What I notice constantly is the scant participation of academic scholars on TV programs dealing with politics, foreign affairs, and the economy. Most economic commentary comes from brokerage house types whose impartiality is very suspect; political comment almost always is from party hacks who are never impartial or from pundits who have a well-known "point of view" that defines them, and foreign affairs uses people who have been in government, either as Republicans or Democrats. Academic types are scarce as hen's teeth. Some of these have blogs, like this one, but most of the public, I would suspect, don't pay all that much attention to blogs. Why this is I can only guess. I suspect the ones who repeatedly appear on TV charge nothing and are delighted to be able to tout their points of view. In the case of academics, I would think most don't charge, but they may be too busy with other things to take the time. Walt might know more about all this.

SDome academics seem to seek power without responsibility, a setup famously described as the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. My observation that academics wanting more chips in the national power game usually really want only more chips for them and other academics who see things as they do. Few people are more bitchy than academics of clashing views.

Be careful what you wish for. In the UK, our "research assessment exercises" look for impact and their measurement of it is essentially pared down to how we have contributed to the economy or policy. In theory a good idea. In practice, impossible to measure and open to sophistry on the one hand, and pushing scholarship towards conservative or instrumental research on the other.

I am someone who works on Israel/Palestine from a pretty critical position. I am quite happy to talk to policy-makers about my work, but in order to do so, I would have to "tone down" my work. In a way I would rather not have the kind of impact the aforementioned exercise requires and maintain the integrity of my work.

Your book with Mearsheimer probably wouldn't count very highly in this impact exercise because of its critical positioning.

Well the book with Mearsheimer went contrary to the Lobby that is extremely powerful in the US, more than anywhere else, I would think. In fact the storm that arose when it was published was, as Juan Cole said, an indication of how influential it was. When it could not be refuted effectively, the Lobby and its minions took the tack of ignoring it. "Pretend it doesn't exist." And that has worked pretty well. It isn't much mentioned anymore and that is not because what it says is not important.

Yesterday there was a terrible massacre in Norway. When I arrived back at home in Germany, I turned to the BBC and CNN as usual to get a update of the daily news.

The first thing I heard was the usual Obama comment given to him by Dennis Ross! on a index card, DR being his Israeli minder to direct him when to speak and what to say.

Already one of Ross's friends from one of the numerous FearMongering Scare Tanks was on BBC analyzing why the attack was due, of course, to Israel's enemies. These Brownies are everyplace in the world. One ought check under the children's bed at night--even in Norway.

You are wrong about BBC, sir and Hard Talk--usually hosted by Stephen Sachur--it is as Zionist as the NYTimes.

You are doing a wonderful job as one of the few observers we can depend on, but in this case you have missed the mark.

This morning--even though the Norwegan government has identified a Norwegan as the culprit, both the USA and UK highest officials are demanding that the word terrorism should be used and that the ALERT LEVEL should be put up because by definition all evil in the world comes from the Moslem Brownies--all of which has one certain affect/effect,

It it is cover for Israel Totalitarianism that even as we speak is preparing for another Gaza or Lebanon or Iran. Just as in South Africa, the colored people are BLACK and the whites are proteching themselves from the EVIL in this lesser breed.

Where are the neo-conservatives who brought on this economic and political mess?

They are evidently hiding in their think tanks or taking asylum in academia. Anyway, they are in safe havens, satisfied that they achieved their stated goals of regime change by toppling their nemesis - Saddam Hussein. Though none of those neo-cons wore the country's uniform, they pushed others to get into the fight.

It was the neo-cons who decided America should have an empire in the 21st century. Their design for the world has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths - not to mention the wounded and displaced.

Many of the neo-cons may have been kicked out of top government positions, but their influence in former President George W. Bush's administration was enormous. They convinced Bush of the need for torture. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has not ended the unlawful practice.

It's not surprising that the neo-con aspiration to get Saddam coincided with Israel's purpose, or that Saddam was accused of holding weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had none. Hans Blix, the former head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, begged Bush to let him go into Iraq to prove Iraq had no such lethal weapons. Bush refused. He wanted to invade Iraq.

