They exist to influence! Sure, they don't meet the definition of lobbyists, attempting to influence legislation, but their goal is to shape the debate and public opinion thereby influencing the foreign policy agenda that will set the basis for subsequent legislation. They target leaders in all groups of government, industry and society to "educate" them and thereby influence their opinions.
I know wikipedia and about.com aren't the best resources, but here is their description:
Formally established in 1921, it is one of the most powerful private organizations with influence on U.S. foreign policy. It has about 4,000 members, including former national security officers, professors, former CIA members, elected politicians, and media figures. The council is not a formal institution within U.S. policy making.
They are quick to say they don't "influence policy", but their own documents say otherwise. As an example, below is an excerpt from the President's message included in their last annual report. Influencing opinion in all circles is the name of the game.
Simultaneously, we want to increase the time, energy, and resources we commit to a broader set of activities targeted to nontraditional constituencies, such as state and local officials, religious leaders, educators and students, and members and leaders of a broad range of nongovernmental organizations. Many of these individuals and groups are not normally associated with foreign policy, but their voices and support are critical to the policy choices our government makes and will make in the future. We are actively planning various workshops, seminars, and mini-conferences targeted to different groups of leaders whom we hope to engage more meaningfully in the national foreign policy debate.We are also looking at what more we can do internationally. The influential Task Force on North America is one model, for which the Council joined with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. We anticipate future Task Forces that involve institutions and individuals from abroad.
Do you think the members of those faculties have very different agendas and beliefs than those of the CFR? Of course not. This hearkens back to the leftist envy of right wing think tanks like Hoover and Heritage. Why weren't the left-liberal think tanks like Brookings more visibly powerful? Well, the reason is that Heritage challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom and Brookings (and Foreign Affairs). If the CFR and all its members disappeared, I don't think the foreign policy debates in America would be markedly changed, but if Heritage disappeared, conservatives would suffer a huge loss.
I think you're underestimating the extent to which the the foreign policy establishment leans to the left without the help of the CFR. I mean, was in the bookstore some time back, looking at Foreign Policy, published By the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. It had an article by Ted Rall in it--- Ted Rall, the guy who had made all those pathetically bigoted cartoons of Condi! Now, you may not like President Bush or Condi, as I do. But TED RALL! I mean, come on--- he makes Boondocks seem like Shakespeare! My point is that complaining about the influence of CFR members is like complaining about the influence of Dan Rather. He's a symptom, not a sickness.
Which he brings me back to John Fonte. Nothing to add, except that I think he's very sharp on this stuff
Exactly.
The idea that the CFR folks are a bunch of lazy rich has-beens--sitting around and pontificating to hear the wind blow with no goal or expectation of anyone paying much attention to them is the furthest thing from the truth. Oh, they might like many ignorant masses to THINK that's true. But it's FAR from true.