Posted on 06/17/2003 7:47:42 AM PDT by quidnunc
Hardly a day passes now when I don't wake up to read about myself in the papers. I've become one of the hottest topics in journalism. In European, American and even Canadian newspapers, the articles proliferate. The world continues prostrate in awe or rage toward the "Straussian" legions who allegedly control American foreign policy and brought us the war against Saddam.
The "Straussians," c'est moi. True, unlike my friends in the Bush administration, I just belong to the academic wing of our outfit. My idea of wielding power is to force my classes at the university to meet for more hours than are listed in the calendar. We spend those hours poring over old works of political philosophy, often ones written in ancient Greek. No women throw themselves at me, seduced by the scent of power. (A few might find it cute that I'm so earnest about teaching the classics.) As for the ambitious, whether male or female, they're off studying commerce and finance.
Yet if you believe what you've been reading lately, my friends in the administration and I are all part of the same vast conspiracy. We're out to subvert American democracy (and, by implication, Canadian). According to this scenario, the division of labour is as follows: I teach subversion and they practise it. While their roles in government are nominally advisory, in fact they're in charge, having hoodwinked their superiors including Mr. Bush himself. It's got to be the most successful conspiracy going today. With the possible exception of the Elders of Zion — but there's an overlap, since many "Straussians" are Jews.
"Straussians" haven't entirely escaped the attention of journalists in the past. But the current obsession with them is novel. It reflects exasperation on the left over the Bush administration's continued popularity following the war in Iraq. And it takes advantage of the failure so far to find the anticipated weapons of mass destruction. Hey, why not blame the war on a sinister clique, who have duped the American public and maybe even the President himself? Why not cast the war as a defeat for democracy rather than a victory for it?
But how do "Straussians" come in? Who are they and what's the basis for pinning such stuff on them?
"Straussians" are admirers of Leo Strauss (1899-1973). A German Jew, Strauss emigrated in 1932 and taught in the United States from 1938 until his death. He deeply impressed many of his students, who went on to impress many of theirs, and so on through the intellectual generations of which we have now reached the fifth. This enterprise just keeps going and growing. But it doesn't dominate the world, or even the universities. From day one, Strauss attracted not only admiration but intense antagonism, which has persisted until the present day. Much of this hostility arises from the fact that Straussians are reputed "conservatives." Indeed, according to their enemies, "Straussians" are "anti-liberal," which is to say they may just as well be fascists.
"Straussians," following Strauss himself, are indeed conservative in a certain sense, but what they're trying to conserve is liberal democracy, on the one hand, and a Socratic approach to philosophy, on the other. As a young Jew in Weimar Germany, Strauss foresaw the disaster looming over Germany and its Jews. In his youth he was an active Zionist, and remained a lifelong supporter of Israel. He was personally acquainted with Martin Heidegger, whom he admired as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. But Heidegger was a Nazi, and Strauss understood his thought too well to dismiss his Nazism as accidental. To him, Heidegger's uncanny combination of theoretical greatness and moral evil confirmed the fundamental immoderation that lay at the core of modern thought.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
In yesterday's column I began to address the allegations that a sinister cabal of "Straussians" dominates American foreign policy and was responsible for the war against Saddam. Many would have you believe that it's a fundamental principle of this sect to practise deceit against non-members the better to rule over them. "Central to the Straussian vision is a docile citizenry, kept uninformed and easy to manipulate through perpetual fear of external attack" (Linda McQuaig, The Toronto Star, May 25).
Not that Ms. McQuaig has ever read a word of Strauss. It's clear from her column that she hasn't. She's just repeating what other leftish journalists have been saying.
But where there's so much smoke, there must be fire, right? Well, don't count on warming your hands over it. Yes, a few figures in the Bush administration once took courses with the late Leo Strauss (1899-1973), whose defence of liberal democracy I discussed yesterday. Of these few, however, only one, Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul D. Wolfowitz, is in a position to make policy, and even he is only in a deputy position to make policy. As Peter Berkowitz has pointed out, this whole scenario of a Straussian takeover of the U.S. government "is wildly implausible. It supposes that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice, non-Straussians by all accounts, are stooges and dupes [of their subordinates]."
It's also worth noting that of the supposed "Straussians" in the administration, Wolfowitz, by far the most influential, is also the least a "Straussian." A student of math and science as an undergraduate, he switched to national security studies. While he did take a couple of courses with Strauss, his mentor was the late Albert Wohlstetter, a logician and operations analyst with no connection to Strauss.
Wolfowitz is an imposing figure. As even his detractors concede, he combines an incandescent intelligence with great dedication to public service. He has served loyally in five administrations, Democrat and Republican alike. Yes, he has President Bush's ear. He's earned it. But others also have Mr. Bush's ear. Rumours of a coup ( "Straussian" or otherwise) have been greatly exaggerated.
Much of what has appeared in the press is sensationalism pure and simple. I mean not just the accusation that the Bush administration engaged in massive deception in the months prior to the war against Saddam, but the claims that in doing so it was following the teaching of Strauss.
The question of whether the administration misled the public, or was itself misled, will doubtless be subject to further scrutiny. It still remains to be shown that it engaged in any deception of anyone. But our present concern is the further assertion that if deception did occur it must have been due to the influence of Strauss.
-snip-
(Clifford Orwin in the National Post, June 17, 2003)
To Read This Article Click Here
And the common link is emphasis on the 'international'. The earlier edition of the 'cons' sought to ride Communism as the world vehicle. In the USA they 'took over' the Democrat party and larded the Roosevelt administration (as McCarthy accurately pointed out).
Today's edition of the 'cons', recognizing the failure of Communism toward their world ends, jumped ship to use the GOP (and the USA trade and military) as the horse to ride on. Bush will be their favorite as long as he accepts their bit.
It is quite obvious that this article, and similar, are bringing foreign isms into America, disputing who killed the most but united on ending Christianity. God Bless America.
I have not read Strauss, although I have read about him in articles like Orwin's for several years. Maybe it's finally time to crack a book. In fact, I am becoming so intrigued by him that I may even attempt a disciplined approach to his work and look for guidance in how best to read him.
It's not quite as simple as Orwin puts it. The great example of the need for esoteric writing is always the trial and execution of Socrates -- in democratic Athens. So it's not just the rulers philosophers have to watch out for. But it's still a means of saving the philosopher from people who might wish to do him harm, not a way of exercising power.
The more I think about it, it's too much to believe that Strauss' critics in the recent spate of artices about him couldn't have ascertained these simple facts for themselves. I guess the elitist connotations of "esoteric writing" were just too much to resist. They falsely labelled Strauss an elitist interested in buffaloing the ignorant masses because it fits the image of neo-cons and Republicans which they want to project, making them guilty of buffaloing the ignorant masses themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.