by Peter Berkowitz via Real Clear Politics
Donald Trump’s disruptive presidency has exacerbated a long-festering intra-conservative controversy about American conservatism’s core principles and purposes. So big and diffuse has the conservative world become since the 1960s -- when William F. Buckley’s National Review set the agenda -- that thoughtful right-wingers themselves doubt that anything so discrete and organized as a movement exists today. They suspect, moreover, that the ambition to revive one represents a distracting exercise in nostalgia.
This past week's commentary on the mental fitness of U.S. President Donald Trump prompted Dekleva to write on the "perils and challenges – both ethical and methodological – of predicting leadership behavior from afar," as well as the history of the practice of leadership analysis:
- "In leadership analysis, political psychology is but one piece of a larger, more complex analytical puzzle, which can serve national security interests in understanding the psyches of our adversaries, allowing senior policymakers greater options for decision-making in a variety of circumstances."
- "Novel approaches such as intelligence forecasting and artificial intelligence offer different ways of understanding and predicting leadership behaviors compared with traditional, qualitative approaches. Overall, this highlights the importance of leadership analysis as one piece of intelligence analysis, and as one piece of a larger methodological puzzle."
Anton Bekkerman et al. | American Enterprise Institute
A new study from the Agricultural Policy in Disarray series examines the distribution of Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage program payments and crop insurance subsidy payments among US farms.