One thing I've noticed as I've looked at the news media from a changemaker's point of view is that the biggest truths are often buried within a piece.
Today New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, I think, got it right in his entire piece about the need for politicians to learn to admit mistakes. However, what struck me the most about his column was a paragraph in the middle. It highlights the differences between conventional wisdom (call that the "water" I was discussing here) and the change we need to see in our foreign policy.
Krugman writes:
If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound.The emphasis is mine because I think that's an important point. I contend that knee-jerk hawkishness does not, in fact, denote seriousness about national security. Instead, it denotes an inability to see the world as it actually is and an inability to respond with actions that will solve real problems.
Unfortunately, Krugman's full column is hidden behind the Times paywall, but if you get a chance to look at it, do read it. I have to admit that access to Krugman's work is one reason why I shelled out the $50 for TimeSelect.
