Stephen M. Walt has an important column up at Salon. Using the controversy over Bill Kristol's new gig as a New York Times columnist as a springboard, Walt argues that there is less of a difference between the liberal and neoconservative views on foreign policy than we think, and that a third, oft-underrepresented group has in recent years been excluded from the mainstream discourse: foreign policy realists.

He writes:

What's missing in America's mainstream media is the voice of realism. As the label implies, realists think foreign policy should be based on the world as it really is, rather than what we might like it to be. Realists see international politics as an inherently competitive realm where states constantly compete for advantage and where security is often precarious. But realists understand that being overly alarmist and aggressive can get states into just as much trouble as being excessively trusting or complacent. So realists keep a keen eye on the balance of power, but they oppose squandering blood or treasure on needless military buildups, ideological crusades, or foolish foreign wars. Realists cherish America's commitment to democracy and individual liberty, but they know that ideals alone are no basis for conducting foreign policy. They also understand that endless overseas adventures will inevitably provoke a hostile backlash abroad and eventually force us to compromise our freedoms here at home.

Such views are hardly heretical, but there is not a single major columnist, TV commentator or radio pundit who consistently presents a realist perspective on world politics and American foreign policy. In America today, the mainstream media is a realism-free zone.

His argument, that the current breakdown of foreign policy commentators (in which the vast majority fit either the neoconservative or mainline liberal [think Thomas Friedman] mold) has failed us, and that a more outspoken realist influence could bring some much-needed clarity to matters of military power and statecraft, is compelling. Take backlash, for example—it’s a very useful, very real concept. But anyone who brings it up in the mainstream foreign policy discourse is branded a “blame-America-firster,” or other such nonsense, and immediately discredited. This is the result of having so many of our commentators and high-profile experts squeezed onto a narrow range of the spectrum of foreign policy ideology. Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on this. The merits of realism notwithstanding, its hard to argue that our foreign policy debate couldn’t use some fresh air.