On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Doug Henwood wrote:
> But that's a hard argument to make. The faction of the elite would be
> the one opposed to the centrality of Israel. The overwhelmingly dominant
> portion has no problem with giving Israel a blank check.
No, dominant factions are still factions. (Also I believe SA is arguing that you are overstating that -- that a lot "have a problem with it," but accept it as a fact of life. Just as a lot of economists have a problem with the home interest deduction, but accept it as a fact of life.)
But to go back to the lobby terminology -- do you think there's anything essentially different in kind from the banking lobby opposing Elizabeth Warren's appointment and the Israel lobby opposing Chas Freeman's? Isn't that kind of opposition and mobilization pretty much what we mean by lobbying?
When Walt and Mearsheimer say the lobby is distorting policy, what they mainly mean (or the strongest way to interpret their argument) is intervention at this level -- that successful lobbying keeps mid-level policymarkers with substantially opposing views from getting appointed to positions of power. One could say the same about the Wall Street lobby and financial policy.
Michael