Did you read all of the post you're referring to? Hedgetrimmer was arguing that the Task Force Document represented the collective opinion of the CFR because he made an honest mistake and incorrectly read and then misquoted it. I specifically corrected that misquote and showed where it said that the report represented the TASK FORCE's conclusion, NOT the CFR's.
It's often hard to distinguish between the transnational progressivism of CFR members and a more moderate "liberal internationalism" and sometimes it's even hard to distinguish between those two and foreign policy "realism", since all three have something in common in that they each tend to deny American exceptionalism.
However, the fact that the membership of the CFR tends to be leftist seems to me obvious, although I don't have the personal experience with any of them (to my knowledge) that Calcow Girl and Rokke do. But you have to remmber that the CFR having a nefarious group agenda would require that people like William F. Buckley have been in on it, and I've never heard him or any other conservative member of it claim there was such a conspiracy.
My motto is to never attribute to malice what I can to incompetence. In one sense, a woman like Secretary Albright could never be accused of incompetence, since she's very bright, knowledgable and on a good day when pigs are flying, can leg press 400 pounds. But in another sense, she is incrdibly incompetent, since she continually develops defective policy proposals, many of them based on the defective premise that the world will be better of if America is less powerful.
My impression is that many, perhaps most of the members of the CFR operate from the same premise. This is not because they get together and in some general meeting agree to accept it. Rather, people who disagree with the idea of American exceptionalism tend to constitute the majority of the graduates for schools of International Relations, and since the CFR is composed of experts in that field, many fo its members will also disagree with American exceptionalism.
But that doesn't mean that everything produced by CFR reflects its opinion. As I said before, that would mean agreeing with Samuel Hungtington, who I presume you think has some good ideas and isn't an elitest internationalist. The Fletcher School doesn't hold collective positions on issues. Why should we assume the CFR emmbers are lying when they say the CFR does not? You can't find something that says "this is the CFR's position on X" by the CFR because it doesn't exist.
The problem with any aspects of leftism within the membership of the CFR cannot be addressed in and of itself. Yes, it exists, but the CFR is if anything more intellectually diverse than many schools of international relations. The answer to that problem lies in ameliorating the leftism of the universities, not that of institutions that require products of the universities.
Sorry, I wasn't bothering about that specific.
I was spring boarding off your comment to try and emphasize that on the whole, in general,
CFR IS DEVOTED, UTTERLY DEVOTED TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
They may quibble about details and methods from time to time . . . but their goals are essentially the same. I think that's all I was trying to say.
You left out one factor. Some groups and some people make big money because of "free trade' policies and open border policies. The CFR may be mostly theory but many CFR members are wealthy even super wealthy. They benefit from CFR policies that are antithetical to America as sovereign nation. I do not benefit from such policies because I am middle class.