If you read Matt's blog, you might wonder if this book was actually written by him. As it lacked his trademark grammatical mistakes. Anyways, this book is fantastic. The only downside is that it is a little jumpy in the first half.
Buy new:
$25.95$25.95
$10.13 delivery
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy new:
$25.95$25.95
$10.13 delivery
Ships from: Amazon.com
Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Good
$18.98$18.98
Delivery Monday, November 18
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Zoom Books Company
Save with Used - Good
$18.98$18.98
Delivery Monday, November 18
Ships from: Amazon
Sold by: Zoom Books Company
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
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats Hardcover – April 1, 2008
by
Matthew Yglesias
(Author)
Sorry, there was a problem loading this page. Try again.
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"$25.95","priceAmount":25.95,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"25","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"95","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"6iCAtV0qihPuHiPMzCyeArxNGnsgKWgGbDF5YB60npnh%2FgzCVfKQ5EvN%2Fm91DMZUnLczkFQvSxvKr4joe%2BKDyZnWkFDgogY1FWQE2Nw3Z1SzSDKsBBMzQKpu85eDq1NlOnfjTTrTrqs%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"$18.98","priceAmount":18.98,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"18","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"98","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"6iCAtV0qihPuHiPMzCyeArxNGnsgKWgGGGI7GhCSkrjvEwJmpMIXxJKzke%2FkvsntMDIlSSvMydbbpsvxaINDW8ntg3cHekBSocUhqZsS8r%2BdlMXRkJhiNY65F74v3f24sQ7hPtz4Wqmmvf1%2B7m5SgNt60NLvH5tGDDS0rnulE6XIZnwlwUirHORhHV7cog0T","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
Purchase options and add-ons
Fast-rising political commentator Matthew Yglesias reveals the wrong-headed foreign policy stance of conservatives, neocons, and the Republican Party for what it is—aggressive nationalism. 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. 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.
- 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.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customer reviews
3.9 out of 5 stars
3.9 out of 5
16 global ratings
How customer reviews and ratings work
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.
Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2008
Reviewed in the United States on May 13, 2008
This book is an argument that Democrats' problems with foreign policy don't trace back to them not being "tough" enough but instead to their failure to offer an alternate vision. The framework that Yglesias is promoting is liberal internationalism which he ties into to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Containment, and the first Gulf War.
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.
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.
Reviewed in the United States on May 9, 2008
I greatly enjoyed Matt Yglesias's new book. I'm generally not the type to read foreign policy books, but I'm a regular reader of his blog. He has a reputation for being sharp, and that's definitely evident while reading the book. I found it to be informative and persuasive, but all the while about as unstuffy as one can imagine a book of this sort being.
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 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.
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2010
Heads in the Sand can be divided into two parts. The interesting part serve as the bookends to the book. It first offers an overview of the liberal foreign policy tradition (though strangely excludes the Kennedy/Johnson years). The interesting part picks up at the conclusion with Yglesias' discussion of what a sensible foreign policy might be and why being new and interesting is not the end all, be all of policy. If you read this book, I would strongly recommend you read these two sections of the interesting part carefully and ignore the middle of the book.
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.
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.

