|
Thanks for the post madp.
The only critique I have of your response is the assumption regarding the relative power of think thanks--or PNAC in particular. I think such groups are highly influential in policy recommendations and implementation. While none may be strong enough to field a candidate, their influence lies among the cabinet and other high level advisory positions, where many of the decisions are either fully analyzed or actually reached.
I don't see any president as particularly independent (I don't limit this to Bush's lack of intelligence or any other derogatory claim) to make decisions. I would attribute this to the amount of information one is capable of acquiring before making a reasonable judgement as well as the various special skills necessary to analyze particular types of information. I believe this is why all presidents choose advisors--presumably ones they trust, since they won't often be able to double check the recommendations. I think we should look at the advisors' positions rather than the candidate (or, the candidates he or she will select, if known) to make an informed vote.
In this context, we are aware that the administration has ties to PNAC and I think it is apparent that their advise mirrors much of what that organization stands for.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|