However, if you were to review the syllabi of the courses offered you would readily see that this program is a rigorous graduate education. I would judge myself, and most of my colleagues, at least as capable of high-level policy discourse as a student at a civilian policy school such as SAIS, Georgetown, JFK, Chicago, etc.

Sure, you're highly intelligent military officers in your mid-to-late 30s whereas most of the grad students at those schools are in their mid-20s. You've got worlds of experience over them.

Then again, the services allow several students to attend masters programs at Tufts, Kennedy, and other policy schools in lieu of the war colleges.

Perhaps it is for the best, I am a slow thinker, and a dismally slow writer. The task of helping a fellow citizen understand the proper function of government weighs heavily on these frail and stooped shoulders. It thus pains me when I am unable to fully respond to your distress:

I fully agree that, in a democratic society, it's easy to sell the idea of free things paid for by "the rich." It's why the Framers feared democracy and institutionalized a Republic instead. Most of those institutions are gone, however, and populism and class warfare are the predictable outcomes.

Sigh, class warfare. I would not go there James. Obama’s political genius was discerning that the great unwashed, the populous, was tired of the conservative movement exploiting wedge and hate issues.

Behind the “free things paid for by the rich” lies what I have floated up in previous discussionslass Blues), the issue of income disparity… If one examines the “Gini coefficient” (a measure of income disparity) of different countries, what is apparent is that those that provide government backed health care have less income disparity than what exists in the US. I do not know the significance of that observation. Perhaps in the future I will be able to come up with a snappy comment.

Rest assured that silence on my part is not disinterest, for I will be tapping in when possible. Your voice, and that of your cohorts, informs, entertains, and stimulates to further thought.

I came across your rather unflattering comments about the Naval War College. Thank you for being dismissive - and spreading something of a canard - about my new alma mater and for somehow trying to take something away from the many officers and civilians who have worked very hard to understand the strategic and operational level implications of national security.

I did nothing of the sort. It's a fine institution that does a superb job of its mission, preparing the Navy's top field grade officers for higher command. It's an excellent capstone PME course.

It's simply not the same thing as a civilian master's degree, in the same way that a law degree isn't really a "doctorate" and medical school and a PhD program aren't the same thing. They're just different animals.

And, yes, you're right: McCain attended the National War College at McNair rather than his service school.

Also, you may want to double-check your comments. Are you sure you didn't mean that John McCain went to the National War College?

Bleating about socialized medicine, or “confiscating the money of the people”, is not a “Centrist Position”. A rational solution to the problem has to be presented. The “moving target” is not going side ways on the shooting range, it is moving away from you. Soon it will be out of range…

It's still a centrist position, although perhaps for not much longer. I fully agree that, in a democratic society, it's easy to sell the idea of free things paid for by "the rich." It's why the Framers feared democracy and institutionalized a Republic instead. Most of those institutions are gone, however, and populism and class warfare are the predictable outcomes.

Well, first of all you point out that “European style socialism” is a code phrase that should be shortened to Eurosocialism. It then can be consecrated, and in a ritualistic fashion fed to all true believers. The possibilities are endless for we all know that Europeans are ingrates and Socialism is the bastard son of Communism…

Quickly now… How do you tell the difference between a valid tax and when the government is “confiscating” the money of the people?

Got me by the socks. It strikes me that in a democratic society the people would deal harshly with any government that is “confiscating” their money. Maybe that is happening here now, as folks contemplate the expense of the Iraq war.

Said it before, will say it again: Rigid adherence to ideology impairs judgment and impedes problem solving. Close to 70% of the American people list health care as one of the three main issues in the coming election.

Bleating about socialized medicine, or “confiscating the money of the people”, is not a “Centrist Position”. A rational solution to the problem has to be presented. The “moving target” is not going side ways on the shooting range, it is moving away from you. Soon it will be out of range…

So tell me James, when a free populous, fully informed, vote to implement a system where the government provides educational benefits and equal medical care, are those folks living in a democracy, or is that government (gasp) “socialist”?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. To the extent government controls the means of production, the economy becomes more socialist and the people become less free. But people in democracies sometimes prefer to trade off some freedom for more security.

