Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Other Sellers on Amazon
FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats Hardcover – April 1, 2008
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length272 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherTrade Paper Press
- Publication dateApril 1, 2008
- Dimensions5.97 x 0.96 x 8.52 inches
- ISBN-10047008622X
- ISBN-13978-0470086223
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
"A very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care." —Ezra Klein, staff writer at The American Prospect
"Matt Yglesias is one of the smartest voices in the blogosphere. He knows a lot about politics, a lot about foreign policy, and, crucially, is unusually shrewd in understanding how they interact. Here's hoping that his new book will introduce him to an even wider audience. Once you discover him, you'll be hooked." —E. J. Dionne, author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right and Why Americans Hate Politics
"Matthew Yglesias is one of a handful of bloggers that I make a point of reading every day. Heads in the Sand is a smart, vital book that urges Democrats to stop evading the foreign-policy debate and to embrace the old principles of international liberalism—to be right and also to win." —Fred Kaplan, author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power
"Reading foreign policy tomes is seldom included among life's pleasures, but Yglesias has concocted a startling exception. Heads in the Sand is not just a razor-sharp analysis cum narrative of the politics of national security in general and the Iraq war in particular, it's also an enthralling and often very funny piece of writing. Though he administers strong antidotes to the haplessness of his fellow Democrats and liberals, there's more than a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down." —Hendrik Hertzberg, Senior Editor, The New Yorker, and author of Politics: Observations and Arguments
From the Inside Flap
Heads In the Sand
Matthew Yglesias
When mainstream Democratic politicians talk about Iraq, why do they sound more like Republicans than like the actual Democratic citizens they claim to represent? Are they simply ducking for cover from the with-us-or-against-us Republican onslaught? Are Democrats actually buying into the right wing's dark, pessimistic vision of endless conflict combined with blinkered optimism about the boundless utility of military force? Has the liberal tradition failed to provide useful principles on which to build and conduct foreign policy?
In Heads in the Sand, fast-rising political observer and commentator Matthew Yglesias reveals the wrong-headed foreign policy stance of conservatives, neocons, and the Republican Party for what it isaggressive nationalism, or, to be impolite, a new version of old-fashioned imperialism. He then examines how Democrats and progressives have responded to the conservative agenda, from mistakenly labeling it isolationism to repeated calls for big, bold, new ideas and the failure to actually produce any.
Writing with wit, passion, and keen insight, Yglesias reminds us of the rich tradition of liberal internationalism that, developed by Democrats, was used with great success by both Democratic and Republican administrations for more than fifty years. It was, in fact, the foreign policy strategy that revived Europe after World War II, established the United Nations, and won the Cold War.
Based on the principle of promoting global order through international law and stable institutions, liberal internationalism is far from perfect and not nearly sexy enough to appeal to chest-thumping hawks. But, as Yglesias demonstrates, exercised with patience, flexibility, and restraint by nine American presidents, it has produced more peace, prosperity, and international harmony than any other approach. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst form of foreign policy, except for all the others.
The forces opposed to liberal internationalism, however, are large and growing. And, Yglesias reveals, they're not all on the far right. He presents a startling revelation of how many moderates, liberals, and even far-left progressives seem more than happy to use America's military might to accomplish their objectives.
While Democrats have come unmoored from their foreign-policy principles for multiple and complex reasons, Matthew Yglesias makes it clear that the path to redemption is open, if not always pothole-free. Americans no longer support reckless Republican policies and the time is ripenot for a new direction, but for the return of a tried-and-true direction. With Heads in the Sand, he provides a starting point for politicians, policymakers, pundits, and citizens alike to return America to its role as leader of a peace-loving and cooperative international community.
From the Back Cover
When mainstream Democratic politicians talk about Iraq, why do they sound more like Republicans than like the actual Democratic citizens they claim to represent? Are they simply ducking for cover from the with-us-or-against-us Republican onslaught? Are Democrats actually buying into the right wing’s dark, pessimistic vision of endless conflict combined with blinkered optimism about the boundless utility of military force? Has the liberal tradition failed to provide useful principles on which to build and conduct foreign policy?
In Heads in the Sand, fast-rising political observer and commentator Matthew Yglesias reveals the wrong-headed foreign policy stance of conservatives, neocons, and the Republican Party for what it is—aggressive nationalism, or, to be impolite, a new version of old-fashioned imperialism. He then examines how Democrats and progressives have responded to the conservative agenda, from mistakenly labeling it isolationism to repeated calls for big, bold, new ideas and the failure to actually produce any.
Writing with wit, passion, and keen insight, Yglesias reminds us of the rich tradition of liberal internationalism that, developed by Democrats, was used with great success by both Democratic and Republican administrations for more than fifty years. It was, in fact, the foreign policy strategy that revived Europe after World War II, established the United Nations, and won the Cold War.
