Palin is best described as a “Populist” as far as I can see. But this is kind of a neutral term.
What I what is someone explain to me how neo-con/Straussian came to be a pejorative term and why you used it as such?
From what I know Strauss’ thought is or is close to classical rationalism which is as “realistic” as any school of thought.
We’re talking about 2 different things here.
One is - is Palin too closely tied to a school of thought?
That was the original question. I said, perhaps too closely tied to neocon, which is a school of thought. And then I said that she has new advisors, who are said to be realists, thereby working to untie her from a specific school of thought.
The other question is the merits of neocon. That’s not really what we’re talking about here. The argument is about whether or not Palin is too closely tied on any school of thought, and she isn’t.