Free people actually demanding that their government provide health care and education equally to all the members of their society. Kind of like what, government by the people and for the people?

That's a non sequitur. "Government" can't provide services to "the people" without confiscating the money of "the people."

Times are changing James, it is silly to argue whether McCain is more of a “centrist” than Obama.

As times change, so does the definition of "centrist." It's a moving target.

Ideology isn't a disqualifier unless it's an odious one. Obama's not exactly a Stalinist. He's not even a European-style socialist. But he's left of center, probably more than McCain is right of center.

I agree. Ideology is not a disqualifier, unless woven into its fabric are elements that are indeed odious, mean spirited, or religious in nature.

Woven into McCain’s conservatism is a strongly held belief of American Exceptionality, i.e. that we are somehow “chosen” (by God?, circumstance?, whatever) to lead the world, spread our brand of democracy, and fight what ever “evil” we perceive or define. This view can be found in his speeches, in his writings, and in his persistent references to patriotism and honor. In my book, that is an odious strand; who are we to tell the world they have to cow-tail to our brand of democracy?

His adherence to “strict constructionist” judiciary not only speaks to his quasi religious mean spirited anti feminism, but to a judiciary that errs when it does not fallow his rigid ideological precepts.

And thus his contemptuous response to the Supreme Court recent habeas ruling was predictable. In his mind, its paramount that we depose despots, defend against terrorism by invading countries, spend treasure and sacrifice American lives to promote democracy, and yet not grant a fundamental right, a corner stone of democratic government, to “foreigners”… To me, that dishonors what this country stands for, rule of law and equal justice.

Perhaps it is my age, perhaps it is my exposure to other cultures and languages, perhaps it is that as a physician I have seen the inequities of American medicine, but when somebody states: “He's not even a European-style socialist” obvious signs of inflexible ideology are starting to bubbles up…

So tell me James, when a free populous, fully informed, vote to implement a system where the government provides educational benefits and equal medical care, are those folks living in a democracy, or is that government (gasp) “socialist”? Oh, the horror of it all!!! Free people actually demanding that their government provide health care and education equally to all the members of their society. Kind of like what, government by the people and for the people?

Times are changing James, it is silly to argue whether McCain is more of a “centrist” than Obama. The good, as well as the odious strands of conservatism are being thrown on the funeral pyre of Iraq and the wanton dribbling away of life and treasure by a self styled “compassionate conservative”...

Centrism is not a ticket that will get you on an express train to the White House, it will not even parley a seat in the House or Senate. And when President Bush end-runs the Senate to establish permanent bases in Iraq, all he is doing is adding more wood to that funeral pyre. Times are changing James, the day of the lemming is coming to an end.

All indications are that anything close to Bush is toxic, the citizens are ready to take back their country.

Candidate McCain in 2008 is, in my estimation, running a bit to the RIGHT of Bush 2000. It's still more centrist than how Bush actually governed, of course.

One way to think of this is that the center was demonstrably pretty close to Al Gore in 2000 (yeah, 2004, but confounded by war president issues). You think Obama's a lot more liberal than Gore?

I think McCain is more centrist than Bush and that Obama is left of Candidate Al Gore if probably not Post-2000 Civilian Al Gore. Remember, Gore was a Southern Democrat and DLC guy positioning himself as a Clintonian pragmatist with morals.

Obama's not exactly a Stalinist. He's not even a European-style socialist. But he's left of center, probably more than McCain is right of center.

Evidence?

One way to think of this is that the center was demonstrably pretty close to Al Gore in 2000 (yeah, 2004, but confounded by war president issues). You think Obama's a lot more liberal than Gore?

Any idiot who flies a jet has a very good chance of not surviving. That goes for both McCain and W.

Too bad then that Bush didn't actually fly more times when he was supposed to.

James Joyner painted him as a liberal, gasp, a zombie whose mind was totally controlled by ideology, and thus by inference, his judgment seriously compromised.

Uh, no. Just as a liberal. Which, within the American context, he certainly is.

Ideology isn't a disqualifier unless it's an odious one. Obama's not exactly a Stalinist. He's not even a European-style socialist. But he's left of center, probably more than McCain is right of center.