I think we differ here
not really. As much as I believe that foreign policy is a profession, I don't think it's just like other professions, for two reasons.
First, just what the professionalism consists of is pretty nebulous and subjective. Like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it and could probably even define it in abstract terms, but the number of people who would agree with me is so small that even though we're right, we can't really police boundaries (either of thought or practice). So the pros in this area really need to be humbler than those in other areas, and recognize that here even more than elsewhere being a pro doesn't give us all that much of an edge on smart laypeople.
Second, since foreign policy is public policy and we live in a democracy, it is indeed appropriate (as you point out) for nonprofessionals to have and express their opinions. In this context, I think read my point about Hanson incorrectly. I didn't mean to denigrate his right to be on a soapbox, or suggest that it was inappropriate for him to be there. I just meant that when he speaks on such issues, he speaks like any other citizen, rather than with the professional authority that he would indeed be able to muster if the subject were, say, hoplite battle tactics.
tb@servantofthepeople.com |
