Without really commenting on this article, I can't help but be amused by certain self-serving snippets:
Vice President Cheney's office played a major role in the secret debates and pressed for the toughest critique of Saddam's regime, administration officials say. The first draft of Powell's speech was written by Cheney's staff and the National Security Council. Days before the team first gathered at the CIA, a group of officials assembled in the White House Situation Room to hear Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, lay out an indictment of the Iraqi regime--"a Chinese menu" of charges, one participant recalls, that Powell might use in his U.N. speech. Not everyone in the administration was impressed, however. "It was over the top and ran the gamut from al Qaeda to human rights to weapons of mass destruction," says a senior official. "They were unsubstantiated assertions, in my view."Secretary Powell is a bureaucratic survivor (though not a bureaucratic assassin along the lines of Rumsfeld or a visionary along the lines of Wolfowitz), and he always manages to have an intensely loyal staff that will leak stuff like this to an all-willing media to keep the Saint Powell image alive and well. And every time something gets the least bit stinky, you can count on that staff to swing into action. Like clockwork.Powell, apparently, agreed. So one week before he was to address the U.N. Security Council, he created a team, which set up shop at the CIA, and directed it to provide him with an intelligence report based on more solid information. "Powell was acutely aware of the need to be completely accurate," says the senior official, "and that our national reputation was on the line."
You can only imagine how he's going to look in the next Woodward book.
But so far, it has served this administration well enough, I suppose, and the President has been willing to tolerate it.
Our friend Sean Hackbarth remains concerned that no WMDs have yet been found in Iraq:
It's not encouraging to hear a general in Iraq calling the threat of chemical attack by Saddam to have been "simply wrong." Tony Blair may tell me to have patience, but something, some evidence of chemical or biological materials should have been found by now.Steven is right that "there are intellectually honest reason[s] to say that the war was worthwhile sans WMDs (and I remain unconvinced that there are none whatsoever)." But the reason the administration used to convince the public that war was needed were the WMDs and Iraq's ties to terrorism. The latter has been shown to be true to me, but I'm still waiting on the former.
Meanwhile, another of our friends, Orrin Judd, is not concerned. Here is his response to a recent NYTimes article:
The lack of protesters effectively denies the notion that the lack of WMD matters. Even the Left tends to have some trouble turning out the crowds once the killing fields are exposed and the argument that war was justified but on different grounds is unlikely to move the masses. We're right back where we started. The diehards on one side don't care whether there was WMD or not (that's us); those on the other don't care how murderous Saddam was. Folks in the middle are happy to have won so easily but will have forgetten the war and Iraq by the 4th of July. On to North Korea.
I'm probably not quite as sanguine as Orrin on the matter, simply because the Left (and media types who will be bored over the summer and need a scandal) will attempt to beat the Administration over the head for "misleading" the American people on this issue. I don't know that the masses will buy it, but it could be a recurring meme through the summer.
But I'm less concerned than Sean over the matter simply because intelligence is an imprecise business. We know for many years that Iraq pursued a covert WMD program, in contravention of its obligations under the terms that ended the first Gulf War. That is not in dispute. And there are/were good reasons to suspect that program was ongoing right up until this war. And we know Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate in proving to the world that he had finally given up such programs. He had every opportunity, but instead continued his efforts to obfuscate. Why shouldn't American intelligence have suspected more of the same from him? And how can any effort to portray this as a deliberate administration attempt to mislead the American people (i.e. Vietnam?) ever gain much traction?
If solid evidence of an ongoing WMD program in Iraq is not found, it will not be an indictment of the Administration for me. Instead, it will illustrate the inherent weakness of intelligence, and the greater weakness of arms control based on good faith rather than hardcore verification. In other words, if our verification regime was so weak in Iraq, a conquered nation, that American intelligence had no clue what weapons Iraq possessed, won't the party of arms control and "sanctions" (the Dems) have more explaining to do regarding their views on national security? Won't it be harder for THEM to explain why military inaction and more arms control/sanctions regimes will lead to greater American security?
