Foreign Affairs Analysis: An Activist vs. A Hippie

Abstract

The debate between Andrew M. Scott and E. Raymond Platig resembles a dialogue between a political activist and a hippie.' The activist goes outside of himself to change societal structures and beliefs. Happiness to an activist is having an impact on his environment. Moreover, the activist strategy is to mobilize the services of outside agitators to bring about social happenings that change a given area. The hippie, on the other hand, turns inwardly to change himself rather than society. Happiness to a hippie is getting his own thing together. Happenings to the hippie are mind-expanding rather than social change in nature. Scott, the activist, would bring social science outsiders into the Department of State to provoke a change in the subculture at State. Platig, the hippie, would turn inwardly to expand the mind of State. Platig anticipates mind-blowing experiences to follow from increases in the personnel and budget for foreign affairs analysis. Scott acknowledges the need for more analysis but he feels that the hippie subculture would prevent adequate analysis. What is the validity of the claims of Scott and Platig? Consider some of their specific points in this regard. Scott elaims that eighteen elements comprise the subculture of the Department of State. Scott rakes State over the coals for not