The dumbing down of U.S. economic and foreign policy elites

Was it not the triumphalism, hubris and lack of boundaries that accompanied the end of the cold war? The hyperpower that makes its own reality (cf Suskind). This reached it peak with Bush but started wih Bush senior and gathered through the Clinton administration.

Wouldn't the realists say that we pay attention to underlying strategic reality and not see it entirely in ideological terms.

"a culture where people made enormous sums of money taking irresponsible risks that have now put the entire economy at risk."

Falling short statement. This sub-culture of economics and the sub-culture of politics Professor talks about are just by products of the Monopoly - the State. When something turns into monopoly all the competition becomes meaningless, look at yourself you can't think without State;-> Which means to me even yourself give in to the Monopoly. What can poor Obama change there, really?! Other than to let it replaced by another ones. I am really amazed that you Guys still cannot see that there is something seriously wrong with the system rather than people. Remember Caligula who had appointed a Horse as the head of the Senate, maybe Obama has to do the same appointing a Donkeys to the head of his economics and foreign politics teams, that would help, playing Roman haven't we?!;->>

lost its collective mind

Collective mind emerges in an environments where SPEEs have right to law and practicing it. It emerges on SPEE level first and they compete with each other to integrate in a higher level collective mind. You've lost that collective-mind formation due to assimilating SPEEs to mono-law under the hegemony of the Monopoly - the State. Now you are left with no mind / unconscious as Freeman put it;-> Freeman is a great man, mark his words!

And you are scared of your own SPEEs?! You are dying Mate, you are dying!

Grand Sen~or.

There was even serious talk at the time about creating an American empire in the region.

??

I did read some people of the Juan Cole ilk impugning various motives to Bush. But if these charges are what you are referring to, this doesn't qualify as "serious" regardless of how ponderously or gravely delivered.

Was anyone actually advocating creating an American empire?

The "Best and Brightest" lied us into Vietnam. The "Smartest Guys in the Room" gave us Enron and the "Masters of the Universe" brought us a collapsed economy.

Read "Trust Us, We're Experts" to see how we're constantly suckered by experts.

Read the best-selling "The Wisdom of Crowds" for overwhelming evidence that large diverse groups make better decisions than ANY elite, let alone the best Congress money can buy. Buying Congress is likely the world’s best investment, paying off at 1000 to 1, according to several sources, including Jack Abramoff, in the 3rd paragraph of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000783.html.

Then go to http://Vote.org and consider the alternative, used in Switzerland for 117 years: co-determination, in which Parliament makes laws but so do the people, voting 3-7 times a year on local, Cantonal and NATIONAL ballot initiatives. It keeps Parliament humble and representative and citizens engaged. The Swiss read more newspapers/capita than anyone.

Actually, many years before the crisis, Joseph Stieglitz wrote a paper warning about the dangers of derivatives.

John, if 'reputable', mainstream folks had been shouting from the rooftops vis-à-vis the imminent economic crisis and the disaster of Iraq/Afghanistan who would have listened?

On Iraq/Afghanistan MOST people with half an ounce of sense realised that it would be an utter disaster. The question is why the foreign policy elites were so completely removed from the overwhelming civil society, academic and public opinion.

On the economic crisis, who would have listened when things were still going well? Who would it have benefited to hear that sort of thing? They would have been written off as naysayers, pessimists. And there is nothing American political culture detests more than a pessimist. Its all about hard work, 'can do attitude', motherhood and apple pie ain't it?

The fundamental misunderstanding here seems to be that democratic political culture is attuned to intelligent, rational, objective and longsighted thought. Politicians (and the advisers that say yes to them were in no position to think, say or do anything contrary to the pathological positivity that accompanies a democracy when things are going alright.

On Iraq/Afghanistan i'd say the problem was ultimately a corrupt and out of touch elite that believed its own hype about American hyper-supremacy.

On the economic crisis i'd say the problem was ultimately a corrupt and out of touch elite that couldn't possibly do anything about it anyway. Anyone who spoke up would've been shot down by the logic of the short-termist political culture.

Driverless locomotive metaphors abound.

Its shocking to realise that the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world were by no means even remotely in control of the economy but until something went severely wrong (i.e. for rich/middle class rather than poor people who've been getting screwed for years) nobody COULD do anything about it.

Is the situation with our clubby and self-congratulatory elites really any worse than most earlier times in US history? Apart from a scant handful of exceptional figures, the US isn't exactly known for the brilliance of its leaders. It's strength appears to lie in certain qualities of its people who, while definitely no brighter or wiser than the leaders, nevertheless exhibit an energetic and rambunctious drive to work, innovate and hustle after the main chance. That restless, roiling dynamism of crass bounders on the make seems to keep the whole cacophonous operation moving forward and muddling along, no matter what our leaders do. America has always been more P.T. Barnum than George Kennan. It's not an uplifting and edifying work of art, but its perhaps the Greatest Show on Earth.

I agree with Dan Kervick. America had an unbroken string of successes after WWII, which delivered half of the world to us to do with pretty much as we pleased. We let them do what they liked provided they supported us in our key goals, anticommunism and making money.

