Excellent article, particularly as regards the proclivities of international interventionists, which haven't had their share of the MSM spotlight. I hope that changes. All of The Blob needs to be running for cover right now.
Thanks Bob, The concept of the Blog helps clarify the distinction between left/right restrainers vs. liberal interventionists and neocons. The American exceptionalism theme is key. I wonder if you might address 'The Blob" in historical terms. There was a "Blob" in the 1960s that lead us into Vietnam and there an exodus of Blobsters who could not support the war (Richard Holbrooke, Mort Halperin, Tony Lake) but the largely stayed out of the furious debate about intervention in El Salvador and NIcaragua on behalf of counterrevolutionaries and death squads. These ex-Blobsters returned to positions of power with the Clinton/Obama regimes, which is when they began to converge with the neocons. Ultimately, the Blob split overThe Vietnam was tactical, not strategic--it was the wrong place to intervene, not intervention is a lousy tool. So I wonder, Why didn't the VIetnam disaster prompt a deeper reconsideration? IThe answer, I think, would help account for the Blob's staying power today.
Very interesting background about Holbrooke et al, Jeff--I didn't know that. And why "Vietnam syndrome" (as frustrated hawks called it) proved temporary is a good question.
I would add that restraint does not mean that democracy and rule of law are not promoted or incentivized. It just means you don’t assassinate, overthrow, bomb or invade other people to achieve it.
Bob if you have not already done so, check out the replay of the conference from this week put on by the "Quincy Coalition." The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the American Conservative co-sponsored the event. The “America first” foreign policy espoused there by Trump supporters could be quite popular with many Americans, including myself and perhaps you. It could win over anti-Biden voters regarding his foreign policy. The title of the 4 hour conference was "Realism and Restraint Amid Global Conflict. https://quincyinst.org/events/what-a-foreign-policy-for-the-middle-class-looks-like/
There are three related notions. Military-industrial complex. Deep state. Blob. I would like to understand better how they relate.
And, to keep up with our times, one should probably also bring into the picture the surveillance industry, both private (Amazon, etc) and governmental (CIA, NSA, etc).
Hi Bob, So how is this not "threat inflation"? - "I’m not kidding when I say I believe the Blob is a grave threat to America’s and the world’s future."
Just asking?
Maybe all the things you object to, you are guilty of? Idk ...?
More or less meditation? Less or more silent retreats?
Please don't misinterpret - I love your posts and all that you do.
Robert Wright for president!
Keep on keeping' on. Your voice is important - to me. Worth the $6.
It strikes me that drawing a clear line between Blob and Non-Blob is difficult, and Blobbiness probably exists on a spectrum. Are there circumstances where you would support some Blobbiness (my new favorite word, for what it's worth)?
There are definitely borderline cases, where restrainers would disagree. But I think a large majority of big foreign policy calls that have been made by recent presidents wouldn't bring much disagreement among restrainers.
I agree that it seems more like a spectrum. It might be more useful to describe "The Blob" not as a group of people (blobsters) but as a set of ideas and ways of thinking. One could then be acting "blobby" or be in danger of succumbing to The Blob. It would allow for someone to hold some "blobbish" beliefs while also holding opinions that align with Restraint. To be a blobster (if used at all) would be to exist on the extreme end of the Blob:Restraint spectrum, be found "deep within the Blob," or "belong to the Blob."
I see this as a more useful way to use the term "The Blob" because it helps us avoid the trap of defining ourselves as the "restrainers" (read: "good guys") and automatically disagreeing with the "blobsters" (read: "bad guys"), thereby adopting one of the key characteristics of The Blob and perpetuating the division that Restraint seems to be trying to rectify.
Taking a term like "The Blob" and turning it into a label to identify individuals (blobster) doesn't seem congruent with the essence of the original word.
This is the best analysis of the Blob I've ever read. Well done!
Clear and excellent start! Much appreciated and lauded, Bob 👏
Excellent article, particularly as regards the proclivities of international interventionists, which haven't had their share of the MSM spotlight. I hope that changes. All of The Blob needs to be running for cover right now.
