Who is Leo Strauss? And why should we care? (National Disgrace Exposed!)
Let's begin with a lovely question by our own Purple State in a comment at my last blog:
What kind of democracy do we have when what our government is doing is so secret even our elected representatives aren't allowed to know what's happening or, if they are allowed, can't speak of it to anyone, not even to other elected representatives. ...
There's something strange here... This is all a great mystery to me.
Hmmmm..... No kidding!
It seems that I have inadvertently been following a slender thread, across many blogs - to a spiderweb. And I never knew it. I was just following the things that frustrated me about bushco. The lies. The Deceit. The Outsourcing of everything. The Marketing of propaganda. The Obsession with Iraq. The Torture. Neverending War. Contempt for citizens. And come to find out: The neocons planned it all out beforehand!
So I hope by the time you finish this post a little light bulb is gonna go off for you. And suddenly you'll see the spider web, with "Leo Strauss" and his fanatical disciples (and their acolytes) sitting right in the middle of it.
For some reason, and I won't spend time trying to figure it out here, there are individuals in history who crave disciples. And who foster a kind of "cult" around themselves, so that people who become "disciples" feel special and the group itself becomes a kind of cohesive entity with a sense of mission. Freud did that. A Ponzi scheme works like that. And Leo Strauss seems to have done something similar. Not only do these folks seem to spawn fanatical disciples (or investors - same thing!), but they also seem to spawn fanatical enemies. So if, at times, I link to a fanatical enemy of the neocons, I do so, not because I agree with the radical anti-straussians (some of whom follow Lyndon LaRouche), but because these "enemies" have taken a lot of time and trouble to research their foe. And we're gonna use their "existing databank" (who? where? what? = the facts), while disregarding their wacko, anti-semitic rhetoric (the nutty why and how = their theories). The principle here is a little like using cumadin, which is a rat poison if you take too much of it, but works really well as a blood thinner, when used very carefully in moderation.
So: careful warning - Do not under any circumstances get taken in by radical theories, even if I have to link to them!
With those caveats in mind, let us proceed into the Dark Machiavellian World of straussian "principles". And I do not use the word "Machiavellian" lightly, for Machiavelli was required reading for straussian disciples. First, I will summarize the main straussian/neocon principles. Following that we'll take a look at how these "principles" - or perhaps a better word would be "treasonous ideas" - are visible in the emerging landscape of the bush/cheney crime spree, which masqueraded as government.
Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes
than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular.
His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.[Canadian Professor and Strauss Expert, Shadia Drury]
Straussian/Neocon "Principles" 101 - (TheraP's cliff notes version):
[Synopsis above taken from the following sources: Shadia Drury, Brad deLong, Karen Kwiatkowski, Don Swift, Jeffrey Steinberg, and Danny Postel, who includes an extensive bibliography and interview with Shadia Drury, the Strauss expert. More below.]
- Noble Lies (lies/secrecy as "virtue" - > 4,10,13)
- Perpetual War (war as "virtue" -> 5, 6, 8, 13)
- Fear of the masses and democracy (-> 4, 9)
- Government by an elite (covert rule of "the wise" -> 1,10)
- Instilling a sense of superiority in a nation (-> 8, 13)
- Stability/Unity via FEAR of an external threat (->13)
- Exploiting moral issues/religion's hold on the people (->1,13)
- National survival - supersedes the well-being of others (->2,5)
- Contempt for dissenters (->10,13)
- Those in power make the rules and call it justice (->1,13)
- Combination of religion and nationalism (->7,13)
- Fear - greatest ally of tyranny (->1,6,13)
- Manipulate the images (media, based on idea of Plato's cave)
The basic building blocks of this ideology are found in lying, the manipulation of fear, contempt for anyone outside the "inner circle" of devotees, and the feeling of being part of an elite, whose judgments substitute the "law". (It is an interesting side-note that one of Strauss's mentors was Carl Schmitt, the man who became a key legal advisor to Hitler.) If you take these building blocks, horrifying as they seem, you can decipher bushco. You can read the glyphs, so to speak.
By playing around with the "principles" above, you can see the outlines, the blueprint for the bushco spiderweb of deceit. You'll see cheney's machinations, the lies that led us into Iraq, the manipulation, propaganda, use of torture to gin up a war and keep it going. The Orwellian language and "selling" of every bad policy as "beneficial". The never ending obfuscations and denials, the use of Homeland, the contempt for human rights, for the poor & distressed, the secrecy and "So what?" attitude. It's all laid out, right in those so-called "principles" that are totally lacking in principle. (Naturally, given the principles of secrecy and lying, they'd deny every bit of what I've told you: All of this throws new light on one blog of mine about Systemic Deception and the Breakdown of Civic Trust.)
Not all members of the previous Badministration were straussians. But that's beside the point. For the non-straussians, like cheney and rice, were willing to sign on to the same principles, whether by personal character as sociopaths (cheney, rumsfeld), desire to be part of an elite (rice?), or perhaps as allies against a common foe. Those who did not share straussian "ideals" were cut off, like branches being pruned. Anyone who signed on was "willing to play."
That's it in a nutshell. More below if you want it. Do not miss the final paragraph!
_______________________________________________________
For those willing to plow on, here are some more details:
1. Who was Leo Strauss?
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 in the region of Hessen, Germany, the son of a Jewish small businessman. He went to secondary school in Marburg and served as an interpreter in the German army in the first world war. He was awarded a doctorate at Hamburg University in 1921 for a thesis on philosophy that was supervised by Ernst Cassirer.
Strauss's post-doctoral work involved study of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, and in 1930 he published his first book, on Spinoza's critique of religion; his second, on the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, was published in 1935. After a research period in London, he published The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in 1936.
In 1937, he moved to Columbia University, and from 1938 to 1948 taught political science and philosophy at the New School for Social Research, New York. During this period he wrote On Tyranny (1948) and Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952).
In 1949, he became professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, and remained there for twenty years. His works of this period include Natural Right and History (1953), Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? (1959), The City and Man (1964), Socrates and Aristophanes (1966), and Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968).
Between 1968 and 1973, Strauss taught in colleges in California and Maryland, and completed work on Xenophon's Socratic discourses and Argument and Action of Plato's Laws (1975). After his death in October 1973, the essay collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (1983) was published.
2. Who signed on to the (neocon/straussian) 1997 (Project for a New American Century) Statement of Principles? Scroll down at the link to find out.
3. Why is that Statement of Principles important? Jason Vest provides a brief history of the Committee on the Present Danger, which begins like this:
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
4. Further info on authors cited above in cliff notes:
Shadia Drury: Professor and author of definitive works on Strauss. Critiques how straussian disciples have influenced US politics and were architects of the previous administration's War in Iraq, etc.
Brad deLong: Discussion of Strauss's early writing before he came to the US. Useful summary of Straussian lies and principles. Interesting comments to the blog.
