Stephen Walt, Joseph Nye, and other academics have been quick to turn the blame on the academy for being too insular, too theoretical, and too methodologically challenging to be of any interest to policymakers.

As a self-hating Washingtonian, let me say that this is backward. First off, the idea that academic work is just too hard for busy DC policymakers to understand is a bizarre defense of the Beltway. We expect, rightly, Timothy Geithner to be up to speed on important work being published in the economics journals, and Antonin Scalia to be able to make his way through law review articles. I challenge the reader to leaf through the most prominent economics journals without finding challenging methodologies or the leading law reviews without finding elaborate theories. So why should the DC foreign policy establishment get a pass on IR scholarship because it’s too hard?

Second, from talking to staffers on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, policymakers are aware that academics differ significantly with their policy prescriptions—they simply don’t care. They believe that their insights are better, their stewardship of American power more responsible, and on and on. They know where they could find informed but differing voices. They simply don’t want to hear them.

Accordingly, I was refreshed to see Krebs and Yingling, in particular, push back against the idea that the academy is to blame and the poor DC policy establishment is broad-minded and desiring outside advice. They aren’t.