 |
|
Friday, July 20, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Starbucks liberalism (??)
There's something about writing about Starbucks that apparently renders me incapable of determining whether the writer is being satirical or straight (click here for an earlier example). Will someone please tell the hardworking staff here at danieldrezner.com whether or not Shadi Hamid is trying to be funny in these paragraphs? There is something rather amusing (and self-indulgent) about “coffee-cup liberalism,” but at the end of the day, I kind of like it. Let’s export it. Oh yea, we’re already doing that. If you weren’t aware, Starbucks is in the process of colonizing Egypt. I can’t say that this is a bad thing, particularly as there is a new theory emerging in the political science literature called the “Starbucks peace theory" – i.e. countries with Starbucks don’t go to war with each other. So, instead of invading the Iranians, why don’t we force a Starbucks store in Tehran down their throats? That can be our stick, until we think of a carrot (or is it the other way around?).UPDATE: I'm glad too see that others are confused by Starbucks. posted by Dan on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM Comments: I hope this falls in the satirical category. I've walked into a Starbucks and ordered a 'medium' (not grande) coffee, and I don't want to think that 'coffee cup liberals' are judging me for it. posted by: Greg on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]"Are you being sarcastic, dude?" "I don't even know anymore..." posted by: Jacob T. Levy on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]Google yields nothing other than the piece you link to when queried about Starbucks Peace Theory. Thus, I vote for satire. However, it appears someone has promoted a Krispy Kreme peace theory . posted by: Appalled Moderate on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]I've heard of Starbucks Peace Theory - it is used in IR circles not to mock democratic peace theory. It is used based on the presumption that Dem. Peace Theory is is correlation and not causation (I disagree but thats beside the point. So to mock this argument that two democracies have never fought a war, opponents of the theory say "Well, two countries with Starbucks have never fought a war either." They're not being serious - just trying to refute democratic peace theory. posted by: Dan on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]Sorry, that should read "it is used in IR circles to mock democratic peace theory." Take out the "not" posted by: Dan on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]The Starbucks Peace Theory sounds just like one from a few years back: the McDonald's Peace Theory. This one pointed out that countries with Golden Arches did not make war upon the others. One problem with the theory is that its originator was one Thomas Friedman, which means that if the new theory is not pure satire, the only other explanation is that it, too, is killingly facile. posted by: bjkeefe on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]Those two paragraphs are too rich to be satire coming from Shadi, so my guess is that he's playing it straight... With regards to Starbucks peace theory: Starbucks arrived in Lebanon in 1999. It had Israeli locations from August 2001 to April 2003. Should we blame last summer's conflict on the coffeemaker's withdrawal? http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/history/corporatestories/starbucks.html Well damn it... somebody has to tell Starbucks to keep their location in Forbidden City, China or else they'll be responsible for World War III. There used to be a 'golden arches theory' - no two countries with a Macdonalds in their capital city had ever been to war. This theory collapsed with the bombing of Belgrade (which had a Macdonalds) by NATO in 1999. posted by: Paul on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]It seems to me the theory says more about the global shift to intrastate conflict than any link between globalization and peace. posted by: Danny on 07.20.07 at 09:22 AM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
 Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page  Reviews of DanielDrezner.com: "Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic "Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan "Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh "One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com "Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com "Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni "Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald "Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers Contact me at: ddrezner@gmail.com (But click here to read my e-mail policy) Search the Site TNR's Open University Jacob Levy Glenn Reynolds Andrew Sullivan Mickey Kaus Virginia Postrel The Volokh Conspiracy Josh Marshall Crooked Timber OxBlog Real Clear Politics Kevin Drum Across the Aisle Economist's Free Exchange TNR's The Plank NRO's The Corner TAP's Tapped America Abroad Duck of Minerva Opinio Juris Brad DeLong Jeff Jarvis Mystery Pollster Mark Kleiman Meryl Yourish Megan McArdle Marginal Revolution Michael Munger Chris Lawrence Matthew Yglesias Hit and Run Cold Spring Shops Stephen Green Outside the Beltway Pejman Yousefzadeh Laura McKenna (11D) Elected Swineherd Phil Carter Joe Gandelman Winds of Change Andrew Samwick Greg Mankiw Dani Rodrik Roger L. Simon Tom Maguire Greg Djerejian The American Scene Post Global Democracy Arsenal Recent articles online "Foreign Policy Goes Glam."The National Interest, November/December 2007 "Rise of the Hipster Statesmen." Newsweek International, November 1, 2007 "The New New World Order." Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 "Mind the Gap." The National Interest, January/February 2007 "The Grandest Strategy Of Them All." Washington Post, December 17, 2006 U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006. Complete online article archive Blog Archives June 2008May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Academia Area studies Book club culture economics fence-sitting from Blogger globalization homeland security international relations law Mediasphere My very important posts New Republic outsourcing personal politics Sports The blog paper the blogosphere thesis ideas Trade and Development U.S. foreign policy website maintenance See full archives listing Recent Entries • Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton• It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you • So.... are the Clintons morons? • The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog • Monica Crowley's jet black pot • Al Qaeda is losing • Speaking of karma.... • The blog post that writes itself • What made me laugh today • Where should Hillary go? Site Credits 
|