Rand's record is pretty great, so if you're a data driven purpose rather than an ideological one, yeah, you will "worship".
But more to my point, I'm seeking to illustrate that as such a highly specialized field, it's not like a President Bernie would be able to have mooks off the street staff his foreign policy. He would be forced to deal with the exact_same_people.
In fact, that can be said of almost ANY developed country for countless highly specialized subfields. Small "experts" communities as a part of anything involving good governance over ideological governance.
Okay, this is basically not a serious... rant... you have here. I think both that you don't have much of a clue what "realism" actually is, and that you don't actually know what Kissinger's record is beyond Vietnam. But then again, neither does Sanders. "
Kissingers beliefs were essentially that the purpose of American power, then, is to create an awareness of American purpose. " is a (barely sensible) claim completely undermined by the practical outcomes of Kissingerite foreign policy, like deepening and exploiting the sino-soviet rift.
Saying Henry Kissinger isn't a realist is a very strange hill to die on. But then again, this has been a very strange electoral season. We've seen know-nothing Russian sympathizers and radical leftists like Katrina van Heuvel and the Nation try to redefine Realism to give Bernie Sanders something resembling a coherent foreign policy system to paper over the fact that
he simply doesn't have one.
I'll just leave this here:
http://time.com/3275385/henry-kissinger/
A bit too nuanced for you, or Bernie Sanders. But there it is.