> On Aug 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, SA wrote:
>
>
>> I do think the Lobby's influence is real and that its existence and development go a long way in explaining why US Mideast policy is the way it is. But I don't believe it's a fifth column or that the policymakers associated with it are mere proxies for Israel. What I'm trying to say is that the ideas and interests and personnel of the "Lobby" are partly constitutive *of* America.
>>
>
> Then I don't really get why you use the term "lobby" at all. The standard usage is as some sort of fifth column whose primary loyalty is to Israel and which manipulates U.S. policy towards that end. But if it's so deeply American - not merely part of the scene but constitutive to some degree and at least until recently dominant in foreign policy circles - then why use the term at all?
>
You've got a point. I guess by adopting Walt/Mearsheimer's term I was inviting misunderstanding. It should be clear, though, that I disagree with the whole premise of their analysis, since they're hard-core realists who believe in objective interests. But their empirical case is excellent.
At the same time, there *is* a real lobby that acts like a lobby, and its M.O. is to stoke the embers of of all the constitutive stuff. That well is running dry, but here's their latest effort:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20/133015/782
SA