Mondays.  Dumb Steve.  The good news is that there were many interesting statues and hunks of military equipment to look at, including a B-52 bomber, a Korean made tank, heaps of aircraft and a lifesize model of a ship the North Koreans attacked.  See below for some pics

Note that the attack on this patrol ship was during the 2002 World Cup
and after a 2000 NK/SK summit

After this, I went to Namsan--the mountain in the middle of Seoul where there is an observation tower.  This as a mistake--it was hazy.  Yesterday, the skies were super-clear.  I should have waited for a better day but wishful thinking too over.  So, pics like this:

Oh well.  There were heaps of South Koreans putting locks on fences and elsewhere, lots of sweets and strange marketing.  Which led to this:

Oh my.  Tomorrow, no tourism as I have two interviews than a dinner with an East Asian security expert and my original fixer (too connected, so conflicts of interest kicked in, alas). 

Anyhow, so far, so good.  I will make better tourism decisions when I have the chance... I hope.  Still have not figured out the restaurant scene here--Tokyo was much easier.

Funny Ha Ha or Funny Strange? The Reactionaries Who Cry Wolf

The annual "oh, noes, they said mean things" event was this weekend, and I was able to watch the video from my comfy seat in Seoul.  There is lots of commentary out there, so I am not sure what I can add, but that has never stopped me before.  Plus I am a fan of comedy and have gone regularly to a show at the Just for Laughs festival called "The Nasty Show" so this is not my first time hearing a comic use dirty words.  I'd comment on her inconsistent delivery and some jokes that deserved to bomb, but that is not what folks are talking about.

To be fair, one should know the room and have watched past performances, so Wolf could have used fewer curse words, but one word she absolutely had to use is pussy.  This is the funny (strange) thing: all of the focus is on Wolf's comments about Sarah Huckbee Sanders and not on her calling the President a pussy. 

Of course, Trump isn’t here, if you haven’t noticed. He’s not here. And I know, I know, I would drag him here myself, but it turns out the President of the United States is the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab 

Let me explain as this joke worked at multiple levels:

1. The Access Hollywood tape has done more than anything else to bring pussy into the daylight media.  That Trump bragged about grabbing women by their pussy.  So, using Trump's words against him is fair game and funny.
2. Trump blew off this event and last year's because he is a coward.  Yes, we can quibble that pussy is a poor synonym for weakness for all kinds of reasons, but, again, given the context, it made sense and was the perfect word to turn against Trump.  Trump is a coward--he tries to get people to quit because he does not like confronting people to fire them, the Apprentice was so B.S.  Oops, I cursed.  Trump attacks those who have less power, such as at the rally that was happening at the same time as the Dinner where he incited hate against Hispanics.  So, calling Trump a pussy for not showing up?  For dishing it out and not being able to take it?  Fair and perfect and funny.
3. A woman calling a man a pussy should be attention getting.  It is usually the toxically masculine who use that term as an insult, so turning it around should be news.  Instead, we get the focus on Sanders, who Wolf insulted via references to her lying, not her appearance.  Yes, people often misunderstand the target of the joke. 
4. Oh, and the media may be upset in part because Wolf called them out by reminding everyone that the President has admitted to serial sexual assault yet they keep trying to forget about it and move on.  Funny how they didn't feel the same way about Bill Cosby.

So, yeah, Wolf's material was harsh, but mean?  Not really.  Punching up is not nearly as mean as punching down.  And she didn't attack people for who they are not--she attacked them for who they are.  It was not a perfect set of comedy, but it is a hard room and it is hard to say original stuff about Trump.  The man is a living parody of himself.  Still, Wolf hit the target often enough, so much so that the media is upset for being called out for enabling Trump.

Some folks worry that this will distract us from Trump's awfulness.  Nope, he will surely tweet something that is awful.  He will surely say something in a speech that is awful.  Trump's not normal and folks like Wolf are making sure he is not normalized.   There is no equivalence between Wolf calling out people for doing horrible things but using vulgar language and the many, many awful things that Trump and his crew say and do that do more than hurt feelings--they actually hurt people, people who can't defend themselves.  So, yeah, the only thing that is really unfunny about this is the cranking up of the false equivalence machines.

One Day of Peace in South Korea

Now that we have peace in our time,* South Korea is safe for me to do research.  Actually, I am here to understand South Korea's civil-military relations as part of the Dave/Phil/Steve project, and I am only here this year because of the impeachment fairy's efforts last year.

Because jet lag is a thing, I tend to fly in a day or two early to get some rest so that I don't fall asleep on the couch of someone I am meeting (I learned that the hard way way back in my Joint Staff days).  So, I spent today walking around the part of Seoul closest to me.  As it turns out, this is where a massive palace complex is: Gyeonbokgung Palace. 

Even before I got there, I had seen signs about past Japanese perfidy, so, no, I don't have much hope for South Korea and Japan to move beyond their pasts. 

Pretty much most of the signs next to various buildings indicated that the Japanese destroyed them at some point.  Maybe it is my confirmation bias, but I didn't see quite this much this kind of signage in Tokyo.  Also, Tokyo had more fires and earthquakes whereas Seoul has far more occupation.