Since our goal was to stop communism, anything we did was by definition better than failing to try to stop communism. So, unbroken string of successes. USSR kept eastern europe. USSR got the bomb. China went communist. Korea. Cuba went communist. Greece nearly went communist but we stomped on them. 200 dead CIA agents trying to liberate hungary in what turned out to be a communist trap. Communist revolutions breaking out everywhere but we stomped on them as they happened. We supported Duvalier. We supported Batista. We supported Somoza. Etc, but it was better than communism. Bay of Pigs. Israel. Vietnam. S&L debacle. But somehow everything kept getting better.

Two things: New technology. Cheap oil.

It took until now for our sins to catch up with us. We did lots of stupid things but we were so rich we could afford them. I don't have good numbers on how much oil we used up fighting communism. Half the world's supply, maybe when you include the oil communists used up fighting us. And we did win.

Now the oil is dribbling away and we can't afford our traditional stupidities. I say, get out of iraq and afghanistan, cut back the military for awhile -- retool, get ready for a strong military later, but don't pay for lots of men and ammo and stuff right now -- and accept a loss on the war on drugs. That's a start.

Try to set up the social understanding that drugs are for losers, except for caffeine and maybe nicotine and perhaps alcohol. Fine for people with boring rote jobs to smoke cannabis. Fine for people with dreary jobs to chew coca. If you want to get ahead you need a clear head.

Cheap soporific and delightful drugs will give poor people something to do that's better than just TV and that doesn't need electricity. It will reduce our crime problem and our prison problem and our balance of payments problem etc. it isn't ideal but we can afford it a lot better than we can afford the war on drugs.

Congrats. This must be the best post on FP so far. You raise the most important issue in this entire decade - incompetence.

I agree 100% with the Rich column. But its beyond being marinated, its about a few more things. An outsider, might not necessarily be any better than someone marinated.

The Bush administration is principally responsible for these twin disasters, but the fact is that most of the Democratic Party's foreign policy experts -- certainly the more senior ones -- supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and to do massive social engineering across the Middle East.

But the question, can also be asked of you, Steve. And I am sure if you look inside for an answer, you'll find it. You can also look outside, at your experience as an iconoclast.

While you know I disagree with your take on Israel, and the Lobby, I can tell you that what's at play -

I think -

is simply conformism.

Free speech requires some kind of courage. Hollywood would make you believe that courage is required only to punch people in the nose - it is conceptually dead in producing a popular culture of dialogue, and communication, and to explain what real courage is about.

I remember Richard Saul Wurman noting in a book the art of Conversation, how conversation had died in our age, and how it had been the sinecure of human interaction. Well, I think its the sinecure of democracy, more than anything.

I think Wurman missed a key point though - conversation is about courage. Once you are attached to an idea, you have to have courage, to have it critiqued, and to do so politely, and within bounds.

Again, Hollywood would have you screaming, and yelling, and punching.

It takes much more courage, to pipe down, and talk. It takes enormous courage, to think thoughts, which are made prohibitive, by our surroundings.

Manliness, about which conservatives endlessly whine and say its dead - is not about the right to bear arms - but the courage to even thing thoughts, which can cost you. Manliness is about not conforming to the point, of being afraid to express doubt even to yourself.

When everyone around you is high-status, and you're all chasing more status, of course you don't' want to stand out. It takes courage to do so. And it takes a graet deal of manliness to be ready to talk.

I sincerely appreciate every time one of you FP writers, answer our comments here, because I think it takes courage. I don't think it is easy to deal with our comments here, because you have to kind of brace yourself each time.

As for courage and manliness in the Obama administration. I hate to say this - but it is one tenth of the Bush administration. Bush had balls, say what you will.

Obama is the consummate coward - chicken button and throwing his friends over a bus.

Rahm and Axelrod, are the supreme cowards - they are folks who can get an Obama elected, but who would never make it to the same place, because their way of running things requires zero oversight, and zero transparency. That's how cowards operate.

Remember, Clinton released all her campaign memos - no matter how incriminating - Obama and Axelrod - zero. For Obama this goes back to every single thing he's ever done since 1993. Not one piece of paper we can see.

Cowards operate in the dark, and that's the Obama team.

"In fact, not one of Obama's principal foreign policy advisors opposed the Iraq war, although the president did."

Did James Jones support the war?

Come on, you've read "Why States Believe Foolish Ideas" by Stephen van Evera. Why not use that as your starting point? Or, maybe something to do with the failure of the media - did the Fourth Estate not do ITS job, as Jon Stewart would argue in re: CNBC, or perhaps with WMDs, or criticizing "Shock and Awe" rather than asking "Tell Me How This Ends" (Petraeus to Atkinson).

John:

Great headline.

I can't think of anyone more qualified to spot a dumb elite than yourself.

