What is the utility of the “Hero-in-History” argument?

Since so much authority is concentrated in the hands of so few, it is logical to assume that the decision-making elite in charge of foreign policy can, with relative ease, choose to revise,   indeed, revolutionize America’s foreign policy. Change the people in charge, it is assumed, and the policy itself will often change. In short, change the leadership, and then look for a change in American foreign policy. To recapitulate, people who make American foreign policy are not that different from one another after all. Only certain types of people seek positions of power, and top leaders are recruited from similar backgrounds and rise to the top in similar ways. Consequently, they share many attitudes and personality characteristics.  Moreover, once in office, their behaviors are shaped by the positions they occupy; they typically see their options differently from within the system than they did outside it. Often they conform their beliefs to the beliefs of their peers and predecessors. The pressures imposed by the office and decision-making setting elicit similar policy responses from diverse personalities. The result: Different individuals often pursue their predecessors’ policies and respond to international events consistently. American policy makers thus routinely display a propensity for incremental change, perpetuation of established routines of thought and action, and preservation of established policies.

The post What is the utility of the “Hero-in-History” argument? appeared first on interaksyonph.