At least we spelled his name right, which is more Etzioni did for Kieran Healy.

I don't think the first comment was saying that the government of the USA does not have sovereignty in world affairs, but that the people don't have sovereignty over their own government. And this is very true. Just on the basis of it, it is quite silly to consider 1 vote every 2, 4 and 6 years is enough to represent the views we all have on the thousands of issues that affect our lives. Yet, on this basis we call ourselves a "democracy." At to that the imperial nature of our government (executive, congress and the courts), and the lack on respect they have for the citizens (why should they respect us, we let them get away with everything!) and it is totally true what the comment said.

Maybe we need citizen councils like Libya has? or some other way for people to be empowered more then through one vote every couple years. Because this system we have is not enough, and is especially representative of power, not the people...

"tom"--that's because our governmental system is a Republic, not a direct Athenian-style democracy. If you have issues with that, please take it to the Supreme Court and have the constitution thrown out in order to satisfy your own twisted desires.

Drezner, I looked all over your website and couldn't find ANY soft porn for sale, so what is that guy talking about?

What about the "soft porn" comment? You just going to let that slide? Don't sully the Drezner name man. Have some pride.

I agree; if we're gonna have soft porn, then well, let's have some soft porn! (none of that hard stuff, please.)

You know, you can accuse George W. Bush of a lot of things, but surrendering American sovereignty to some supranational order is not one of them.

Certainly on issues of immigration, border security (see the North American Security Union or some such) and perhaps even trade he is willing to give up elements of sovereignity -- whether to appease the US Chamber of Commerce or internal organizations is another question.

As to the poster's comment, I don't know that she is actually commenting on the piece at hand. However the overall point is correct -- elites do see any sort of locally derived public policy which might interfere with 'the Market' as a threat to be stamped out. From local control over demographics (e.g. immigration restriction) , to perserving agricultural land (e.g. farm subsidies ) , to pollution controls, 'Washington Consensus' types really really fear policy choices made by local majorities. There are of course good reasons for that, the more extensive a polity the more control is in the hands of the self-interested and those who have time and means to access info.

What is that you say? No soft porn to be found. We'll then perhaps the good professor would be so kind as to provide a few more Selma Hayek pics.

But the rest seems like little more than sour grapes. And how foolish of Etizioni to decry the less than civil dialogue (in his opinion) and in the next paragraph participate in exactly that?!

One academic got his idea rejected by another and now feels compelled to retaliate on a much lower level.