Iain Murray got a bit annoyed at my previous post on the Anglosphere question. (Incidentally, I think this is a data point for Daniel Drezner.) I didn’t mean to unfairly needle him, and it looks like we were talking past each other in that last exchange. In any event, we’ve all calmed down a bit (though perhaps not embraced nominalism, as Matt Yglesias advised). As I say in my comments to Iain’s final post on the topic, there’s not much to object to in Jim Bennett’s notes on the concept. I suspect my objections (and Iain’s and Jim’s disagreement with me) are of the “new and true” variety. My inclination is to say that what’s true about the “Anglosphere” idea can be found in existing concepts, and that what’s new about it is the political agenda that Bennett argues for in his Primer. But that’s an argument for another day.