I'm sort of intrigued by how big important DC organizations engage with fraudulent conservative ideas, like climate change denialism, while somehow retaining their elite credibility among 'reality-based' Democrats. There's a good example right now, a small example perhaps, of the Council on Foreign Relations publishing on their website under the title 'Essential Documents' a widely discredited report denying climate change by Senator James Inhofe. The Council on Foreign Relations is full of establishment type opinion leaders, and the group sees itself as an important guide of the foreign policy debate, as is evidenced by the subtitle of this section on their website: "Vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate".
So the choice of what to feature is significant. Why should this document be considered 'Essential'? What kinds of criteria are being used to make that judgment? How is this foreign policy debate being 'underpinned' so 'vitally'? After all, important foreign policy decisions rest on which primary sources are considered essential reader for the elite class. The answer to these questions is not overtly clear, and former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy Joe Romm criticized CFR on precisely this point. To their credit, a representative from CFR, Michael Moran, responded in the comments of Romm's post. The substance of the response is fascinating.
STATE BLOGS