Bush once told an interviewer that only war presidents are remembered in history. He will go down in history all right. Ironically, Bush and his cohorts - and the world in fact - know that only Israel had a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. Top American officials, from Obama on down, have lost their credibility by refusing to say that Israel is a nuclear power.

The next target for the neo-con empire builders is Iran, another major enemy of Israel. If Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear bomb, the United States is supposed to attack Iran. So far, Obama has resisted the neo-con orders, but who knows for how long.

Their agenda was laid out in Project for the New American Century. Their "Statement of Principles" promotes increasing military spending; modernizing our armed forces; strengthening ties to democratic allies to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; promoting the causes of political and economic freedom abroad; and accepting responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and principles. These are goals not easily won without war.

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website," with "a single employee" "left to wrap things up," according to the BBC News. In 2006, Gary Schmitt, former executive director of the PNAC, stated that PNAC had come to a natural end.

The PNAC was a platform for a new American colonialism - and the neo-cons continue to lobby in Congress. They also are welcomed on the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their ultra-right points of view.

Others on the neo-con team include Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Kagan, both former Reaganites and Bush propagandists.

The neo-cons stated that the failure to depose Saddam would have resulted in a "decisive surrender in the international war on terrorism." They did not estimate the cost in American lives and money - and they probably didn't care.

Critics of the neo-cons have called them "chicken-hawks - men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war." They accuse the neo-cons of taking it a step further than the conservatives, who believe in maintaining a strong national defense. The neo-cons can only succeed in promoting their goals by blurring the lines between policing the world and maintain a strong national defense.

While many Republicans have begun to question the old neo-con foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the new neo-con hopeful.

While the neo-cons have achieved some of their goals, they have betrayed the good will of Americans and the decency of the country. They should be ashamed!

Helen thomas http://www.fcnp.com/

I agree with your basic thesis.

However, for the sake of argument, your statement of the contrary position – “irrelevance” – is glib and superficial.

I think that the contrary position may be something like eg Karl Mannheim’s “free-floating intelligentsia”. To point out that this notion of Mannheim’s is utopian is to miss the point, most especially the criticality inherent in his concept.

In an age of bitter partisanship and fierce ideological allegiances, the simple act of changing one’s mind seems to be an act akin to death.

To refer to the Norway bomb articles I've read, they do draw a distinct line between Christian fundamentalist and Islamic radicals, evident in the wording of course. in this instance i believe the effect is similar to a child learning from it's parent. "If governments can use power, mainly force to achieve their goals, then we, as the minority should as well." The peaceful protests, or non-violent criticism is similar to drawing a red bead on ones head. around the world they are beaten, arrested and shot. In response, a preemptive strike is necessary, a "they will come after us, we must show them what they risk."

While yes, Academia do tend to covet power, isn't the power to affect change a noble goal? and while the ship itself can cause damage to the environment, it's the wake that leaves its impact. It's when they forgo using words that it becomes dangerous. and whether they're critical of their government or not it's the fact that someone, with some merit says something. It's my opinion that the academia represents the first line of defense for the people, to prevent them from putting themselves at risk o retaliation by subtly, or rudely pointing out where the public would disagree.
Just my tangent ridden two cents :p

They sit in their ivory tower immune from attack. Propagating their agenda to students who pay 50k+ a year to attend university. Academics aren't chosen on merit or ability. They can pretty much get away with anything, including fraud, defamation, antisemitism, and bigotry - because they have their get-out-of-jail-professor card.

Walt is a serial liar and propagandist.

Nuff said.

Let’s be frank – and leave the epithets “elitist”, “mandarin”, etc etc to the pusillanimous “culture wars” where they belong – there is a horrifying tendency for that which is popular and well-known to also be brutally vulgar.

