Post <blockquote>1. I am not qually, and not a grad student. 2. I am not saying Mearsheimer likes/would like the current ISQ and anyway I'm not a big fan of his. Was just trying to distinguish perestroika from woke. If we agree on that, fine. 3. If you think the purpose of a journal is to produce cites like widgets (GM is your example, very telling), then maybe he was a bad editor. And If he failed to influence the field towards work he liked, he failed on his own terms, I guess. But if one thinks the field is awful (maybe b/c of people who missed their calling as middle management at GM) and he was trying to make it better, then it's just sad and he's not culpable of anything but a noble quest, doomed by hacks. Maybe "mainstream IR" is dreary and awful and so this isn't a great tragedy? I mean "I'm a scientist of international relations because I did a survey experiment!", really? Or (a few years ago) a duration model of civil war stuff? Also, Mearsheimer was big in Perestroika and he wasn't woke at all. Mearsheimer was also not big in "Tom Clancy won the Cold War," though, was he? And that was 20 years ago, wasn't it? Besides, I was trying to indicate that BOTH things mattered to Nexon, with disastrous results. What you've said is exactly what I'd expect a qually grad student to say, and since I presume that you're a qually grad student, I won't begrudge you that. But this is something else, and I hope you recognize that. It's like GMC hiring someone as CEO who really wants to transform the company into one that specializes in gas-powered unicycles. And the result? Nearly a 1.5 point drop in IF over five years. So yeah, mainstream IR was so "dreary and awful" that Dan decided to use his time at the help to make ISQ largely irrelevant in mainstream IR. Sounds like a great job.</blockquote>

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.