While I have no desire to argue on behalf of a bunch of group-thinking, war-loving, pseudo-intellectuals, I find the anti-corporate thesis in this and many other articles a bit disconcerting.

The word corporate has taken a similar place and meaning in left-wing dialog that liberal has taken in right wing dialog. I suspect this is mostly because it is easier to villainize and despise a faceless adversary than one you can talk to and look at.

Surely, most reading this and other thought provoking outlets don't think every corporation is inherently bad; or, even that most corporations are only out for themselves (whatever that means) and will destroy everything and everyone in their path to adding one more dollar to next quarter's bottom line.

The idea that a single think tank, in a city full of think tanks, would operate more or less on behalf of the business community is not a terrible story. Every other recognizable group of Americans seems to have one these days

And, if the mission of AEI is to advocate corporate interests, they have done a wholly horrible job. The single biggest accomplishment the AEI's advocates can claim (this stupid war) has led to a significant increase in expenses at most of the country's corporations, massive deficit spending that has weakened the economy, stressed relationships with trading partners and the likelihood of higher future taxes. None of these are particularly desirable to a capitalist.

I think the AEI's most-favored status with Bush is likely just another example of a greater truth. There is a strange desire by many (most?) in America to only listen to people with virtually identical belief systems as themselves. Right-wingers listen to talk radio and literally lead off conversations with the term "mega-diddos." Left-wingers right in blogs and message boards with literally the same far-out conspiracy theories over and over.

Interesting points well taken (by me at least).

One thought on whether AEI has advocated well for corporate interests, I suspect you're right that the long-term effects of the war are likely negative due to massive deficits. But, the short-term effects of the war are huge profits for energy companies and military contractors.

The AEI also, I must say, don't plan for the current excursion in Iraq to be the end of our adventure in the Middle East. The AEI is strongly advocating action in Iran followed by God-knows-what. In the end it seems like they anticipate a massive power-shift in the Middle East with a powerful and well-regarded/feared U.S. running the show. That larger goal has always been inherent in their advocacy of intervention in Iraq. This sort of outcome would serve to prolong the short-term benefits to energy and military contractors into long-term benefits. It would also, less cynically, advance our country's power and influence in one of the most volatile parts of the world.

What theartic.e said was not that corporations are evil, but that AEI is. AEI seems to believe the laws do not apply to them. They operate as a tax-free public charity while taking corporate money to lobby for the payers. That doesn't make the corporation evil any more than it makes a Senator evil when he pays a DC hooker for a blow job. But it does mean that, like the Senator (though actually a bit more like the hooker), the AEI has broken the law.

"There is a movement afoot," he said at AEI's annual dinner in March, "to treat the political views and interests of corporations as inherently suspect and in need of official supervision."

The institution of "corporation" is not inherently a problem; it is a tool for doing business.

The problem is the movement afoot for fascists to take over and abuse corporate treasuries to subvert democracy for their bigger bonuses.

The people who run corporations, like all human beings in society, need some degree of supervision to ensure justice. Pretending this is not an issue is straight out of Orwell. But it pays well.

OK. I agree, however would suggest that under your "supervision to ensure justice" paradigm there must be someone at the top of the pyramid, which, is EXACTLY like Orwell.

In a democracy the "top of the pyramid" would be elected after a public discussion of the various factors. So it need not be the totalitarian system of Orwell.