Whenever I read Dan Drezner’s blog I always say to myself: I could go for a pastrami sandwich. But I say that all the time so that’s not relevant. Specifically when I read Drezner, I say “Man, I really should read this more often.” A case in point (via Instapundit) is Drezner’s thoughtful reaction to EU bullishness. Good stuff, good links, etc. An excerpt:

It’s the future trajectory where Moravcsik loses me — which is why I wrote what I wrote in Foreign Affairs this month. I’m simply more pessimistic about Europe’s ability to alter its domestic institutions and overcome its long-term demographics to continue to rise. The EU has staved off this problem in part by increasing expansion, but the fact is they’re going to be running out of viable countries soon. Moravcsik and other EU-boosters will counter by pointing to economic aspects of the EU model that work very well — France’s total factor productivity is higher than America’s, Scandanavia has combined a generous welfare state with high birthrates and flexible labor markets, etc. This is true, but it is, frankly, a bulls**t argument. You can’t say that the entire European Union is on the upswing by pointing to a few regions of it that are doing well in certain metrics and implying that a diffusion effect to the rest of the continent. Domestic institutions in Europe are pretty resistant to change. Indeed, for al the EU’s successes, I would still wager that the diffusion of policy innovations would spread faster from American state to American state than between the different members of the EU. You also can’t point to the best bits of the EU and compare it to the U.S. as a whole. Why include MIssissippi but not Greece or Bulgaria? How does French productivity stack up against California alone?