Karen Kwiatkowski: Gives an insider view of how straussians turned "national security intelligence" into a propaganda factory, ignoring the intelligence-gathering wisdom of long time experts.
Don Swift: Excellent objective view of straussian thinking and how straussians sought to influence US politics, particularly under bushco.
Jeffrey Steinberg: Tracks Strauss's disciples, acolytes and who they mentored, worked with, tracks their career moves. Excellent source for who, where, how. Names are in bold. Easy to get a sense of major figures in this movement and roles they played. Ignore his theories unless you are studying Lyndon Larouche and company's radical thought.
Danny Postel: Extensive bibliography and interview with Shadia Drury, the Strauss expert. Also studies straussian influence on US politics.
Hopefully, by now, you see how all of this interrelates, how fanatical and dangerous this group of disciples and conspirators is, how deceitful, machiavellian, and traitorous they are, and how tenaciously and deceptively they will fight - against any effort to unearth all the damage they have done to our nation.
I considered putting this into two blogs. But I felt it was important enough to put everything into one, with the option of stopping in the middle if you were already convinced.
I honestly think this is one of the most important blogs I've ever done.
May 18, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Reader, the thread below has many fine references for further reading and pondering. Take time to make use of them.
Writing this nearly one day after posting the blog, I am impressed by the many fine comments and further information provided in them. I also find it interesting that the few detractors were really unable to muster arguments that bear any weight at all!
I think there is much to ponder here. And I hope to do that myself - in some future blogs, related to how the neocon "principles" represent the overturning of our very democratic values and represent an insidious element within communities and institutions - which we need to be on guard for and root out.
May 19, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I first read this 2003 article about Leo Strauss, by Jim Lobe, on Alternet , I sat for five minutes, shaking. It was frightening to read a theory about the events I was seeing take place
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
May 18, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've known about strauss for a long time now. But never forced myself to really "see" his insidious ideas. I felt myself shaking doing this post. I felt it when I pushed "print". Thanks for providing another link here. Much appreciated.
May 18, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of his defenders have said that he didn't really intend for his views on politics to be applied in the way neocons did. They suggest that he regarded politics as something with which a philosopher must be familiar but not necessarily something in which the philosopher must engage. So in the eyes of these defenders, Strauss's relationship with the neocon Straussians is a bit like the Prophet Mohammed's relationship with Al Qaeda.
Obviously, I find that argument a bit disingenuous. You can't advocate for the use of "noble truths" and deception as a part of ruling and then act shocked -- SHOCKED! -- when somebody puts your theory into practice. Nonetheless, I think it's useful to distinguish between Strauss and the Straussians. Let's be honest here. We're talking about people like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Do we really believe that these men had the intellectual capacity to read and comprehend Strauss' writings correctly? Strauss may or may not have been a neocon himself, but that doesn't change the fact that many of his adherents are dumbasses.
May 18, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolfowitz has a Ph.D. from U of Chicago. So does Chalabi. And others. Yes, they DID read strauss. But, as you said, and I said above, when you have a philosophy, whose underlying principle is that of deception, and when one of that philosopher's two main mentors was someone who worked with Hitler to make sure his odious policies were "legalized" - then you know the man is likely to spawn politicians, ready to do similar dastardly deeds.
May 18, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree; don't let sarcasm's ability for comic relief blind you. Wolfowitz and Company are indeed smart, way smart; smart enough to not only understand philosophy but smart and crafty enough to glue something like that into their sociopathic mentality. These people are evil incarnate. You don't get through the Chicago School of Economics without significant smarts.
Strauss is the kind of philosopher that claims they are oh, so holy and would never stoop to dabble in politics. Horseshit! Philosophy as a practice --not as a theory, mind you-- is sheer politics and sheerly political. Every philosopher known to Man has become a philosopher because they have a political axe to grind. Anybody who cleaves to Machiavelli and Heidegger, of all people, has got to set off fire alarms; that's no philosopher, that's a demagogue!
May 18, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a young Straussian. I should do a diary of my own on it. But briefly, yes, you are exactly right. Strauss (and his disciples) are directly responsible for where their students went.
Part of it's because of the ideas they advocated.
But there's something deeper: Straussian profs regularly act as recruiters for the far-right defense/intelligence apparatus.
I had two friends who were also part of the Straussian circle in college. One went on to work for a senior Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee. Another served a tour of duty in Army Intelligence and is now a (civil service) functionary at the Pentagon.
These professors - I'm pretty sure Strauss was among them - are using their detached, philosophic positions to stove-pipe young, ideological recruits into positions of power.
Absolutely they bear responsibility for it.
May 19, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that powerful personal commentary, which buttresses and extends the point of the post.
Please do that blog! Your own experience and what you say about how straussian professors recruit impressionable young people is so important.
I look forward to reading the blog!
May 19, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad Billmon closed the Whiskey Bar. He had some really good posts on Straussians you would have liked.
You be able to get a copy of Billmon's archives here:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-06-1.html
May 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Emma. Truth be told, I don't really "like" to read such stuff. I merely tolerate it, in order to further the cause. Your link is much appreciated. I can see it's extensive!
May 18, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, this is as good a primer to neocon worldview as can be had. Great job!
Another vital inspiration for neocons was Max Schactman and his constantly evolving (rightward) Trotskyist movement in the first half of the 20th century. In fact, for most neocons, there may even be vestiges of sentimental affection for the hard-Left days of their youth. Surely there echoes of the ‘60s “smash the state” screeches in Michael Ledeen “faster, please” exhortations for "creative destruction", as well as disturbingly fascist adoration of authoritarianism.
Leo Strauss’ politics of ambiguity provided good grounding for shrill theorists who reflexively accept credit for everything and blame for nothing, and in combination with "ends justifies means" compulsions of radicalism this intellectual Molotov cocktail produced a truly twisted, and fatally attractive (for the GOP) platform for American disaster.
May 18, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the links, SF Curt.
While writing this I kept having flashes of how some enterprising person could do a video game where these principles play out. Or maybe there could be a choice of principles by which people play the game. Against others. In any case I can imagine how, just based on these principles alone, you would be able to see the creation of an "enterprise" - be it financial, political, educational, religious, whatever. And then the gradual breakdown of society as a result. I honestly wonder if some studies need to be done of this. To see how this plays out over time in a game situation. I also wonder if young people could be taught the dangers of such principles, through playing such a game. Learning, that, in the end, you destroy all trust. And with trust destroyed, you've doomed your group or your society.
The more I think about this, the more I can see how important it was that I wrote about Eric Erikson's theory of development as lending itself to a study of society. Because the straussians have turned healthy development on its head!
May 18, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extra points could be racked up by accurately predicting the number of Islamofascists lurking under Richard Perle's bed.
