Questions for Michael Theis in reply to his posting: 1)changing the question
from why politicians exercised more power to why they exercised their authority
more frequently and in different ways is shear semantics. Why are ratchers so
hung up on the formal-legal authority thing?--no one denies pols have that under
the postwar system. To assume because they do that they are therefore always the
most influential in policymaking is again to predetermine the answer with the
assumptions and to be naive; to assume they do not is, in effect with semantic
quibbling aside, to ask the question how much influence/power do they really
have compared to bureaucrats, isn't it?

2)I'm not clear about what you mean by behavioral changes indicate nothing about
power changes. Are you saying that observed behavioral change is irrelevant
because politicians by definition have the authority and thus the power? Please
clarify.

Best, Ellis Krauss