Check source of Bush's political philosophy

Seattle Post Intellegencer ^ | 10/27/2003 | Richard Curtis

[WVNan]

One cannot have a viable discourse with such a person.

That bears repeating. Sadly, I cannot even talk to a couple of my own children.

[citizenK]

Mr. Curtis appears in an obvious way to be intellectually vacuous, and is admittedly parrotting someone else's theory about the political philosophy of President Bush and its relation to Straussianism. President Bush and his minions may very well be heavily steeped in this philosophy. However, Mr. Curtis' distillation of this philosophy, and the importance he places on the "wag the dog" political ethos related to Machiavelli, fails to capture the essence of the counterpoint that Struassianism plays to leftist political philosophy.

The fundamental difference between Strauss and the political left lies in the very fundamental distinction placed on the interpretation of history. The left rejects history in it's traditional sense in favor of historical revisionism designed for political advantage and gain. Traditionally, history is understood in the frame of reference where and when events took place and ideas came into being. This traditional view of history has strong roots in American intellectualism and is, for example, the foundation of knowledge and teaching by Americans like Ralph Waldo Emerson. In the traditional view of history, we are asked to understand and relate to people's historical circumstance as an act of rational thought and understanding. The modern historical revisionism adopted by the left instead insists that we cannot understand history or the circumstances of another unless we have personally lived or experienced said circumstances. The basis of historical revisionism is therefore not to understand history, but to rationalize the contemporary circumstances of others we are incapable of fully understanding because we have not the benefit of their experience, knowledge, or struggles in life.

Strauss challenges the penchant of the left for revisionism by examining political philosophy (i.e., important historical political philosophies) in the context in which it developed. Strauss criticizes historical revisionism because it is inherently unsustainable as a political philosophy, thereby creating an unstable basis for society. The left of course embraces this mode of thinking and analysis because they want to deconstruct or dismantle the structures of society that create a sustainable and stable cultural and political system. The mistake the left makes is that it front-loads the deconstruction, seemingly forgetting that it is easier to tear down the pillars of society than it is to build them.

Anyway - I am beginning to digress here...
Here is a link to a decent primer on Straussianism for those interested.

[OpusatFR]

Don't take it too hard. Gosh, it's just amusing to see left-glazed minions self-destruct under loads and loads of manure.

Makes you wonder just what they fertilize those organic coffee with anyway....

[RightWhale]

Who are the Straussians? I thought President Bush couldn't read.

It's great when somebody you might meet in the mall can tell you what to think of a philosopher's work in one easily-remembered, one-size-fits-all phrase suitable for a bumpersticker. Think of what you might do with all the time you have thereby saved not having to read the philosopher for yourself: You might reorganize and recatalog your collection of investment-grade bumperstickers.

[Verginius Rufus]

I am not an expert on Strauss, but I wouldn't trust Shadia Drury's assessment of him--she is obviously not only anti-Strauss but on a propaganda war against the Bush administration.

There was a long piece entitled "Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq" which was posted on FR on 10-16-2003 (post #1005850), written by one Danny Postel, who is obviously hostile to Strauss and to the Bush administration. There is a long bibliography attached which seems to be mostly or entirely by Strauss-haters.

[marron]

This letter is really not any more incoherent than the average attack I see elsewhere which references Strauss as the supposed Prince of Darkness ruling us from the grave.

You couldn't actually read Strauss and cling to this sort of paranoia. Besides the fact that his prose is rather impenetrable, you would find that he was uninterested in current events. His focus was primarily on classic philosophy.

What the "Straussians" have in common is basically the University of Chicago. That, and if you have actually studied Strauss, you have probably read Plato, and Hobbes, and Locke, for yourself. You have probably actually read Machievelli. That doesn't make you a disciple of Hobbes, or Machievelli, but it puts you in the position of recognizing Hobbesians and Machievellians in the world.

If you have actually taken the effort to wade through Strauss's work, you are probably someone that takes ideas seriously, and looks to see where they lead.

That would be the common denominator of anyone who had seriously studied Strauss.

But the common denominator that links people who have favored the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not Strauss. Few people here at this website have studied Strauss. Probably more have actually studied him here than in the population at large, but still probably not many. Those who favor the war do so because they see it as a way of bringing an end to a 12 year war, or a 30 year war, depending on how you look at it.

The difference among conservatives on whether or not to support the overthrow of the Taliban, and the overthrow of Saddam, is primarily a disagreement about means to an end. Is it better to fight them on their turf, or fight them here. Some of us believe it better to pull in the drawbridges, and some of us want to chase them to the ends of the earth. But Strauss is not the dividing line.

[Askel5]

.