there's no epistemic closure in the foreign policy blogosphere like that in domestic policy. as small a community as it is, conservatives (who seem like the minority to me) are forced to confront non-conservatives and vice versa. it's still civil at this point, and opinions on either side or respected.

I actually think it's the opposite. On the domestic side, it's not that surprising to see Republicans going back to the more conservative conservatism of Reagan (which the elites back then also branded as anti-intellectual, etc.), when the current administration seems to have a domestic policy based on the 1970s on steroids. Reagonism, after all, was a reaction to the failed economic and domestic policies of the 1970s. And that's really what the Republican party had become by Obama's election after being decimated by both the policy failures and philosophical inconsistencies of the Bush year--simply a reaction to what was happening. Neither party has especially new ideas, at least by the time they are enacted and debated, but I think if you ask most Americans whether they'd rather live in the 70s or the 80s that's a pretty each choice, which may be why Republicans are now favored by every age group except the one not old enough to remember what life was like under Carter.

On the foreign policy front, again it seems Republicans are simply reactive and without fresh ideas after the failure of neoconservatism. But what Obama's done here is co-opt some of their ideas for his own policy and moved to the center, leaving them with just an incoherent muddle. If he'd done this also on the domestic side, I suspect he'd still be at 70% approval with the Republicans left with nothing more than the South as a base for support.

i think that while it's possible to co-opt parts of republican ideas on the foreign policy, put a blue veneer on it, and call it democratic foreign policy, i doubt this is the case on domestic policy.

i don't want to get into a debate on health care policy, but on the politics, progressive democrats wanted nothing less than some form of comprehensive health care reform, while moderates of either party and conservative republicans really didn't care about this issue, and of those who did, they preferred piecemeal reforms. there's no real way to reconcile that without pissing someone off, especially with pelosi, a progressive dem, as speaker. there are similar problems on issues like immigration, abortion, etc. to this ear, foreign policy is only relevant when we're at war, and obama satisfied the public with his war positions (out of iraq, steady in afghanistan). he simply can't do the same in domestic policy.

Part of the issue is who are we talking about? Are we talking about the broad range of people that consider themselves conservative, or the smaller group of foreign policy professionals, intellectuals, wonks, and people who are generally interested enough to go beyond FOX news. From what I've read and seen, the epistemic closure argument seems to apply almost exclusively to domestic affairs. One of central pillars of the argument is that people who brand themselves "entertainers" (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc) have overtaken the real thinkers as the voice of the conservative narrative. People listen to them, take their bromides as gospel, and then demand elected officials cater to their viewpoints, even if their viewpoints have no basis in reality. As a voter without a party affiliation, I really do want to be able to look at the right as a viable alternative, but right now that seems impossible. The only place I can find conservative viewpoints that aren't ridiculous or pointless is in the realm of foreign affairs. From where I stand, It seems that the consumers of mainstream conservative media don't actually care about what's going on beyond their borders, unless it can be used as weapon to bash the president over the head with. Thus, unless it's displaying the appropriate amount of umbrage over Iran's nuclear program, or becoming hysterical over the administration's Israel policy, the media outlets don't really cover it. In addition, foreign policy just doesn't produce the kinds of villains that play into their narrative. Where in foreign policy will we find such staples of neoconservative ire as hippies, welfare leaches, Ivy league intellectuals, and socialist city folk? They aren't there, and neither is an audience for it.
Another possibility is that perhaps after eight arguably disastrous years of neoconservatives running foreign policy, those guilty of epistemic closure feel humbled enough to stop talking about something they know nothing about for a while. I can't imagine the commentators who cheered the Bush administration through the Iraq war would have the hubris to claim the intellectual high ground now. But I could be wrong.
I think it mostly boils down to the fact that policy wonks in every group are more informed on the particular issues they cover than the general populace. The epistemic closure problem belongs to those who only get their information from mainstream conservative sources and those who try to please the largest possible audience. I doubt anyone here would actually take Glen Beck seriously if he had a two hour special on the Afghanistan (has he?). Hell, I actually lean more to the left and I've never seen the kind of ridiculousness that plagues domestic policy voiced by legitimate conservative thinkers in the foreign policy realm. I think you guys are probably safe.

I would need to answer this first:

Is there any real-palinist-foxnews-conservative among the foreign policy mainstream scholars?

Another thought that occurs to me about this argument is that it originates from the Frum/Brooks/Bush wing of conservatism/Republicanism. These big government/neoconservatism policies are what failed so spectacularly for both their party and the country over 8 years of implementation.

So, isn't it only both rational and sane for people to tell them to shut the hell up? I mean, it's not like these are academic policies that have only been tried academically; we know as a simple factual matter that these ideas produce bad outputs. Isn't this what eventually happened to the Carter wing of the Dems?

It seems to me the Frum/Brooks/Bush wing can either rethink their failed policies or complain that they are being excluded. Complaining is easier. But that doesn't change the basic fact that their policies were tried and frankly sucked and therefore if they continue to advocate them they should be shunned or ignored.

I'm going to assume that you mean the GOP by "conservatives"--and, in the opposite camp, I assume you mean the Dems. Firstly, the use of "conservatives" and "liberals" in foreign policy always struck me as somewhat dubious.

Some of us are idealists, others realists, and most are in between.

But back to your question about there being an epistemic closure in American foreign policy circles. I think the strongest counter-argument is the fact that there is, and always has been, so much policy convergence between the Dems and the GOP when it comes to foreign affairs. The Iraq war is a good example, and so is the war in Afghanistan. Both received almost unanimous support, and seem to be one of few things the two parties can agree on.

There is also a lot of dissent within both parties. You've got your Ron Pauls (isolationists), your Kissingers (realpolitiks), and your Cheneys (staunch neoconservatives). But there are so many ranges in between, and we do see a greater deal of intellectual latitude even among neoconservatives. Francis Fukuyama functions with virtually the same assumptions as other neocons, but doesn't call himself one and disagreed with the war in Iraq. Robert Kagan, as of late, has shown remarkable flexibility in his thinking, and no longer advocates a military strike on Iran. So, yes, I do agree that there is no epistemic closure in American foreign policy community debates.