Andrew Sullivan attempts to ding Daniel Larison for an overly dogmatic realist critique of democratization.

Larison first:

Egypt and Jordan can remain at peace with Israel despite the profound unpopularity of this arrangement because the governments are unaccountable and authoritarian. Surely the elections in Gaza should tell us that democratization allows people with deep grievances to vent them by empowering the most extreme and radical elements. This has proved to be ruinous for people in Gaza and far from what Israel wants. Democratization and regional stability are incompatible. If you desire one, you cannot have the other.

Sullivan writes, “I don’t buy the argument that in the long run, autocracies are more stable than democracies, even in the Middle East,” and goes on to cite Iran as proof of the instability of the autocratic model when it comes to succession.

He’s missing the point, though. I’m not sure even steely Larison would go so far as to argue that autocratic succession is any kind of ideal. Autocracies by their very nature change leaders amidst a tension that can at any time spill over into war. Indeed, the greatest achievement of democracy has been that power transfers have been institutionalized to the point of violence being a nearly unthinkable outcome.

What Daniel is correctly railing against, however, is the by far most questionable aspect of Democratic Peace theory: namely that democracies do not go to war against each other. Democratic Peace theorists like the claim, with some sleights of hand, that history bears out this claim. But Daniel’s counter-example is a powerful one. Is there much doubt that the Arab Street, if given access to the reins of power, would demand anything but the annihilation of Israel?

Is Charles Krauthammer calling it for Obama? Sure sounds like it:

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a “second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament.” Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition — do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he’s got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.

Emphasis mine. Call me an elitist all you want, but that’s always been Obama’s appeal to me, especially when contrasted with the folksy “average Joe” demeanor of George W. Bush. I don’t ever want to feel like I can drink a beer with the President of the United States. Ever.

Yglesias:

…the notion that it would be okay for high-ranking public officials to have no better understanding of policy issues than does the average person is bizarre. When you get someone to fix your car, you want that person to know more about fixing cars than do most people. Houses are designed by architects and actually put together by a whole bunch of specialists — plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. — who know more about what they’re doing than do most people. That doesn’t mean the building trades are dominated by a shadowy elite that the rest of us need to overthrow, it just reflects the benefits of the division of labor. There’s no need for politics to be totally controlled by some narrow cabal of credentialed experts, but at a minimum it would be nice for policymakers to be people who’ve been paying attention to policy debates.

Agreed. In choosing Palin for crass populist reasons and trumpeting her “everyman” qualities, the Republicans are becoming the Party of Dave. It’s sad.

Boris Tadić wins, and the (small part of the) world (that cares about the Balkans) lets out a sigh of relief. Nikolić would have been darkness for Serbia and the broader region had he squeaked into office. Though the presidency does not wield much power in Serbia, keeping the Radicals in the wilderness was an important victory any way you look at it.

This young interviewee puts it best:

“I am Tadić’s opponent, but I voted for him because this election is not about him but about progress,” said Branislav Jovanović, a 22-year-old student, at a Belgrade polling station. “People are sick of isolation and wars and misery.”

Tadić’s widely-reported EU enthusiasm only stands up to scrutiny when held up against Nikolić’s retrograde nationalism and rabid Russophilia. Tadić played up his nationalist bona fides during the campaign, perhaps to sap some support from Nikolić, and it remains to be seen whether his supposed EU-love will continue in the wake of the Kosovo declaration of independence which should happen some time this week. Here’s to hoping that he opts for trying to be a transformational figure in Serbian politics.

The New York Times has a simple narrative for you:

Nine candidates were vying for the presidency, but only two were considered serious contenders: the pro-Western incumbent, Mr. Tadic, and his pro-Russian nationalist challenger, Mr. Nikolic. The presidency is formally a ceremonial post in Serbia. But during Mr. Milosevic’s autocratic government in the 1990s, when he virtually ruled alone, it gained in importance and influence.

Mr. Tadic, a telegenic and soft-spoken moderate who is supported by a majority of European leaders, advocates Western-style reforms and integration into the European Union, after more than a decade of isolation and wars under Mr. Milosevic.

…

Mr. Nikolic, a former ally of Mr. Milosevic, has sought to evoke Serbs’ nationalist pride by playing on their growing frustration over American and European Union backing for Kosovo independence. Analysts say a victory by Mr. Nikolic would probably bury Serbia’s pro-European aspirations, push the country back into political isolation and undermine its economic prospects.

Nonsense on stilts. Tadic has been playing the nationalist card as well, edging towards Russia, going along with Prime Minister Kostunica’s dirty games—all in hopes of taking some votes away from the Radicals and Nikolic. He is a cowardly politician who’s made some bad decisions during the past few years, and he will likely lose for it.

Furthermore, this is not the result of “growing frustration over American and European Union backing for Kosovo independence” as the Times would have it. The real story here is that there is a very large percentage of Serbs, quite possibly a plurality, who have not renounced their recent history and for whom Kosovo and Bosnia are still open questions. These are the same forces that brought Milosevic to power and who supported him through three disastrous wars. The Balkans will not be peaceful until Serbia goes through some sort of catharsis and relegates these ideas to its fringes.