Thanks Bob, The concept of the Blog helps clarify the distinction between left/right restrainers vs. liberal interventionists and neocons. The American exceptionalism theme is key. I wonder if you might address 'The Blob" in historical terms. There was a "Blob" in the 1960s that lead us into Vietnam and there an exodus of Blobsters who could not support the war (Richard Holbrooke, Mort Halperin, Tony Lake) but the largely stayed out of the furious debate about intervention in El Salvador and NIcaragua on behalf of counterrevolutionaries and death squads. These ex-Blobsters returned to positions of power with the Clinton/Obama regimes, which is when they began to converge with the neocons. Ultimately, the Blob split overThe Vietnam was tactical, not strategic--it was the wrong place to intervene, not intervention is a lousy tool. So I wonder, Why didn't the VIetnam disaster prompt a deeper reconsideration? IThe answer, I think, would help account for the Blob's staying power today.
Very interesting background about Holbrooke et al, Jeff--I didn't know that. And why "Vietnam syndrome" (as frustrated hawks called it) proved temporary is a good question.
I would add that restraint does not mean that democracy and rule of law are not promoted or incentivized. It just means you don’t assassinate, overthrow, bomb or invade other people to achieve it.
I think economic sanctions, too, are usually either ineffective or counterproductive.
Right on.
Bob if you have not already done so, check out the replay of the conference from this week put on by the "Quincy Coalition." The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the American Conservative co-sponsored the event. The “America first” foreign policy espoused there by Trump supporters could be quite popular with many Americans, including myself and perhaps you. It could win over anti-Biden voters regarding his foreign policy. The title of the 4 hour conference was "Realism and Restraint Amid Global Conflict. https://quincyinst.org/events/what-a-foreign-policy-for-the-middle-class-looks-like/
There are three related notions. Military-industrial complex. Deep state. Blob. I would like to understand better how they relate.
And, to keep up with our times, one should probably also bring into the picture the surveillance industry, both private (Amazon, etc) and governmental (CIA, NSA, etc).
Any insights?
There are a lot of sources on how Ben Rhodes pushed for war in Libya, that unleashed a humanitarian catastrophe.
'It is not a war, it is kinetic military action': National security adviser finally puts title on Libya
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/obama-ben-rhodes-libya/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/obama-ben-rhodes-libya/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369656/Libya-It-war-kinetic-military-action-says-National-security-adviser.html
Etc
Hi Bob, So how is this not "threat inflation"? - "I’m not kidding when I say I believe the Blob is a grave threat to America’s and the world’s future."
Just asking?
Maybe all the things you object to, you are guilty of? Idk ...?
More or less meditation? Less or more silent retreats?
Please don't misinterpret - I love your posts and all that you do.
Robert Wright for president!
Keep on keeping' on. Your voice is important - to me. Worth the $6.
cheers
It strikes me that drawing a clear line between Blob and Non-Blob is difficult, and Blobbiness probably exists on a spectrum. Are there circumstances where you would support some Blobbiness (my new favorite word, for what it's worth)?
There are definitely borderline cases, where restrainers would disagree. But I think a large majority of big foreign policy calls that have been made by recent presidents wouldn't bring much disagreement among restrainers.
I agree that it seems more like a spectrum. It might be more useful to describe "The Blob" not as a group of people (blobsters) but as a set of ideas and ways of thinking. One could then be acting "blobby" or be in danger of succumbing to The Blob. It would allow for someone to hold some "blobbish" beliefs while also holding opinions that align with Restraint. To be a blobster (if used at all) would be to exist on the extreme end of the Blob:Restraint spectrum, be found "deep within the Blob," or "belong to the Blob."
I see this as a more useful way to use the term "The Blob" because it helps us avoid the trap of defining ourselves as the "restrainers" (read: "good guys") and automatically disagreeing with the "blobsters" (read: "bad guys"), thereby adopting one of the key characteristics of The Blob and perpetuating the division that Restraint seems to be trying to rectify.
Taking a term like "The Blob" and turning it into a label to identify individuals (blobster) doesn't seem congruent with the essence of the original word.