One of the reasons I like Slate is that is always has big-picture analysis - it takes a step back and looks at the issues from a broader perspective. I like trees, but I like forests better. Slate has a great piece for example analyzing the competing visions of foreign policy that are being espoused by the GOP and the Demoracts - namely, fear vs goodwill respectively:
Which party is right? Both are probably oversimplifications. For now, the important thing is to be aware of the dispute. They're completely different theories of psychology. Neither has been clearly articulated, challenged, or defended. My colleague Bob Wright thinks the world operates on goodwill. My friend Charles Krauthammer thinks the world operates on fear. Their prescriptions on how to fight terrorism are completely opposite, yet each man's analysis is logically compelling, once you accept its psychological premise. That's where the real debate needs to be joined.
The article is (as usual) well-balanced and looks at both philosphies critically, and notes the respective weaknesses.