My thoughts on the Council on Foreign Relations...

[Sir Jeffrey]

I was looking for podcasts to download about a week ago and stumbled across the CFR's "on the record" podcasts. I figured I would give them a try since they are composed of elites in control of policy. I thought, at the very least, the level of policy analysis and debate would be top notch and I might, you know, learn something from our corporate overlords. Maybe my stupid liberal/socialist opinions were in need of some revision, and besides, I like challenging my beliefs.

Boy was I wrong.

Here is a firsthand account of what I find to be problematic about the most influential group of idiots advising the US govt.

1. At the CFR, they do not generally have equal debate. They invite "authorities" to discuss their pet issue(s). Authorities, as we all know, are not to be debated. Rather, they are to be listened to and obeyed.

2. Once the authorities have finished their speech, the floor is opened up for questions. The level of questioning is idiotic. The questioners are hopelessly uninformed and generally ask questions that do not challenge the authority's position.

3. At the CFR, your status = instant respect. Regardless of the quality of your ideas or analysis, who you are and what your job title is matters the most. If Reagan appointed you to head of something when your only experience prior to that was clearing brush, congratulations, you are now able to comment on the Shia crescent and influence policy.

4. As I alluded to earlier, the level of issue analysis is pathetic. Think of your first international relations class in undergraduate. Remember the quality of questioning? The terminology might not be familiar to you when you listen, but once you learn their big words the questions break down to simple ones like "why do A-rabs hate Amurka when we spent all dat money on 'em" and "jus' 'coz dem venezwalens dont like us dudnt mean we caint take there oil anyways".

5. Obviously, the pro-America, pro-Israel and pro-British bias is there, but I was surprised at how open it was. Bush's freedom agenda in the Middle East, for example, is never discussed in terms of whether the US should be meddling in the internal affairs of other states, but rather in terms of why it did not work. This displays overt arrogance and a distorted worldview, especially in light of recent events and massive failures.

6. By framing debate among elites, including many newsmen and women, the CFR creates false narratives in order to be disseminated to the yokels in flyover country (i.e. us).

7. Free market capitalism = democracy in CFR debate. Apparently, social democratic states like Norway do not exist.

8. No matter what and no matter where it is discussed, the left is the problem. Unions, progressives, and anyone else interested in spreading wealth to more citizens is described by the CFR as an obstacle to democracy...not just an obstacle to the free market. When they discuss global economics, they rarely discuss the income gaps between the rich and poor. They almost always discuss, if you can call it that, total wealth, average wealth, and GDP growth. Now anyone with half a brain knows if you average two incomes, one guy earning $12 million a year and one guy earning $12,000 a year, you get a distorted picture when you consider the average income alone.

My conclusion: the CFR is a group of backslapping dilettantes similar to your local business groups. They get together and "discuss" issues in order to create false narratives and stifle real debate and real reform of US foreign policy. The people actually running the organization pick and choose upcoming dilettantes with outstanding pedigrees and fancy degrees because they are useful idiots.

I really hope their "off the record" discussions are much better, because it does not give me great hope for the CFR I am familiar with to have that much influence over US policy.

[Sir Jeffrey]

1. One kick for the evening crowd nt