Cf. eg Vulgaris in extremis : Dawkins’ “God Delusion”

Proper statement of the problematic with due attention paid to both nuance and, indeed, science (in Atran’s case) and theology in (Armstrong’s case):

Scott Atran “In Gods we Trust: the Evolutionary Landscape of Religion”

Karen Armstrong “The Great Transformation”

Not exactly vulgar but possibly spattered with the blood of far too much polemicization and attention-seeking careerism:

Noam Chomsky

Slavoj Zizek

Criminally and fatally “not that well known” for the obvious reason that their positions are well-nigh impossible to single word summarize, which surely is the nature of "the truth".

Immanuel Wallerstein

Roberto Unger

What is to be done? I wish I knew.

The most useful role academics can make is to be active within their own local communities. If you can really persuade one person of a significant truth, he will broadcast it to at least nine others. Debating with decision makers at the top will only confirm the views of some, while those who disagree ignore or file whatever you say. It is from the roots that meaningful change can be made. Besides, not all academics are that bright and some are plain dotty. Here, purely for delectation, is the output of one from the Hebrew University decrying nationalism of all things. Enough already.

Another problem with this idealistic notion is that if pursued with any integrity it would run counter to the purposes of the military/industrial/media complex and therefore be open to subornation or strangulation, and if it were not pursued with integrity it would be more harmful than keeping a low profile. It is the student generations that most need to be guided towards a balance of reason and sensitivity and that should remain the prime purpose of academia. All study, aside from science, is essentially history and calls for interpretation and it is the lens employed by the interpreter that determines future attitudes and actions. A fundamental dilemma in the West arises from a tendency to pretend to see events through the lens of moral values espoused by 19th century gentlemen. It is questionable whether they had any validity then but they certainly don’t today. “Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind / Cannot bear very much reality”. The young can, however, entertain a bit more and academics have quite enough on their plates without attempting to influence the likes of Wolfowitz, McCain, Lieberman, etc.

There are quite a number of university people who have blogs on the economy. Most of the bloggers are faculty economists. I think of the ones of Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Mark Thoma, Menzie Chinn and others. People tend to read them not only for information and points of view, but also to contribute their own "2 cents worth." The policies of the bloggers as hosts varies, perhaps reflecting their personalities. I get the impression that Delong is rather cantankerous and whimsical re his commentators and often expunges what they write. As a result his blog doesn't seem to get many comments. I don't think Chinn invites comments, although I may be in error about this. Thoma's blog acts mainly as a conduit of the opinions of others, Thoma himself appearing not to have much to say as far as I can tell. I think Krugman's is probably the most popular. He gets lots of comments, accepts all that are not obscene or ridiculous, and is in general the best and most welcoming of hosts.

Following social networks will teach all of us, not only the academia, about public atmosphere.
In web2 you can find the real world on-line.
One can gain there a lot of knowledge for the betterment of society just from watching all the video production
out there.

On January 17 2001, during the impeachment trial of Philippine President Joseph Estrada, loyalists in the Philippine Congress voted to set aside key evidence against him. Less than two hours after the decision was announced, thousands of Filipinos, angry that their corrupt president might be let off the hook, converged on tera patrick, a major crossroads in Manila. The protest was arranged, in part, by forwarded text messages reading, "Go 2 EDSA. Wear blk." The crowd quickly swelled, and in the next few days, over a million people arrived, choking traffic in downtown Manila. The public's ability to coordinate such a massive and rapid response -- close to seven million text messages were sent that week -- so alarmed the country's legislators that they reversed course and allowed the evidence to be presented.. Estrada's fate was sealed; by January 20, he was gone. The event marked the first time that social media had helped force out a national leader. Estrada himself blamed "the text-messaging generation" for his downfall.

Vain Human Gods will never admit liability or errors. And certainly you see by the answers that follow that what I say is true. Their answers are so perfect as to never admit liability or mistake. And they are sure to put you in your place, below their feet. (I'm also long haired freaky person, as yourself) Look at them, they even are sure that they know exactly what the Muslims are fighting for. How do you suppose that they know all that, huh? They are so eager to believe U.S. RIO government propaganda, aren't they?.