Here's the biggest perversion in neocon philosophy: It would deliberately corrode trust between government and governed. That's important: This de-establishment of political legitimacy is a goal not an unfortunate side effect. There is, basing their program, a priority to replace representative democracy with feudal ruler/peasant arrangements. Every government depends, to some extent, upon consent of the governed. In democracies, that consent is freely given, since citizens share the process of governing, however marginally; in tryanny, this consent is compelled by force, enabled by fear. For neocons, authoritarism is the easiest, most economical means of administering states. Collectively, they comprise some of the best minds of the 10th century.
May 18, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That puts them up there with Aztecs! Ripping the hearts out of some to appease their gods!
May 18, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
KNOW THY ENEMY. Very well done. Have no idea how you found this stuff.
This stuff must be tattooed on dicky c's back!
This is one of those blogs I can return to again and again.
May 18, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been working my way through this stuff over a period of time, dd, and forced myself to try and synthesize it this weekend. Somehow, my last blog forced me to see I had to write about this. (and had to distill it down, in order to do so - it's like a recipe for evil!)
May 18, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
Nice.
Well, we know where Cheney's sneer comes from. What I have to ask, though, is what kind of person thinks that this is a good idea, let alone lead a country with? It almost seems like a mechanical way of thinking, an experiment, that people actually believe. It's like someone reading "Lord of the Rings" and a few years later a group of people actually believing in hobbits and preparing for Sauron. Yes, it seems that this whole philosophy eminates from Strauss, but then there's the people believing him.
May 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the other side of the rabbit hole ... keep the "their theories" distinct (and don't bother trying to debate with the adherents) and there are some very interesting facts being misconstrued in la-la-land.
Interestingly enough ... those paranoid about the "Bilderbergers" make the assumption that the organization is the heart of the straussian movement (ok, they don't articulate it quite so coherently ... but that's my distillation). The waning Masonic-paranoid also ascribe a surprisingly similar set of hidden principles to the Freemasons. Birchers seem to focus their concern on the trilateral commission and assert a very close set of principles guide the commission's overarching strategy along with the World Bank and the Federal Reserve. Many seem to construe the other's conceptualizations as a misunderstanding about the "true" heart of power.
I don't know if Strauss is the neocon inspiration, but he sure has provided a unified language for those worried about the hidden nature of power. Sort of like Asimov's laws of robotics.
May 18, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is so much in your comment it's hard to even decipher it all! You might consider a blog on this, because you seem to have thought a great deal about these issues and in a blog you could provide links and further insights. I am intrigued to understand more. I agree that sometimes it is pointless to debate certain groups. At this point, I have no doubt the straussian theories are behind a lot of what we see from bushco. If nothing else the principles are ones many of those folks "bought" - irregardless of their provenance. It's the insidious nature of such a philosophy, that it can percolate throughout society, unnamed but poisonous, making "virtues" of vices and of treasonous behavior.
May 18, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd that you should bring up the Bilderbergers, kgb. Their annual meeting was held last week in Greece. According to those in the "know", if there are such people, the agenda for this year was depression. I seriously doubt they meant the mental health kind. :-)
May 18, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spiders reproduce...........John Yoo, Professor of Law, Berkley.
May 18, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done! One of the darkest of the brood!
May 18, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, Thera, Leo Strauss and his minions on Monday morning - you make my head hurt! Good stuff, tho.
A piece by Jim Lobe on Alternet back in 2003 continues some important points http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
He quotes from Seymour Hersh, who has written about our neocon buddies.
Some big Straussian players are Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol and son William, Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney of the American Enterprise Institute and Gary Schmitt, director of PNAC.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war? A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz' "right man" was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Hersh notes in an article that Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt wrote an essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence" in which they criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
A good quote from Shadia Drury: Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
Doesn't that completely encapsulate the Bush years? And give evidence of what the Obama administration is dealing with in today's CIA?
May 18, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And right there you can see how these folks also love the fundies! That's part of their ideology too!
Masterful, wonderful comment. And for people who may not have checked that link yet (also given by pol above), much of what Ravenwind has written is quoted from that Alternet article.
Very chilling! All of this! It must be rooted out with great care!
May 18, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neocons love fundies because they are predictable and easy to manipulate. Fundies at heart are fear driven. The fear of damnation is a central symbolic theme in their lives, fear of being cast out from the group (cast out into the outer darkness where men wheep and gnash their teeth). That is why they come togeather in the church so often, to be reassured of belonging. To be brainwashed in the blood of the lamb. It's a real groupthink expierience. Plug the right biblical quotes to pictures of warriors and they will follow like sheep.
May 19, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely assembled neocon 102 paper Thera. It's unfortunate that 'neocon' was little understood other than by a small number of writers and was but a little understood label bandied about in the press to most of the electorate. Perhaps some of the damage of the past 8 years might have been ameliorated. While the brand is discredited at present I have no doubt the ideas will morph into a 'new' ideology whose hall marks will include manipulative international monetary policy, intercessions into the Mid-East and lucrative armaments contracts.
May 18, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unless we undertake a massive re-education program, this could so easily come back to haunt us. We need to equip all young people with the necessary foresight to prevent this. Because by the time it happens, you and I may no longer be walking on terra firma.
May 18, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without being too pollyanna-ish, I hope, I do believe that Barack Obama's beliefs are very much the antithesis of the Straussians. He is not secretive, and while he is self-confident and comfortable with both his own strengths and weaknesses, he doesn't see himself as the "superior ruling over the inferior."
In the news today is this: From AP: Geneva - A single word from Barack Obama has put new life into the stale old disarmament talks in Geneva, where diplomats are hailing a "remarkable shift" by the Americans in favor of a treaty clamping down on production of the stuff of nuclear bombs.
The U.S. president's word - "verifiable" - has set the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament on a possible course toward negotiating a treaty after years of deadlock, most recently because the Bush administration argued that a pact couldn't be verified by inspections and monitoring."
Bush: secretive and mistrusting of the "inferior." Obama, trusting (pragmatically) and working in the open as much as possible.
May 18, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe Obama subscribes to these principles ONE BIT! Yes, we can maintain hope, I think. Vigilance. And hope. Thanks for your second comment. Good to see you here. :)
May 18, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this Thera. Yet another piece bkmk'd! Useful stuff. The strange thing is we knew about these Straussians behind Bush in 2000, yet everyone just said 'no one REALLY believes that crap' and the serious people wouldn't actually let them take the reins. A kind of faith in the rationality of the 'establishment' as a check. It's still so unbelievable what 'they' let happen...
May 18, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote: "The strange thing is we knew about these Straussians behind Bush in 2000, ..."
I do not mean to be contentious but we knew about the Straussians back in the mid 1990's when the Project for a New American Century was writing letters to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.
I guess I should welcome TheraP and the rest to the party. Now you can be called all of the names that I have been called for discussing this subject (not here, of course.).
There was a Tim Robbins play that was shown on HBO a while ago that actually included these connections. He presented the top Bushies (plus Rush Limbaugh) as a kind of perverted Greek chorus, chanting odes to Strauss as the invasion of Iraq unfolded in the background. I cannot remember the name of the play (Embedded?) but if you can find it then give it a look.
