I think we differ here
not really.
After I let that post go, I thought a bit more about it. I tried to envision some sort of test of my point. I decided something like this. As I read the papers, the person in the Bush administration, at least who speaks publicly, whose foreign policy views appear to be the most distant from my own is Wolfowitz (hope I spelled that right). That's leaving off the list the members of that advisory committee--Gingrich, et al.
It goes without saying that Wolfowitz knows more about the ins and outs of American foreign policy than I do; and, no doubt, knows more about subtle aspects of conflicts with given countries than I do or would ever plan to do. Nonetheless, I think he has the obligation to convince me that his views are better than mine (just a wee bit idealistic here) and to do so without invoking, and here's the test, either "trust me, I'm a professional," or "trust me, I know the background information here and you don't." In my status as citizen/taxpayer, he can't invoke either. He must stand with me as just another citizen/taxpayer.
Hmm, I read that last paragraph and I realize I still haven't gotten rid of the touch of Harbemas that still hits me on occasion.
On the other hand, in that same discussion, I can invoke professional privilege because he has no comparable status in my world.
I'm thinking about this as I type, so I'm fashioning an argument. I may change my mind with the next stroke. But so far, I'm sticking by my fingers.
John |
