But I’m too cynical these days to think of Bush II as enveloping a foreign policy per se.

I always assumed Bush II was a pragmatist: Wars make presidents popular. Bush likes popularity. Iraq was presumed to be an easy target. Bush takes our US troops to war under false pretenses. Bush gets to wear a Commander-In-Chief hat. He under-deploys troops in order to stretch out the length of the war in Iraq. This prolongs his Commander In Chiefness.

His cronies receive dividends from the war. Bush then proceeds to trample the Constitution– under the mistaken belief that a Commander In Chief in a time of war is the commander in chief of the People. He loses popularity. His party loses the election.

liberals in this country have always told others how to live.

and that captures perfectly why we liberals are hated as elitist – because we presume to know better than the people who actually have to live with our decisions.

Were they really Liberals or just DLC who were called Libs by their Republican foes? I really don’t recall any Liberals inhabiting the White House, and that includes FDR.

Edwards, Dukakis, Brown, Udall, McGovern

Oh wait, LBJ was quite Liberal in the domestic policy area. But, foreign policy? Who?

That severely limits the range of acceptable foreign policy options. In order to operationalize a truly progressive foreign policy ideology, we would have to relinquish our position as an empire state, which comes with significant costs.

I think we are now at a point where that kind of world-view might be most easily put on, like a well-worn coat. But, as you point out, there are many who would oppose that strenuously.

But income tax is virtually the only progressive tax.

Don’t forget that the minimum wage is one other thing wich helps counterbalance the constant draining of wealth into the Rich pockets.

What does a person who claims to be guided by strictest logic and emprical science do right after their intelletual framework has been hit by a big, fast moving bus? A number of sound respectable economists are in that position these days.

If they aren’t at all humble then they go to Congress and simply say they’ve now discovered their working theory for 40 years isn’t quite right and then go home.

If they’re a bit more humble they might look around to see who did get it right and try to learn from them.

Practically, you’re not going to have one person get it right all the time, so it’s best to have a diversity of opinions and some process to discover any consensus they arrive at.

Though Obama has picked very good people, there isn’t the kind of diversity one would want in an advisory council. Administrators might have one view, but advisers need to be more diverse if you’re to get lucky and avoid mistakes.