Thanks to TheraP for his/her post.
May 18, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your experience demonstrates the principle of treating opponents with contempt. Marginalizing them. Making others "fear" them as enemies and unpatriotic. We will yet be vindicated at the true patriots in this story. I certainly can see the seeds of this going all the way back to McCarthyism and Nixon. It's really horrifying that people would seek to, in effect, overthrow our government while pretending otherwise.
Thanks for your comment. May you find your views extolled in the future, instead of vilified.
May 18, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is telling that PNAC which was crucial as a political emodiment of Straussianism in 1997-2002 folded up shop sometime after that. That alone is a compelling indicator of its corruption.
Good "cliff notes". This quote was defining for me circa 2003:
I don't find your blog to finish well. It feels as if you rushed the ending, skipped the important steps of synthesis (left as an exercise for the reader?).
Cheney signed on with PNAC, whether he's strictly a Straussian or not. And I agree with the commenter who said that we should keep Strauss, his actual ideas and writings, and what was done with them, distinct.
btw, minor typo at the top "Strauss's influence on Necons" NeOcons...
May 18, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the typo error. Fixed now. As for not doing the analysis myself. You're right. But that seemed, to me, to be treating the readers as if they were unable to do that themselves. I chose to give more info, to give the reader a sense of what the other links might provide.
There are always choices in a blog. Which is not an article nor a paper. Feel free to make any connections you like. I honestly thought that for the audience here at the Cafe there was little point in saying the obvious. Perhaps posterity will view it differently. But I trust whole tomes will be written over the centuries. And my interest was in giving people the building blocks, enabling them to get the "aha" on their own!
May 18, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. It was just feedback, not a grade!
May 18, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm way beyond grades.... ;)
May 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm probably not... based on my use of the reference! :-)
May 19, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP -- how does, or did, John Tower fit into this group?
May 18, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was apparently Bush I's first choice for Secretary of Defense, but due to his alcoholism it was deemed wiser to nominate cheney in his place. I'm not finding Tower among the circle of straussians - but he was in the bush circle and a Likud supporter apparently.
Maybe you can find more or speculate a bit more.
May 18, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ww, not that I know much about Tower, but why are you particularly asking about him? (If you don't mind saying.)
May 18, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in as wondering too....
May 18, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask because when I was doing research on McCain, I came across an article I can no longer find that described Tower as a hardcore Neocon who was a formative influence on McCain --- in that Tower had positioned himself in the Senate to be influential on the Armed Services Committee (while being deeply indebted to the arms corporate interests) while having a cross-over, alternating presence with one Richard Cheney (in favored son status) among far Right Conservatives. The material I read (but only as I recall) did not discuss Strauss,but everything in Tower's own formative influence seems to suggest a connection.
Hopelessly handicapped by lack of footnotes, so --- was there a significant connect the dots connection from Strauss to Tower to Cheney?
May 18, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sort of looks like Tower might be the connect the dots between key neoconservatives and Cheney. After Tower's confirmation for Sec. Def. failed, Cheney got the post ... Cheney apparently hired tower's proposed team:
Here's the NYT take on the plan for global domination back in '92. Pretty interesting stuff: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
Tower's nomination was derailed largely by leaks from within the H.Bush administration and most visibly by Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich. Another big issue was Tower's connection to the defense contracting industry. He went on to head H.Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was killed in an April '91 plane crash.
Stephen Hadley also joined the team at this point as Cheny's assistant for International Security Policy(as liason to Snowcroft). Hadley had served with Tower/Snowcroft on the Iran Contra investigation as Counsel to the Special Review Board. This seems to be where the team sort of gelled ... and it seems like Tower brought most of the players to Cheney.
In the Clinton years, The Snowcroft Group formed with Hadley, Powell and Rice as big players. Hadley also kept his role as lawyer for Lockheed Martin. I'm going unverified source here, so take it for what you will ....
That seems to bring pretty much the whole gang together and making tons of cash... sans electable figurehead. There are a bunch of side-stories here it seems(and a groovy trilateral commission tie-in :-), but that's a quick-search summary of links to Tower. I'd give more links but that seems to make the comment get held for review (and if this doubles-posts ... sorry)
May 19, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks a million! Good sleuthing, kgb999! The flow chart as the group assembles itself! Lynn Cheney is appearing more and more as a covert player here. (Her group was behind that "torture" ad last week.)
May 19, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great ... Zalmay Khalilzad (one of the guys who drafted Pentagon’s 1992 Defense Planning Guide for American dominance) is preparing to assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/world/asia/19diplo.html?_r=2&ref=global-home
Geez! They were originally going to try and unseat Karzi with this guy in the next election. Khalilzad and McChrystal ... lovely.
May 19, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads-up! We have to remain vigilant! Thank god for the Web!!!
May 19, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who needs a primer here:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/april03/0304012.html
Title: Zalmay Khalilzad: The Neocons’ Bagman To Baghdad
Give a nice run-down of how the neocons were working with him circa 2003.
May 19, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was shocked when I saw that name in your comment. Chalabi bent Bush to his will over Iraq, and now this comes out about Afg!
May 19, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much, kgb999,for connecting the dots. I'm sorry I didn't see this until tonight.
May 20, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naomi Klein's Book The Shock Doctrine-- The Rise of Disaster Capitalism gives very thorough, readable examples of the implementation of Straussian theories in world economics
May 18, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that. I knew this reached into every area of society. These people have sown so many seeds of disaster.
May 18, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
Leo Strauss does not even appear in the index of The Shock Doctrine. The key figure in Klein's book is Milton Friedman, who was an entirely different thinker.
Honestly this thread and this discussion are the political equivalent of a Dan Brown novel. Strauss is an important figure for some neoconservatives, but he is hardly the only influence on neoconservatism. And many of the people who are identified in this thread as Straussians simply are not (e.g. Richard Perle). Even Paul Wolfowitz did his PhD not with Strauss but with Albert Wohlstetter, another totally different thinker.
May 18, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
U of Chicago was famous in those days for people being able to pick and choose across disciplinary lines. I guess we'll have to see if we can get hold of transcripts for course. Or see which "circles" people frequented. Though there seems to be little doubt that Wolfie was an adherent - at least in the reading I've done.
I do agree, though, that when I went and checked the web, there was little reference even in reviews of her books to Strauss - the sole one being a reference to the presence of strauss at U of Chicago at the same as Friedman as well as the fact that, while strauss was a political influence for these folks, Friedman was an economic influence.
But as for the straussian "principles" percolating through bushco, well if you can't see them, then you mustn't have looked very far. Because they're plain as day! Everywhere you look under the bush.
May 19, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Semi-agree and semi-disagree.
Being around Straussians in college, the thing that always amazed me about them was that. They. Do. Not. Give. A s***. About. Economics. At all.
They don't care about Milton Friedman. They don't care where tax rates go. They just want a big military budget.