Based on the principle of promoting global order through international law and stable institutions, liberal internationalism is far from perfect and not nearly sexy enough to appeal to chest-thumping hawks. But, as Yglesias demonstrates, exercised with patience, flexibility, and restraint by nine American presidents, it has produced more peace, prosperity, and international harmony than any other approach. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it’s the worst form of foreign policy, except for all the others.
The forces opposed to liberal internationalism, however, are large and growing. And, Yglesias reveals, they’re not all on the far right. He presents a startling revelation of how many moderates, liberals, and even far-left progressives seem more than happy to use America’s military might to accomplish their objectives.
While Democrats have come unmoored from their foreign-policy principles for multiple and complex reasons, Matthew Yglesias makes it clear that the path to redemption is open, if not always pothole-free. Americans no longer support reckless Republican policies and the time is ripe—not for a new direction, but for the return of a tried-and-true direction. With Heads in the Sand, he provides a starting point for politicians, policymakers, pundits, and citizens alike to return America to its role as leader of a peace-loving and cooperative international community.
About the Author
Matthew Yglesias is an Associate Editor of the Atlantic Monthly, which also hosts his popular blog. His writing has also appeared in the American Prospect, Slate, the New Republic, and the New York Times. He’s been profiled as an up-and-comer in both New York and GQ magazines, and the Wall Street Journal recently called him “a ringleader-of-sorts for the D.C. blogging community.”
Product details
- Publisher : Trade Paper Press; 1st edition (April 1, 2008)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 272 pages
- ISBN-10 : 047008622X
- ISBN-13 : 978-0470086223
- Item Weight : 13.9 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.97 x 0.96 x 8.52 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #2,928,750 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,970 in Political Parties (Books)
- #18,460 in Political Science (Books)
- #26,840 in International & World Politics (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Much of the book is historical review, one that thankfully maintains the fast pace and wit of Yglesias's blog. Those who enjoy his blog should also enjoy the book, but it's also an excellent introduction to those who aren't already readers. The main value-added versus the blog is the ability to develop support for his ideas at length. He uses this opportunity well, although Yglesias does stick to qualitative analysis of Democrats electoral fortunes. The book contains no statistical analysis over whether Democrats offering a different foreign policy do better than other Democratic candidates.
The specifics of "liberal internationalism" are rather straightforward. Build global institutions, work together with other nations, and try to understand the viewpoints of other nations. He supports the war in Afghanistan but thinks the war of in Iraq was inherently flawed and that complaining about implementation obscures the real problem. That said, the book is not a theoretical treatise. It sits firmly at the intersection between policy and politics and is in fact dubious of the value of big new ideas.
All-in-all it's an interesting read for those dissatisfied with America's recent role in the world and looking for an achievable new direction.
The main idea of the book is that America's trend toward unilateralism has been a disaster, and that America needs to recommit itself to internationalism. The book constructs the argument that the major animating policy behind the Bush foreign policy is not a love of democracy but rather an aggressive nationalism that believes that international agreements are holding America down. Yglesias is persuasive in arguing that this mindset has produced the opposite of what it intended--America has lost a great deal of power over the past few years--and that creating institutions that foster democracy is a smarter approach. He admits that some of these institutions, such as the U. N., need some measure of reform, though specifics are not given about what to do. Still, he does make a compelling argument as to why the U. N. is still necessary in the book's final chapter despite its flaws.
All in all, it's a very interesting book, and it's well written, paced, and argued. Plus, it's funny. It's certainly worth your while.
The middle, the uninteresting part, is largely a recap of the foreign policy debates from 2001 to 2007 and the politics surrounding them. If you followed the news even superficially during that time, it will all seem familiar. Though Yglesias, as an avowed Deaniac, also makes a passionate defense of Howard Dean. Like many progressive Dems in my age cohort (I was in my early 20s in 2004), I was fascinated by the Dean campaign and appreciated his opposition to the Iraq war. But I strongly differ with Yglesias' conclusions that no one really liked John Kerry or that he did not offer a competing foreign policy vision, just Bush-lite. I liked John Kerry. I believed in John Kerry. I didn't "Date Dean, but Married Kerry." I chose Kerry over Dean because I thought Kerry had a well thought out and broad world view. I felt in the end Dean was riding the anti-war express to nowhere. Yglesias also gives short treatment to Kerry's prescription for a "war on terror" that was not just militarily based but included law enforcement, diplomacy, and intelligence. It was the correct view but was largely panned at the time. Kerry stood up for what Yglesias should have wanted, but instead of acknowledging it Yglesias mostly nitpicks Kerry's views. To be fair, Yglesias also acknowledges some failings of Dean's candidacy and I think he is correct that on Iraq in particular Kerry and many other Dems never hit their stride, but I could not help feeling that a vast part of the book was a Dean defense and not a serious discussion of foreign policy.
Ultimately, the book is interesting because it offers up ideas for a liberal foreign policy that is no isolationist or Bush-lite. It is both ambitious and pragmatic. If you read it, enjoy the interesting part and try not to get as caught up in the uninteresting part as I did.


