The Ross Writ

A key finding of the 9/11 Commission’s report was that overall, the Intelligence Community lacked creativity and imagination in forming their predictive conclusions regarding the terrorist threat facing the US. The commission further concluded that analysts were subject to groupthink – in essence, rather than challenge assumptions regarding the data presented to them, they collectively held many assumptions to be absolute truths, the ultimate result being flawed intelligence assessments.

As pundits across the country scrambled to assess the commission’s findings, Mr. Charles Hill of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University submitted an opinion piece to the Wall Street Journal, which stands in stark contrast to many other assessments that have been published to date. Mr. Hill makes the startling claim that a primary reason for the deterioration in quality of the nation’s intelligence product is the result of diversity programs, causing a decline in the caliber of personnel within the community.

While Mr. Hill quickly concedes that diversity has “brought plenty of smart and able people into the profession”; he then claims that they are simply not qualified because they do not possess the superior academic training gained from attendance at the nation’s elite academic institutions. As such, Mr. Hill has confused two very different variables - the problems existing within the Intelligence Community are not caused by diversity programs that afford more of the nation’s citizens equal opportunity to work within the community, but rather his assertion speaks to the decline of the nation’s education system.

Indeed, it is true that the elite academic institutions more aggressively promote critical thinking skills by forcing students to read, analyze, and write responses to scholarly works, and that the not-so-elite schools, on average, have a tendency to rely on rote methods of education. Further, this phenomenon is more the result of accountability criteria that require students to perform on standardized tests, and that preparatory courses for these tests focus on teaching students to master the system, rather than the information for which knowledge and skill is purportedly being evaluated. The implication for critical analysis skills is obvious – students are not taught to challenge information or assumptions before them, and rote education generates graduates that are more inclined to accept and agree with commonly held beliefs – a precursor to groupthink.

Diversity programs, on the other hand, work to populate the workforce with peoples of different cultures, backgrounds, and life experiences, resulting in different interpretations of constant data points. This would naturally lead to more aggressive debate and challenge - an approach that would actually produce better, more creative, and more imaginative intelligence products than a homogenous workforce ever could.

Moreover, inherent in our society is an arrogance regarding our positioning in the world; we assume that the rest of the world must “rise” to meet societal standards that exist within the US. Analyses that begin with cultural arrogance are not only built from false premises, but they are doomed to result in faulty conclusions. The homogenous workforce that Mr. Hill is promoting as a solution to many of the problems within the Intelligence Community would not alter the Western-oriented filter through which many analysts view events. Rather, lack of exposure to different peoples from different backgrounds portends badly for the community’s ability to accurately interpret data obtained from other societies and cultures, and would further limit its ability to render probable explanations regarding the motivation and actions of our enemies. Finally, Mr. Hill’s opinion only serves to support the preceding argument – despite his impressive academic credentials, his analysis is seemingly lacking in creativity and imagination - his resistance to diversity is a possible explanation for why.

*Note - I tried to find a link to Mr. Hill's op-ed, "Commissionism" from Friday the 23rd to attach; unfortunately, it is only available online to WSJ subscribers.

Teach your children well.

American nationalism, unlike that of every other country in the history of the planet, is not based on our blood, but on a shared belief. The core of that belief is commitment to individual liberty -- the liberty to fulfill oneself in mind, body and spirit to the best of one's desires and ability, regardless of origin. To be American is to subscribe to this idea.

In the 18th century, this country was founded on this idealism. In the 19th century, Lincoln called the country to renew its commitment to this idealism. In the 20th century, FDR gave direction to the modern Liberal tradition and invested the government with new powers to expand the economic reality of this idealism.

Then the conservative movement hijacked the American ideal, took over the Republican Party, ultimately discredited liberalism and corrupted America by misreading and selectively misinterpreting of our nation's fundamental credo.

The Democrat faction in power, drunk with power at all costs, didn't even put up a fight.

The first step is answering the claim that less government means more liberty. The truth is less government means more liberty for those who can pay for it. The rest of us Americans won't enjoy true liberty until the pay-to-play system in Washington is trashed.

Conservatives misread our nation's historic tradition. They think the Founders were focused exclusively on limiting government. The truth is they were equally focused on investing appropriate powers in government as well.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back.

Twenty years ago, a relatively little-known governor with a outer-borough accent (like my grandfather) transformed himself into a 800-pound gorilla in presidential politics -- the giant everybody thought would clean house if only he stepped into the fray. He created all this buzz with only a speech at the Democratic national convention. He passed on running for president 1988, but almost got on a plane to file his papers in the New Hampshire primary in December 1991. If he had got on that plane, you may never have heard of the man from Hope. Mario Cuomo could have been a contendah.

Wasn't meant to be. But it goes to show that you never know who will arise out of the usual boredom of a national political convention. Right now John Edwards looks like the exciting, fresh face of 2004. But might it turn out to be someone else?

Someone like U.S. Senate candidate Barak Obama? He evidently has been granted a prime-time slot by the DNC -- rare for a guy who hasn't even been elected yet. He is impressive -- maybe Flatiron Dante will recount his meetings with the guy in the comments -- and probably would have been destined for prominence without giving a speech in Boston. But how far will his speech take him?

forty years ago, a certain ex-actor gave a campaign speech on behalf of his party's nominee. The speech didn't win the election for Goldwater, but it did put a Ronald Reagan on the path to the presidency.

A single speech can turn a person into presidential material.

Another Reagan is set to give a speech next week at the convention, by the way. Prime time, too. But it doesn't sound like Ron Reagan has an agenda beyond stem-cell research. Not yet at least.

So in Boston next week, we look to see if Obama will have his moment. It depends on what he says. Maybe he'll eloquently express an alternative to center-right politics of the Democratic party. Maybe he'll condemn the insider corruption that consumes the hacks in DC.

Maybe.

You've found the Ross Writ - regular reflections on American life, law and politics. Our site will undergo some face lifts over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, peruse what's here, and enjoy.