Now, since they're so ideologically committed to inequality, they've got no inherent problem with supply side economics - they're just not enthusiastic about it. But yeah, they're happy to ride along as long as they get their armaments and death squads.
May 19, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks again for your cogent and pithy commentary.
May 19, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strauss, oh he's okay, just misunderstood.
May 18, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have a relative named Leo, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding I caused.
May 18, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent summary of the Straussian effect, TheraP. And he is not an easy subject, either.
It's interesting that you mentioned Carl Schmitt, who was a noted German political and legal theorist between the World Wars and a mentor to Strauss. Schmitt hated liberalism and its fundamental concept that any restriction on liberty must be justified. As a legal expert on constitutional law, he strongly believed in authoritarianism, and especially the power of the sovereign.
Basically, Schmitt developed the theory that a state cannot operate normally when there is a crisis or an exceptional state of emergency. When a state faces an extreme crisis that could undermine or destroy its rule, the state has to suspend its normal constitutional rules and give all power and authority to its leader for the "public good". However, unlike a minor emergency, which is presumed to last only a limited amount of time before operations return to normal, the state of exception becomes the new normal, because crisis and exceptional emergencies are not really exceptional in modern states. They are to be expected, and because they are expected, the state never goes back to normal constitutional rule, but remains under the power of the sovereign. Schmitt tied this constitutional theory to war and politics, although he wrote as if the obviousness of it all transcended any legal points and existed in a realm of the almost theological.
As one political scientist put it, "The ghost of Carl Schmitt haunts political and legal debates not only in Europe, but also in the contemporary United States".
Does any of this sound familiar?
May 18, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
seashell, that's the cyanide icing on the poison cake!
That description of Schmitt fits Strauss to a T. And not just strauss! It certainly describes Yoo's "lawyering" and probably Clarence Thomas as well.
The Platonic forms. Plato's cave.
And in essence Strauss believed in subjugating the population and "manipulating" the "images" of what people saw. Propaganda. Deception. Etc.
Thanks so much for that piece. I was hoping that the comments section would become an extension of the post. And I see that happening.
May 18, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just Yoo and Thomas, TheraP. How about Cheney and Rumsfeld, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the determination to keep detainees out of the regular court system, the OLC determinations that the Geneva Conventions and the UN Conventions against Torture don't apply to the War on Terror, the suspension of the regular contractor bidding process in favor of "No-bid contracts" at the Pentagon, the withholding of FOIA and other matters in the name of National Security, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the refusal to let the International Red Cross into GITMO, the wiretapping, the Patriot Act and on and on and on?
Suspension of the normal constitutional rules for the "public good", or "keeping us safe from another terrorist attack".
May 18, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with all of that. I was just mentioning the role of the lawyers with straussian connections (Yoo, who clerked for Thomas). But it's all so interconnected. We have to pull Gonzo in as well:
That quote from emptywheel's article at Salon, up today, which describes: The 13 people who made torture possible.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/18/torture/index.html
Yes, the legacy of Carl Schmitt lived on through the straussian "designs" against human rights. (I actually added that in the post and included a link to a blog of mine, which lists many of the rights from the Declaration of Human Rights, particularly those related to judicial rights and the right to humane treatment.
May 18, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is partly tangential, but you gotta read this list of questions prepared by Mary at emptywheel to be put to congress members who received briefings on the "enhanced" interrogations. What a take-down of the botched bush intelligence gathering!
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/18/bob-graham-it-was-oca-with-the-briefing-in-the-hart-senate-building/#comment-159042
Things like these (and MORE!):
May 18, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the naming names part of this might not be extended to members of the Congress as well? And the media! A daunting task but necessary to slow down the conditioning for the coming war on Iran!
Great diary, TheraP. Clear, concise, logical and persuasive.
Here is a neocon chart from the Washington Post as well.
http:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html
May 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mad As Hell!
That is an extremely helpful chart!
May 18, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a url that works as a link (I think).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html
May 18, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi TherP,
I rec'd your post earlier but have not been able to bring myself to read everything yet based on the references of it making people shudder.
I am still experiencing an aftershock based on the realization that christian religious doctrine has been applied all over the place in all of this political mess.
I don't know how that fits in with Strauss but Rumsfeld's memo's reminded me of concerns I had during the election about Hillary's religious affiliations and how calling our country a christian nation started happening with major players in the past ? many years.
When the nation of Georgia took action against Russia last year, I felt certain that it was no accident. That they were perhaps trying to create an international incident to evoke fear of war with Russia to advantage McCain during the election. I suspected this because of the McCain campaign's ties with Georgia. During that time it was also stated that we must support Georgia because they are a 'Christian' nation. The was more and more coming out of the military about the 'christianization' of the military and rebuke that soldiers of other faiths experienced...so much.
So, I need a little space to clear in my brain and with my emotion before I try to add all of this which I know only a little about but I commend you for all of your very diligent work:)
May 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear about the christian references, Synchronicity. Strauss was an atheist. He would have viewed true Christians as fitting within a group translated into English as "gentlemen" - people who are idealistic and would give everything for a cause. He had contempt for such people. People like you and I possibly. His interest in religion was related to his view that religion is like a drug, that it keeps people subdued and is a means for the state (his conception of it anyway) to control people. True spirituality would not have been something Strauss could really understand.
Go ahead and clear your brain. Take you time approaching this subject matter. It is very painful. In some ways it's like mental torture, to think that there could be people so bent upon manipulation, deceit, and contempt for others.
There are many events which have occurred under bush, not just their view of what happened in Georgia, but the invasion and destruction of Lebanon, the incursion into Gaza and the rampant killing of civilians who had no way of fleeing. There is a legacy from these things that is sickening and shameful.
Be at peace. Never apologize for protecting yourself as much as you need to do. That is the only way anyone can participate in this struggle. Because we need to husband our strength while maintaining our empathy. (I worked long and hard on myself as a therapist to get to that point. But it's hard point to stay at.)
Be at peace. Take care of yourself. Blessings upon you.
May 18, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those depictions were not religious in the spiritual sense. To take the religion as a drug metaphor, they were a hyper-religious person's version of heroin. If anything that implies to me that Bush was one to be handled, not trusted ... and they knew how to keep him juiced.
The religion-as-drug was a frame of Marx ("Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."). The interesting thing is the divergence from Lenin(& Trotsky?), who seemed to base ideal policy on a philosophy that by casting off the quest for happiness through pursuit of an illusion, the people would then be free to pursue true happiness. By the time Strauss came along, it almost seems like the religious observations of Marx had been weaponized - turned into a tool of manipulation. (I'm way out of my league here on the communist philosophy stuff, I might be totally mischaracterizing Marx/Lenin ... just a spurious thought)
Thanks for another thought-provoking thread ... I kind of like the "weaponized religion" construct.
May 18, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freud picked up that view of religion too. But later sort of changed his mind in his old age. I think it was circulating as part of the intellectual milieu then - as it still does.
