I think that being privy is key. There are lots of ways to make (much more) money or to have a satisfying career, but for those who have managed to worm their way into the inner circle of advisers, pundits, etc., there is no other substitute for that kind of belonging. It always boils down to access. And the feeling of power that comes with it.

That's why the media in general has been so lax for so long. It really became obvious to me during the 2000 campaign when they all gave GWB a free pass, and when so many of the Texas reporters/journalists came to Washington to be part of the party. Clearly, if any of them had told the unvarnished truth about Bush, they would have been denied any further access. No one was complaining much about that journalist lack at the time, though. Instead, Bush was allowed to write his own terms about which questions he would or would not address, and then go merrily on his way.

[I did write a letter here at Salon about, and it was forwarded to Harold Evans, because it was in response to something he had written. He responded and said he agreed with me, but that was about it. No suggestions or solutions.]

So, as many commenters/bloggers have written before, it's really just high school-- or maybe middle school-- all over again. Everyone wants to be part of the "in" crowd, and hang with cool kidz.

Obviously, if we're ever going to make any substantive change in our national politics, we need to come up with a really good middle school intervention. Many schools are already doing a great job on the bullying issue, but that may not be enough. They're going to have to come up with a program that teaches middle school kids about the huge impact that their desire to "belong" can have on world affairs. Maybe they could use the Bush administration as a test case or teaching example. Really, I'm not kidding. We have to think about stopping this in middle school.

Perhaps another tack for right now would be to write profiles on prominent pundits and the like, focusing on their middle school years. Yes, it would be fair game, given that so many of them are still operating with the same set of survival skills they learned then.

Does anyone know what middle school is like in other countries? Is it managed much better elsewhere than here?

Ondelette asked: 'And trying that hard requires motivation. Maybe in addition to a rotting culture of experts, we need to look at exactly how that motivation arises. Is it fear? Fear of what? Of losing a job, deadending a career, being wrong in public? Is it more insidious? Threats of some kind, fear of accusations or persecution or arrest or something? Is it adulation? Do these people believe so fervently in something? Is it secrecy? Did they all think they were privy to information that made the obvious wrong and the unlikely probable, that converted the uninitiated into the uneducated? What could possibly cause an entire community of experts (well at least some of them experts) to do the wrong thing in concert, when the right thing was being voiced by so many outsiders with so little sophistication?'

Ondelette, assuming you are speaking about the 'serious' experts & the chattering classes, all of them (IMO) had/have divided loyalties that in their mind usurped or trumped their allegience to truth and/or the American people.

Many of the experts were/are hard core Repubs & could easily see how a protracted & (they would assume) successfully prosecuted war would aid their side (look what it did for Roosvelt, in their minds). Others have close ties to the military/industrial complex & the only way more bombs are bought is when the current stockpiles have been depleted.

Then we have our 'Israel-uber-alles' crowd. These are well represented among the talking heads. Most seem to be Jewish (overtly religious or not), although many are not. To me, that is why columnists who never, ever would have advocated us invading say Malaysia or Finland in the event of some kind of 9/11 style provacation from groups allied in some nebulous way with those countries were gung-ho to go into Iraq (coughFriedmancough, coughCohencough, etc.). I don't know if they want to retire to Israel some day or have been seduced by highly sophisticated propaganda put out by the Likudnicks in Israel (Ariel Sharon would do this to Bush whenever he visited) or got beat up by some Arabs when they were kids, but they definitely are not objective when it comes to Israel (a country who I believe has a right to exist & a right to defend themselves vigourosly, but with their own blood & treasure, not ours).

Maybe in addition to a rotting culture of experts, we need to look at exactly how that motivation arises. Is it fear? Fear of what? Of losing a job, deadending a career, being wrong in public? Is it more insidious? Threats of some kind, fear of accusations or persecution or arrest or something? Is it adulation? Do these people believe so fervently in something? Is it secrecy?

That the fact that invading Iraq was not only morally wrong but also the recipe for disaster seemed obvious to many of us -- some with real experience in the area and in military matters, others with just some common sense, brings up the question of why they went along (as you've noted above so well). But even if those who voted for it (and have since expressed regret for their vote) did not do any research, did not examine their premises, did not look at the character of the people urging them on -- could they not have listened to Sen. Byrd and his eloquent, logical and stirring speech right before the vote? He laid out all the arguments pro and con and convincingly came up with a strong "con" against going to war with Iraq, but they would not listen. What was stopping up their ears?