Initial State: 4 Castes, Many Tribes, A Wonk's View

For anyone trying to positively influence U.S. foreign policy, knowing the "caste" of the person you're talking to can make all the difference.  It also explains the why the State Department section of your rolodex changes so insanely often.  (more after the jump)

Read on...

State and Energy: A Wonk's-Eye View

Ever since my Fellowships at the U.S. State Department and the Department of Energy, I've fielded calls from friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers, all looking for more information about my time there, how I got those gigs, and how those beasts actually function.

Harry S. Truman Building, headquarters of the U.S. State Department since 1947. Courtesy AgnosticPreachersKid.

It's no wonder.  The details available in places like Wikipedia on these bureaucracies are fairly sparse and abstract.  (Which is surprising, since there are a few books on the subject, which I haven't read.)  Where folks do talk openly about their time in such places, they might focus on juicy gossip about their co-workers, scandals, and major events, rather than on how the organizations actually operate—and how folks should use these systems to their advantage, from both within and without.

There are some pretty good reasons for much of this, as will hopefully become apparent.  There are many incentives to keep information hidden, not all nefarious.  Luckily, since I don't work at either place anymore, I can say (almost) whatever I please.

So, as an occasional series, I'll try to fill in some gaps.  I'll start off with the State Department, as it's better-known and more fresh in my mind.  If you have any questions to start off, please ask!

But, who will justify my existence?

One of my great joys in life is holding forth, pontificating on issues with no expertise. (But you knew that, didn't you?) What follows is my attempt to defend Noam Chomsky's existence to a group of friends without actually getting my hands dirty.

What's truly sad is that, in this crowd, I'm the only one who could pass as both "far-left" and "intelligentsia". (Apologies to both groups.) As such, I should probably remind folks why Noam Chomsky exists. NC has one thing in common with the far-right nationalist intelligentsia in that he's willing to speak about American atrocities, both domestic and foreign, openly and without apology. The difference is that, crudely, NC says those actions were completely unjustified, whereas the FRNI says the opposite.

Now, clearly all actions by countries should be taken in context. But that kind of nuanced history just isn't mainstream. The nationalist, rosy-picture view of US actions is much more commonplace. Perhaps it's easier taught; hence our textbooks. But if someone like NC explodes a myth for you (no, Columbia isn't about US-backed-orderly-government good guys vs drug-dealing bad guys (including textbooks)), revealing truth that you had never heard, you tend to believe the rationales that he then presents for that truth. You might also hold suspect the various media sources that had not informed you of these truths before. This results in the creation of new myths or near-myths that are especially virulent memes, undermining trust in all governance systems and also spinning out conspiracy-prone media and characters like Reverend Wright.

We, as a people, have a nasty habit of over-simplifying history. The choices between Marxism, Great Man Theory, or Neo-Conservative Manifest Destiny are pretty paltry choices, all things considered. But given the white-washing slant of our media, perhaps NC has a place, as an iconoclast if nothing else. In that sense, we should deal with Noam Chomsky's actions in context, as well.

Incidentally, a couple of decent movies about other far-left intelligentsia "darlings" are: An Unreasonable Man (re: Ralph Nader) and You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (re: Howard Zinn). I encourage everyone to watch them, if only to get a peek at the left's reasons for being upset. Summary: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

[Since writing this initially, it has come to my attention that the only iconoclastic extremists I'm displaying here are on the left.  In mentioning Rev. Wright, I should also hasten to note John Hagee (whose endorsement John McCain has actively pursued and treasured), and pillars of the right Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  Why the media is giving white preachers a pass is beyond me.]