May 19, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You Think You Know? Truth-It! It's time to unlearn what you've learned. Our future depends on it.
Find the truth & more.
May 18, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect example of straussian elitism. Thanks!
May 18, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strauss didn't "influence" the neo-cons. They ripped him off.
None of those "smart" neo-cons would have survived ten minutes of discourse with the man.
The relationship is similar to the way Nazis co-opted Nietzsche. There are passages in Nietzsche that specifically denigrate the herd mentality at the root of the pseudo-intellectual style of the Nazis.
This pattern of philosophical adventure providing fodder for political cant is discussed a lot in Strauss.
One can object to Strauss's methods as a thinker on many levels. There are strange moments where he excludes his own activity from the analysis he applies to others.
But he was not advocating a return to the idea of enlightened despotism as is being suggested by this post.
May 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the neocons were his very students! And he was their very mentor. They must have survived a great many discussions with the man, moat. If you have some evidence of what you're contending, please give us the links and supply a rationale. Are you referring to those who actually studied with him at the U of Chicago?
May 18, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
U of C?!!? Another link between Obama and terrorists!!
May 18, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the hotbed of straussians. David Brooks went there.
But Obama only taught there. And Strauss died long before that. Though perhaps... DNA can linger? Ah.... the webs they can weave....
May 18, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Purple State--whose question inspired this excellent meditation (thank you TheraP)--went there too! Along with Brooks--and can you believe it?--Podhoretz too.
And yes, back then, the Straussian DNA continued produce more than one odd "Bloom" around campus.
May 18, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thank you as well, Purple State, for that apt question, just as I was working furiously on the first part of this post!
I nearly went to U of Chicago for some grad studies in the late 60's. Maybe it's good I spared myself. Though I would have done so in comparative religion at that point.
I don't hold it against the venerable institution that they hired Strauss. And now I will always think of it as connected to you. :-)
May 19, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about it. Since David Brooks was there.... consorting with terrorists....
May 18, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am referring to the U of C group. Your challenge is righteous. They obviously talked to each other. I just don't see anything I understand of Strauss in the writings of the neo-cons. I don't think they subjected their developed ideas to the scrutiny of the man. Strauss sort of created his own vortex of what had to be discussed..
But fair enough, TheraP. I will seek out support for my assertion.
Maybe I will fail. But to be clear, my main point is that hijacking philosophical ideas for finite political ends was one of the primary reasons that Strauss argued for a class to make a bridge between the philosophical and the pragmatic.
It is ironic if his own students made exactly the mistake of being what he was warning against.
May 18, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sense I have, moat, is that there was an overt and a covert Strauss. That he tempered his radical ideas in the US. Given our society. But that within his inner circle, he was more open about his radical ideas. Nevertheless, I cannot claim to really understand Strauss. My focus is more on the neocons. Whether they manufactured an idealized straussian political agenda or not, I do not know. However, to me the driving principles of the straussians is certainly evident in their actions, their agenda, their duplicity, use of propaganda, and so on. To me it appears to be a "whole" ideology. An elitist agenda. A frightening philosophy, irregardless of how it got translated by them.
But I look forward to what you might dig up. And share with us.
May 18, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, TheraP, very few of the major neoconservatives, even among those influenced by his thought, studied with Leo Strauss. And most of Leo Strauss's major students are not on the list of prominent neoconservatives (though most are quite conservative).
In fact, political theorist Bill Gallston, who was a major player in Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign, became an important "New Democratic" theorist, and had a position in the Clinton White House also did his PhD under Leo Strauss at Chicago.
You're entirely correct that Strauss has been an important influence on some neoconservatives. But he is not the only important influence on neoconservatism. Many key neoconservatives and members of the Bush administration have no direct links to Strauss or his students. And some Strauss students are not neoconservatives.
May 18, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me the important point in all this is the set of principles (somehow derived from straussian thinking - overt or covert) that seem to run through the bush cabal and the putsch for power that preceded it.
Sometimes a group needs a theorist or someone with academic authority. It provides a cover or a sense of authority for radical ideas.
I really see no need to argue over the genesis of these ideas. The point I'm making is that if you take these building blocks, the 13 "principles," you can assemble the architecture of the bush administrations's machinations.
That is my simple, but powerful, point.
May 19, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until you can show a more dominant factor, Strauss' effect remains on the table regardless of how many people did not have direct contact with him or his ideas or perversions of his ideas.
You could do this discussion a service by establishing what other thinkers were more dominant than Strauss, for instance.
May 20, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been too busy to get back to this until now but have paid a fair amount of attention to Strauss in the past. Unless your links are quite new I have probably read them in the past. The first thing that struck me and made me pay the attention I did was that his critics and his admirers said the same things about his teachings. His admirers used to be proud to be called neocons.
So, we have an atheist who thinks religion should be encouraged because the religious man is more apt to follow a strong leader. He teaches that the noble lie is not only justified but necessary. Citizens must be united against a common enemy so that they won't fight each other and if no enemy presents itself one should be created. There is no such thing as any natural right except the right of the strong to rule the weak. He discovered that all the great philosophers wrote in code that he and only a very few others were capable of understanding. What we think Aristotle said was actually just pap for the masses. The real leader is the philosopher, the one who whispers in the kings ear but he speaks in a code to those few who have the capability to divine the truth and who can deal with the truth.
I read somewhere that while most disciplines, like psychology for instance, have multiple schools of thought that have names such a s Jungian or Freudian but in the discipline of political science the only school of thought that has reached the status of having a name is the Straussian school. Early on I wondered a lot why so little attention was paid to Strauss's philosophy and how it tied in with the actions of the neocons. I think it might be because to describe this guys teachings and to believe that any serious person follows them sounds like you have bought in to some whacked out conspiracy theory.
Here is what scares and depresses me. As much as I don't want his assessment of humanity to be correct, there is evidence that it may be so, or at least that it is for very many. Now consider this. If the neocons do believe these and other cynical Strauss teachings they then believe that they are the one that know the truth. They know/believe that people must be manipulated to be led. Even if that is true, even if what they believe to be true is in fact true, there is no logical reason to make the mental leap that that knowledge qualifies them to do the leading. The neocons have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that while they are good at manipulating they are not capable of doing the leading. They manipulated their way into overt power for a while and they made a royal fuck of everything they touched. And why should they ever admit it. One of their protections is the royal lie.
May 18, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great grasp of Strauss you have, Lulu! And the tragedy of his thinking. What I kept reading was that he had this very pessimistic philosophy and that while his US students followed his thinking, in terms of how to gain power and manipulate people, they did not share his pessimism. Maybe his pessimism kept him from becoming a politician. But they tried his theories. And have failed spectacularly!
Personally, Lulu I don't think there's only one kind of person, a person who can be manipulated. It is true that many people may want to believe the propaganda in good times. But right now, with all the economic fall-out, I think there's a lot of reflection going on. I doubt people will be as trusting of those seeking to manipulate them in the future.