"Why weren't there lots of prominent economists and bankers standing on the rooftops warning that the economy was heading for the precipice?"
"Why were there so few people inside the Beltway warning that Iraq was likely to be a disaster and that it was a fool's errand to try to use the U.S. military to re-make the Middle East in America's image?"
In both cases,there were knowledgeable people that had warned of possible bad outcomes; unfortunately, these people had little access to the MSN megaphone until after the consequences became obvious (and even then access is/was often limited). Even on the occasions when these experts managed to get the public's attention, they were quickly shouted down. As Walt points out, some of those doing the shouting are now employed by the Obama administration. In the case of the Bush administration, they simply didn't want to hear, so discussions on Iraq only served to build public pressure over a long period of time. The jury is out on the Obama administration. Will they posses a tin ear as well? Wouldn't surprise me.

First of all, who knew that Frank Rich had such a great influence on realist foreign policy experts? This "insider culture" meme is such a shop-worn cliche. If he didn't have so many insiders, these same people would be de-crying Obama's lack of wisdom and foresight in hiring people who know how the system operates.

Aside from that, I think John's hyperbole is not warranted and additional context is required. Afghanistan and Iraq are disasters? Ok, sure, but so is spilling soup down my shirt at lunchtime before a big staff meeting. As Prof. Walt has said, and maybe Professor Mearsheimer, too, Great Powers have room at the margins for mistakes. Let's not overstate the problem caused by us going into Iraq and Afganistan.

As for whether the United States lost its collective mind, even the One We Have Been Waiting For, Barack Obama himself, called his decision to oppose the Iraq War the toughest decision he has had to make. Does that mean he was simply off his rocker? Alot of things that could have gone wrong during the invasion of Iraq did not. But some did.

And who is to say what would have happened in the region had we focused solely on Afghanistan. The Bush Administration was faced with some DIFFICULT choices after 9/11. Ok, so they were too ambitious and bold and their reach exceeded their grasp. Lesson learned. See how many trees I just saved?

It's the lack of accountability in our culture. People taking out loans they know they can't pay back, and stop making payments on their mortgages: make the rest of us buy their homes for them. Talk about a free lunch, now we have free houses.

@AllanGreen: Whats the point in being courageous if nobody takes the slightest bit of notice of you? There are plenty of people revising history and claiming to have been warning about this for years. They portray themselves as being fairly 'out there' and radical for this, but whatever the accuracy of their story nobody listened and nobody would have listened.

You can't be within the mainstream and be subversive. You can only be subversive from without. And once without nobody cares what you have to say.

Whither democracy.

One wonders why our elites have failed us so badly. What went wrong? How could so many economic experts and so many foreign policy experts have been so mistaken about such important matters? Why weren't there lots of prominent economists and bankers standing on the rooftops warning that the economy was heading for the precipice? Why were all those Nobel Prize winners so clueless about the potential dangers of derivatives and de-regulation?

Ever so often, we get bogged down in the belief in our systems. Today is much like this. We have so many formulas and concepts. We have so structured society, that we see anything out side the box as lesser.

There was a time when knowledge was a matter of being informed. Now, it is a matter of complying with some structure, otherwise you are considered not to know.

We are such creatures of habit, that we tend not to think outside those habits. Those idea we inherited. I look at the basic concept of our education systems, knowledge is held in structures to be attained. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln, Einstein, or Thomas Edison had been so restricted? Well, in the later 2 cases they were, that is why they were dismissed by tradition educators.

The reality is that knowledge exists, we have the tools to attain it. Not just attain, but we have the ability and need to question it. But, structure and habit are just much more comfortable to our nature.

John Mearsheimer’s splendid article was a commentary on Frank Rich’s insightful NYT article “Has a Katrina Moment Arrived. It was not a commentary about comments regarding the NYT article. Out of the 26 comments posted regarding Mearsheimer’s piece most were not comments concerning what either Mearsheimer or Rich had written but mainly a running commentary about the comments other contributors had written. I think contributors and readers of FP deserve better. Alan Green said “I don't think it is easy to deal with our comments here”, hey no kidding. I am suggesting by focusing commentary on the articles themselves it would greatly simplify the issue. Twitter, Face Book is more fitting venues for such personal dialog and exchange.

With all due respect to Paulette Altmaier, Frank Rich, and John Mearsheimer, President Obama's Katrina moment has NOT arrived, and it is BEYOND FOOLISH to even throw around that sort of reckless rhetoric. He's been President for 66 days for cripes sake. That sort of language is not surprising coming from its source (Northern California, by way of the NYT and Frank Rich) but about the only thing it does is provide another example of the echo chamber that exists on the Left. It may be fun for Frank Rich to talk about Jay Leno and yeah, everyone's mad about the AIG bonuses, but can we try just a little harder to gain some proper perspective? "Action must match words" Frank writes. Hearing that from an op-ed writer made me chuckle out loud.

Policy cannot be made rationally if clear thinking is constricted by a taboo.

In the case of the Middle East the taboo is that nothing can be done which would be perceived as anti-Semitic.

In the case of the economy the taboo is that nothing can be done which would be perceived as anti-minority. For example, high down-payments and income verification.

"The Mystery of The missing Phase IV" is an intriguing one, and seems to lie mostly with a State/DoD total absence of communication. There is confirmation in plenty that Rumsfeld actively sought to hinder contigency planning and cross-department cooperation. Wtf happened there? The Bremer admin looks like the biggest bank robbery in history. Can we get some investigations into the flow of money during that time, please?