SeedOfChaos wrote:I know they will, but I'm just asking... why should we allow them to?
There's a valid argument in support of having a solid, bi-partisan group of strong thinkers be the backbone of various policy initiatives. Consider that in our democracies the political balance of power swings back and forth between more conservative and more liberal viewpoints. Such committees can act as as centering force to try and keep policies on relative even keels which is good over the long run. This stability is enforced by the (relative) meritocracy which is a CFR.
Legislative and policy issues nowadays are invariably complex, which means that politicians rely more and more on lobbyists who are subject matter experts. Unfortunately, it's like hiring a Cisco sales rep to tell you about data-telecomms and what kind of systems you should buy for gov't use. You do get expert advice, but one which is invariably also slanted towards their clients interests. This is why legislative staff is also important, so that they can modify that subject advice with the caveats required to make a balanced decision. The cisco equipment may do the job required, but there may be valid reasons to select another approach, or another vendor. In the international affairs arena, CFR can act as a sort of independent lobbyist with "staff" members from both republican and democratic (or if you like, conservative and liberal) viewpoints. The number of influential people who have been or are members of the CFR is staggering. Paying attention to "Foreign Affairs" magazine (The CFR publication) is a very good way to see which way our foreign policy is likely headed, and why.
While it is a bit of an "old boys" club, it's more important function is to provide continuity of foreign policy so that changes are gradual, not radical and to serve as a private "sounding board" where differing viewpoints may be debated openly and honestly without fear of it being leaked to the tabloidish political press. Hannity, Colmbs, Rush etc need not apply. This is where the grown ups are talking. That kind of exchange really can lead to better policy as both sides take away something as well as a "working relationship" with the other side of the table. This in turn provides for inter-governmental stability and decreases the likelyhood of major governmental conflicts and theoretically, warfare.
Like any institution it has both good and bad points and plenty of critics from all sides. Personally, I tend to see the utilitarian value in maintaining an independent body to offer informed advice to governmental policy over the long term. In fact, I kind of wish there were an economic/taxation council to help the US come up with a more realistic and balanced system rather than the spasmodic lurching between poles that we do every time we change from republican to democrat and vice versa.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