Thank you for that wonderful comment. I can see you've learned a lot about Strauss, but you've not been taken in. Kudos for that!
May 18, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't their first crack in power, although it has been the most spectacular in terms of rising and then flaming out.
During the Ford administration, Bush I was the Director of the CIA, Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff and Rummy was Sec. of Defense. It was under these conditions that the TEAM B debacle took place. That it was a debacle is clear - to everyone but the neocons. You're probably aware of Team B, but if not, here is a starting link.
May 18, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, TheraP. I forgot to thank you for the great link to Marcy Wheeler's The 13 people who made torture possible in Salon. Nice to have everything so tidy on 3 pages!
May 18, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Team B. Very important. I wonder how many people even know what it means!
Seashell, I wonder if you want to consider a post on Team B.
May 19, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could try to knock one out. Good idea, TheraP!
May 19, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, dear seashell!
We're on a roll here! :-)
P.S. Did you see that one of Professor Mouffe's books is downloadable in a pdf file? Same link you gave me. Bottom of that page!
May 19, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually more like a pamphlet. Just 24 small pages. I'm going to read it this morning.
May 19, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Citizens must be united against a common enemy so that they won't fight each other and if no enemy presents itself one should be created.
Somewhere along the way, the neocons also realized that they have more power when there is an enemy. As you said, if there isn't one, they'll find one. Notice how Muslims and Islam morphed into Islamofascism so fast. I'm pretty sure that wasn't by accident.
May 18, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It troubles me every time I hear the "Islamofascism" moniker. I'm hearing it more and more. As if it's a fact, rather than propaganda!
Ughhhhhh.....
May 19, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've known about this guy for a long time. He was nucking futs, and the GOP is going right down the rabbit hole with him. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
May 18, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Doc! A good diagnosis saves a lot of time and trouble! They should have come to you long ago....
May 18, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" talks about many of the themes you are covering here, TheraP. Thank you for so many links to other sources, and for your comments.
May 18, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that additional resource and confirmation of what I've tried to lay out (succinctly) and for your comment. :)
May 19, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a play opening in June in Chicago about exactly these issues. It's called "Strauss at Midnight." I have a blog entry with a few of my thoughts regarding Strauss and the theater. I'd be interested in any feedback, linkage, whatever.
http://www.dcatheater.org/blog/category/strauss_at_midnight/
Once the play has opened I will make the script available to anyone interested.
May 18, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that info! Why not put up a blog when that happens with a link to your script elsewhere, rather than putting the whole script on a blog - if that's possible for you? I'd be interested to see what you're doing with that. And you can put a heads-up on one of my blogs as well, to make sure I don't miss yours.
May 19, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, yosephus. I spent half the night reading those links. Wish I could be in Chicago for the show!
May 19, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post, TheraP.
Among the things that strike me most strongly is how the neocons expect that a nation can survive and prosper under such self-destructive direction as is laid out in their Straussian principles. How can they not see the destruction to which these same principles delivered Nazi Germany?
Perhaps, just as disconcerting, but not that surprising, is that the U.S. media has not reported on the anti-American philosophical underpinnings of the neocons.
May 18, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful comment! I think that sometimes an ideology becomes hard to penetrate, hard to write about. That's why I boiled it down to the 13 brief "principles" - as a means of making it easy to read, understand, and make use of.
It's pretty horrifying stuff! But only if people can see the basic ingredients of the poisonous stew. And its effects.
I think it was an "experiment" whose effects should have been foreseeable. What fascinates me more, however, at this moment, is what averted catastrophe?
I suspect it was the military's long tradition of adherence to the Law, the Constitution, which prevented the bush cabal from being able to manipulate them into enforcing martial law.
May 19, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have some sympathy for the genesis of Strauss' views and think TheraP's Hitlerian reference should probably be subjected to Godwin's law.
Strauss was a German Jew and a Zionist. His early experience of political philosophy was of a people's abandonment of democracy and its welcoming of Nazism. That subsequently, he did not trust the rationality of what our own Walter Lippmann called the "herd" and would not willingly leave important decisions in its hands is understandable.
Strauss saw policy formation as a struggle between elites to influence the public in their favor -- and if you are confident that your policy is the best who is to say what tactics are not fair. What would you not have done or said to prevent Hitler coming to power?
All's fair in love and war.
May 18, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside how many of you Progressive "democratic majoritarians" think Initiative and Referendum has worked out well in California?
May 18, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was against it when it was going on, because I felt it was being pushed by the moneyed and not by the grass roots, but I think it turned out rather well. Grey Davis was a worse governor than Ahnold. Is that some measure of whether democracy is a good system or not? It's the worst possible system, except for all the others.
I understand it's possible to have another system of government. The one we have here is called a republic and it is based on a constitution, which is an agreement by the founders and anyone who takes an oath of office to abide by the principles of said constitution. The intent of the founders was clearly NOT to keep the public ignorant, to make the executive branch the lord of all branches, to encourage torture, to thwart attempts by the press and public to understand the
motives behind their government's choices.
If you don't want to live under that constitution, that's your right. I think you're just going to frustrate yourself if you continue living in the USA, however. There are plenty of places you can go where the stated ideal of the society is to foster megalomaniacal sociopathic rule for the benefit of the wealthiest. Good day, madam.
May 19, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you want to use an example of Recall to demonstrate the value of Initiative and Referendum. They're not equivalencies.
The voters elect public officials in the first instance; when they recall a public official they are acting again as electors.
I & R voters, on the other hand, are acting as legislators -- typically, legislators who have only the most surface understanding of what it is they're casting their votes for or against.
May 19, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not quite right. Though a strong supporter of the State of Israel after 1948, Strauss abandoned Zionism early in life after flirting with it in the 1920s. Strauss rejected Zionism because he came to believe that there was ultimately no solution to the problem of Jewish exile and that the political Zionist project essentially gutted the traditional meaning of Jewish identity. The historian Eugene Sheppard does a good job of exploring these issues in his book LEO STRAUSS AND THE POLITICS OF EXILE.
May 18, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. He was no Zionist.
May 19, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was, as I understand it, a deeply pessimistic man.
I look forward to your play.
May 19, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not really correct historically. Strauss had already conducted post-doctorate studies by the time he moved to England (and 2 years later to the U.S.) to avoid the Nazi regime. He even served in the German army in WWI.
He had moved from Germany to Paris to pursue his own career before the Nazis began rising in power. I'm sure the Nazi era had a profound effect on his world view, but it would be processed with the nuance of a trained thinker.
May 19, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hitlerian reference was to one of Strauss's mentors, Ellen. You know that perfectly well. And the reason for the mention is that bushco also used the same strategy in the Office of Legal Counsel, which was like a shop for rewriting the rules for the executive branch, to enable wrong-doing to occur, unconstitutional wrong-doing.
