> > This was John Adams's point 2 centuries ago when he declared that the
> > British government could not be depended upon to act in its own
> > interests. It is the fly in the ointment when one tries to predict the
> > future actions of an institution, a government, a class by describing
> > the objective interests of the entity concerned. That kind of prediction
> > only works if (a) the analyst is correct on what the objective interest
> > of the particular entity is and (b) the entity knows clearly and exactly
> > its own interests. The two estimates have to coincide for the prediction
> > to be accurate.
>
>
> There are also two additional elements 3) the elite knows clearly the
> importance ranking of it multiple interests (many of which are
conflicting)
> and 4) the analyst can determine what that ranking is.
it seems to me that the "fly in the ointment" is the fact that "objective interests" (isn't that an oxymoron?) are not static, and, in principle, not predictable with regard to context changing over time. "objective interests" - is that synonymous with "ideology"? particular practical interests are ever changing, as one does not waste time with impossible goals, but acts within the framework of the situation in which one finds himself - a situation which is always changing.
only ideologues claim knowledge of the future, a prerequisite for particular practical goals to remain static. the only reliable way to predict future situational interests of a particular entity is to understand the entity's principles, not its interests.
ref: "opium of the intellectuals" raymond aron
sutton