Despite Vladimir Putin’s acknowledged position as one of the world’s more right-wing leaning leaders in the world, many individuals on the opposite side of the political spectrum often seem eager to manufacture excuses, apologies, and explanations for an exceptional status.  Hence there have been some confusing exchanges over those perceived as “hardliners” on the Obama administration.  Here Matthew Yglesias blogs about whether or not we should really be calling Michael McFaul of Stanford a foreign policy “realist.”  If you’re curious about how we see realists, see this post.

Someone was asking me to characterize McFaul’s views a couple of weeks ago and likewise was coming from the default assumption that he’s a hardliner of whom I would disapprove. I think I said in response that that’s definitely his reputation, but I’m not sure it’s really correct. Or, rather, I think it tends to illustrate some of the artificiality of some of the foreign policy line-drawing. McFaul has a strong scholarly and policy interest in democracy promotion. And you never see him cosigning realist manifestos. And you sometimes do see him cosigning these kind of manifestos. That said, with regard to both democracy promotion in general and Russia in particular, McFaul’s a bona fide expert who really knows what he’s talking about, not a bullshitter who thinks it’s good to “be tough” or whatever. Consequently, he has, I think, a very measured and reasonable take on these things. I’d be hard-pressed to disagree with anything in his article on “Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?” co-written with Francis Fukuyama.