May 19, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I'm not going to get deep into this, so please forgive me my ignorance of all the above. However, unlike some of people in this exchange, I actually was a graduate in the University of Chicago department of political science between 1975 and 1980, i.e., after Leo Strauss died (1973). The major figures in international relations then were Morton A. Kaplan, Albert Wohlstetter, Tang Tsou, Jeremy Azrael and Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, none of whom were Straussians--at least as far I knew, and I knew them quite well. The "Straussians" at UofC in my time were his colleague Joe Cropsey, his student Herbert Storing and the student of his student (Allen Bloom) Nathan Tarcov, none of whom at the time had much to do with foreign policy. Cropsey and Tarcov taught political theory and my mentor, Herb Storing was one the greatest scholars of American founding. The notion that Dr Strauss, whose project was the reintroduction of classical political thought into political science, and who famously described Machiavelli (the true father of the neocons) as a teacher of evil, is somehow responsible for crackpot policy prescriptions nearly thirty years after his death, is to my simple mind rather far fetched.
May 18, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for an entirely reality/fact-based comment!
Strauss has played a role in the history of American conservatism. But that role is best illuminated by being as empirical and specific about what Strauss and his students taught and who they influenced. The University of Chicago had many prominent conservative thinkers associated with it, many of whom had nothing at all to do with political philosophy in the Straussian tradition (e.g Wohlstetter and Milton Friedman). Shouting STRAUSS! every time the University of Chicago or neoconservatives are mentioned isn't analyzing the situation. It's just scapegoating.
Some Strauss students and students of Strauss students have become directly involved in various presidential administrations (including, actually, Bill Clinton's). But they are not necessarily the folks whose names appear most prominently in this thread, nor were all of them involved in foreign policy (though Nathan Tarcov did spend some time working in the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department during Ronald Reagan's first term).
May 18, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a post on Strauss. This is a post on neocons' use of strauss, whether direct or indirect. It matters not to me what Strauss himself did or did not do. His disciples in politics appear to have used him as part of their argument as an appeal to "authority" or whatever.
The point here regards the central theses used by these political people - which constitute the building blocks of the bush regime. That is my point.
If you want to contest the post, then please contest the 13 "principles" of the neocons. For that is what concerns me. And should concern any person devoted to the Rule of Law in this nation.
May 19, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thera and all -- this is a very disappointing thread. I would hope that liberals could do better than ad hominem attacks and guilt by association.
I am no fan of Strauss or his students, but would suggest that if we are to take on his ideas, we do so starting with his ideas rather than with secondary sources and rumors of association.
Strauss is certainly a complex man and a conflicted thinker; like many philosophers, his ideas turned into ideology can lead to evil. But even a trip to Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss -- can provide a more balanced view of the man and his ideas and a refutation of some of the broad charges leveled here.
We will not succeed in raising the level of political discourse in this country by calling other people Nazis.
May 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the ad hominum attack? Sounds like you've got nothing else to muster in defense except a specious argument. Oh, well....
May 19, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ad hominem means attacking the person rather than his/her ideas. So how about:
"Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular. His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas."
or consider:
"let us proceed into the Dark Machiavellian World of straussian "principles". And I do not use the word "Machiavellian" lightly, for Machiavelli was required reading for straussian disciples."
A small sample but there is no discussion here of the "principles" or "truths" in question.
Machiavelli was also required reading in my college Humanities and Intellectual History courses -- required by a genial leftist and a part of the canon of political thought that should be familiar to anyone, or at least anyone who wants to cite Machiavelli as evidence of evil thoughts.
May 19, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the days at Chicago (not so long ago) one would hear about secret study groups for conservative undergrads at this or that old fart's place (usually a former disciple of Leo's who had been hired to keep the thing going). They would bring in other members of the sect from Cambridge (say, the inimitable Harvey Mansfield, whose job description - I kid you not - includes teaching Human Rights), and have dinners with impressionable students. Some of these students would then miraculously find gigs and summer scholarships to work at the Federalist Society or this or that think tank. I remember these students were very proud - how exciting, being part of a secret ruling elite. The funniest were the Christian female students, who really, really believed they were welcome among these old Jewish pederasts (this is not an insult, just read Saul Bellow).
Now, more seriously, another profound influence on the Neocons is Carl Schmitt. And Carl Schmitt was a much, much deeper thinker than Strauss. And much more direct and honest. He was also a Nazi. So he's the Neocon forefather that dares not speak his name, so to speak.
Besides, too much Socrates in Strauss - the blustery hedonism parading as philosophical gravity - too much affectation, too much anti-modern nostalgia.
Of the two, Carl Schmitt is the modern thinker, that is, the true Machiavellian.
May 19, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that extremely helpful comment! And seashell has given us a link for a British professor, Chantal Mouffe, who has recently edited a volume of Carl Schmitt's thinking as it pertains to modern politics:
http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Carl-Schmitt-Chantal-Mouffe/dp/1859842445
Since it's an edited volume it would be interesting to see the various viewpoints here.
May 19, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Schmitt I'd go straight to Agamben's Homo Sacer, and I'd read the original. It's pretty straightforward. I also liked Balakrishnan's book, The Enemy
http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Intellectual-Portrait-Carl-Schmitt/dp/1859847609
May 19, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I love how "students" of Strauss refuse to allow the interpretations of any readers of Strauss other than themselves. But the connection to Strauss and neoconservatism isn't Strauss's fault (entirely). The fault is with the secondary sources - his students, such as Bill Kristol and Steven Lenzner,
http://tinyurl.com/qvc2kd
who say that the Bush Administration's policy of "regime change" is in line with Strauss's use of the term "regime" -- even while mocking elsewhere the suggestion of a connection between Strauss and the neo-con agenda. That is a great example of how full of sh*t Straussian neo-cons are. But to claim there are no such things as Straussian neo-cons is just dishonest, and one is forced to question the agenda or at least the fair-mindedness of those who do so.
The fact is, Strauss's thought is talked about by neo-conservatives as if it were some kind of landmark in philosophical history, the kind of great thinking that gives intellectual weight to their anti-Humanist movement. To deny this is disingenuous at best, simple BS at worst.
But most importantly, TheraP at the outset states up front that he's more interested in probing the perception of Strauss as the father of neo-conservatism, not in Strauss himself. That is clearly something even Straussians, such as they are, disagree on.
Again, check out this link:
http://www.dcatheater.org/blog/category/strauss_at_midnight/
We'd love to see you at the panel discussion.
May 19, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, yosephus. Thanks for the link.
I think that the didactic certainty you point to was more poisonous than a secret ideology.
The story of the Zen master in your second comment hits the mark. Has anybody checked to see how many thumbs Wolfowitz twiddles with?
May 19, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please note, dear reader, that yosephus (above) has given us a marvelous reading list, which he provided to his cast. You can see it best in this link here:
http://www.dcatheater.org/blog/comment/an_anecdote_and_additional_reading/
May 19, 2009 10:59 AM |