LEON M. BODEVIN

ECONOMICS 357L

PROFESSOR CLEAVER

JANUARY 23, 2002

 

SUMMARY OF “FROM ESTABLISHMENT TO PROFESSIONAL ELITE” FROM OUR OWN WORST ENEMY

 

 

                This article discusses the shift in foreign policy power from the “Establishment” to the “Professional Elite.” Establishment workers (who were dominant during and before the 1960s) were a group largely made up of Eastern bankers and lawyers.  These men (there were few women in this elite circle) usually worked for the government on the side and held professional careers in the business or legal sector.  Establishment men almost all hailed from New York.  They were not ideological (they were men of action not men of ideas), and were more concerned with how things were done than what was done.  Though most of these men hailed from schools like Harvard and Yale, they did not enjoy writing articles on foreign policy, nor did they seek out public attention.  They were content to work behind the scenes, advising politicians on foreign policy issues.

                The men (they were still mostly men) that came after the Establishment began to fade in the 1960’s were ideologues, men who believed passionately in their ideas. This Professional Elite often fought bitterly among themselves (even fellow party members) to try and implement their own ideas about foreign policy. Gone were the moderates.  No longer were consensus and mutual respect for each other’s ideas important values. Staffs became increasingly polarized. Because they were so ideological, their views almost always swung to one end of the political spectrum. The authors write: “The net result of the transformation from the Establishment to the Professional Elite was the destruction of the foreign policy center” (Destler, et al. 126).  Gone also were the bankers and lawyers of New York.  In was the Washington insider who was engrossed in his foreign policy position in government.  They did not hold outside positions in business or law like their predecessors.  They still came from Harvard and Yale but they also increasingly came from schools like the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago.  And unlike the Establishment, the Professional Elite enjoyed writing foreign policy articles and books and enjoyed being in the spotlight (reporters became increasingly curious as to who was advising politicians on foreign policy issues).

                The advent of the Professional Elite became most apparent with the transfer of power from Ford to Carter in 1977.  The Carter Administration was populated by new policy makers who were either center, center-left, or left.  There was little room for conservative Democrats.  An even bigger shift came with President Ronald Reagan.  Reagan saw no need for any left-thinking administrators in his administration.  Reagan’s staff of “Reaganauts” (as they were called) were recognized for their loyalty to Reagan’s ideology.

                The transfer of power from the Establishment to the Professional Elite came about largely because of the Establishment’s failure in the Vietnam War.  Because the Establishment failed to deal effectively with the war, the Establishment simply fell apart. Public sentiment had also changed: On November 21, 1971, the New York Times wrote, “the public’s tolerance for a self-elected and self-perpetuating foreign-policy elite is rapidly diminishing” (Destler, et al. 109).

                The locus of power had changed as well, from New York to Washington.  The Council On Foreign Relations embodied the establishment of the past. This council was populated by New York men and the council’s office was in New York.  But with the council’s support of the Vietnam War came its demise.  By 1969, Washington officials began looking to other places for foreign policy advice, most notably the Brookings Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, both located in Washington not New York.  The new foreign policy makers did not have time to fly to New York to get advice.  The advisors now had to come to them.  The tables had turned: the Eastern establishment now had to answer to Washington politicians and policy makers. Whereas in the years past the Eastern establishment (with all its money) had largely been able to mold foreign policy, it now had to a subservient position to Washington power.