I also could not help but notice the ubituity of shelter signs.  While most were subway entrances, this one is of a small museum.

Wearing costumes while touring is a thing not just in Japan but here as well.  I saw both many people wearing traditional garb while walking around this palace complex and later many stores that rent them out.   I don't think I have seen many people in North America or Europe do anything like this. 

 Here's something I don't remember seeing in Japan: food that comes delivered in mini-toilets.  No thanks.

The trip over was uneventful except for passing through Shanghai airport--I had to go through customs twice--as an arrival and as a departure.  With security lines in between, it was most annoying.  I had plenty of time between planes, but not fun.  I did binge Brockmire on the flight over--Hank Azaria plays a wildly inappropriate baseball announcer on his last chance--announcing a minor minor league team called the Frackers.  I probably woke some people up with my laughter, as it was a very good time.  

Speaking of pop culture, Mrs. Spew and I saw Infinity War the night before I left.  I probably won't blog about it until I see it a second time--just too much stuff happened and much need to process.

Anyhow, I am tired and sleepy, after a very long flight and after much walking around, so here's some of the better shots from today

The Tyranny of the Big Three In Political Science

In recent days, there has been much discussion about the so-called Big3 journals in Political Science: the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics.  Each is the standard-bearer journal for their respective associations--the American Political Science Association, the Midwest Political Science Association and the Southern Political Science Association.

Over the years, these three journals have become seen as the most prominent journals in the discipline.  For some American universities, for the purposes of hiring, tenure and promotion, getting published at least once in one of these may be viewed as a necessary condition or a sufficient condition (along with enough other pubs) and in some places, publications only really count if they are in the big 3.

This has long been seen as problematic.  There is only so many spaces in three journals per year, so the likelihood of landing in these journals is low and especially low if one is supposed to land in them regularly.  Because these journals have traditionally been dominated by those who study American politics, the kind of stuff that gets in and the kind of stuff that does not can be quite skewed.  It is very difficult for IR or Comparative or Political Theory scholars to get published at all since there are not that many of these in any issue.  There is rarely any qualitative work, which is a problem as half of IR is still not quant (see my new piece on the basics of contemporary IR work in the major journals).  I would argue that IR scholars don't pay as much attention to these journals despite their flagship-ness, but citation patterns suggest otherwise (a quick comparison of average citations in Big 3 versus not Big3 is not close--43 vs 25)*

Most Puzzling Insult

There are plenty of ways to insult people, so why do folks sometimes refer to the preferred oxygen pathway?

As a perpetually nose-clogged person, I take umbrage at the aspersion you cast at those who breathe through their mouths. Use the more politically correct term "dipshit"

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) April 24, 2018

Why would a mouthbreather be someone who is not as bright, who is an ape or caveman or whatever?  I just don't get the association.  And, of course, I take it personally since a lifetime of allergies (modest--I can breathe, just not well--to anything that grows: grass, trees, weeds, plants, etc) means I breathe through my mouth.  The only person who should object, and object she does from time to time, is my wife since I don't sleep quietly. 

The key is that the oxygen gets there, one way, or another, so me and my fellow mouthbreathers do not want associations with those who deserve heaps of insults.  Indeed, I discussed with Mrs. Spew the proper way to insult MRAssholes as calling them pussies, for example, is reinforcing their notion that women are lesser (Slack friends also pushed in that direction).  So, calling the guy who killed ten Torontians yesterday a quitter works since he and his ilk (if the info on him is correct) are chock full of failure and toxic masculinity and thus sensitive to being called LOSERS and QUITTERS in ways that don't insult others.

Calling them mouthbreathers?  They probably don't mind, and it confuses me.  So, pick the right insults for these guys who have the attitudes of seven year old boys who don't understand girls.  Most boys grow out of it--these guys don't. 

What Do I Think Before Going to Seoul

At the end of this week, I head off to South Korea to do the next case study in the Dave and Phil and Steve project.  The project is not about North Korea or nuclear weapons, but about how democracies oversee their militaries.  I am not an expert on nuclear proliferation or on North Korea, but as a scholar of international security, I am sure I will be talking about and thinking about the current crisis as I wander along. So, I thought I would write now about my views on the upcoming summit and the various declarations before I go since it might be fun to compare with my views after I come back--I might learn something or change my mind (or not).

Can Colonels Complain? Canadian Civil-Military Relations at Night

Last night, a kerfuffle broke out in Canadian civil-military relations.  I would not call it a crisis, but I saw a military officer post something and then two members of the opposition parties hit back at him for daring to tweet about how the military is covered.  I may be biased because the essence of the message is something that I have argued much here.  Let's go to the videotape series of tweets:

Canada is Underrated

Maybe that old saw about immigrants being more nationalistic than the native born is true.  I read Scott Gilmore's complains that "Canada is not a country" and strongly recoiled.  As someone who has lived here for 16 years and came with a belief that Canada was simply a colder version of the US, I have learned that Canada is a people, it is a nation, and it is a country.  Partly this is due to lived experience and observation and partly because I happen to have spent much time studying nationalism.