George,

Briefly I'd respond that, although unfortunate, I think Brooks' appraisal may be accurate-that many participants in the political process prioritize loyalty to one's party over the truth. He seemed to argue that the Bush administration early on made a conscious decision to keep closely guarded their thought processes regarding policy making because of an incident when Wolfowitz admitted to making mistakes in Iraq and was hammered mercilessly. For them, closing the ranks became a political necessity. He also brought up the infamous April press conference when Bush hemmed and hawed to the reporter's question about what mistakes he'd made since 9/11. Finally the president stated that he couldn't think of any at the moment. Brooks revealed that political consultants from *both* parties told him afterwards that although that episode was painful to watch, Bush did the right thing; in today's climate you can't admit to your mistakes.

The problem with electing to make your deliberations opaque and stressing team loyalty is that you don't ever have to listen to the "other" person and even closed door bull sessions are just exercises in fortifying your preconceived notions. My hope is that behind those closed doors, whoever is in power, will make it a steadfast policy to have some folks in the room who are regularly reading what the opposition has to say and watching/listening to the opposition's "news" programs with as much of an open mind and heart as they can muster. Of course, nothing replaces an actual ongoing respectful dialogue with someone who holds divergent opinions, but I'd rest a little easier if I thought someone was aware of the need to listen AND actually doing it.

Millie Fife (electronic mail, October 21, 2004)