(Update) On a related note, here's a briefing from Steve Cambone and General Keith Dayton (who will be heading up the Iraq Survey Group that will further investigate WMDs in Iraq).
Orrin Judd calls attention to this bit of rhetoric from Mr. Joseph Lieberman:
"The administration of George W. Bush has pursued a Flintstones agenda in a Jetsons world," Lieberman said in remarks prepared for delivery at the University of California, San Diego, on Wednesday. "And in so doing, George Bush has let the sparks of innovation fall to the floor. As your president, I will make sure they spread to a much bigger, broader fire."I'm not even quite sure what that means. I am pretty sure, though, that if this is how Mr. Lieberman plans to connect with average Americans, the (allegedly inarticulate) President is going to be tough to beat.
We had a brief outage earlier. The renowned NAC Datacenter (where we are hosted) apparently had a minor fire emergency and power was cut for a short time while fire crews investigated. Everything seems to be back to normal now. Apologies for any inconvenience.
I don't generally use these pages to plug organizations, but Peter Schramm over at Ashbrook calls attention to the fact that Terrence Moore has announced openings for teachers at his Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, CO. The schools focus on a classic liberal education for K-12 students, and require in-depth knowledge of subjects from their teachers (rather than a generally useless teaching certificate).
Given the depressing state of education in the United States -- and the general composition of our readership -- it strikes me that this news is worth posting. Please pass it along to people who might be interested.
A man named Kamil Zogby keeps a fabulous conservative blog that I read daily. Many people see his name and wonder; yes, he is related to Democratic pollster John Zogby and Arab American Institute President, James Zogby.
One look at Kamil's opinions, and any reader will begin to speculate on what the political debates are like in the Zogby family. Not only are they on opposite sides, they are very actively so.
The other day, Kamil posted an article about the radicalization of the AAI from lobbying for peace in the Middle East to rapid anti-semitism:
"The man [Jim Zogby] who once charmed all comers as an Arab American Christian, who admitted no knowledge whatever of Islam but who insisted on his commitment to peaceful solutions between Israel and the Palestinians, suddenly came out of the closet as a ranting demagogue, denouncing all opponents as racist, extremist, Zionist agents."
Kamil decided to honor his cousin, who he respects as a family member, and keep his criticism to himself. He invites his readers to comment, so here's my opinion.
I think this transformation can be seen throughout the Left. Whereas ten years ago, any claim of undue Jewish influence over the President would have been seen as grossly anti-semitic (and wrong); in 2003, it is merely 'the voice of dissent' which should be listened to, lest we deny someone their First Amendment rights.
Jim Zogby's transformation from charming lobbyist to screeching anti-semite is not a result of his Arab roots. It's a result of his political affiliation: he reflects the disturbing, increasing tendency of the Left to throw over rational argument in favor of anti-semitism couched in "anti-Zionism". In a prime example, Zogby's organization deserts the interests of the Chechnyan Muslims, who are the targets of suppression by Putin, in order to join Russia in opposing the U.S. war in Iraq.
September 11th, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq has shown the true colors of many so-called liberals, who are just as close-minded about Jews as historical fascist governments. The rise of anti-semitic violence in France, a respected British Labour MP complaining about Jewish cabals, and anti-war protestors hoping for the end of Israel is not a promising sign for the future of the Left.
I've always believed that a strong opposition party keeps the party in power honest. I'd like to see a stronger showing from Democrats. Jim Zogby represents the hopelessness of the present road the party is taking.
Today's guest blogger is Courtney. Like Kevin, I am a conservative Texan who blogs about news, politics, and whatever else catches my eye over on my full-time blog, Courtney.
News postings on the front page will be limited from now through the Memorial Day weekend, as I'm taking off on my annual camping/canoeing trip. I suspect that blog postings may be pretty light as well, since a couple of the blog contributors are going with me. But we've added a few (mystery!) guest bloggers, so maybe they'll surprise everyone while I'm away. You're going to like them, I think.
In any case, I hope everyone has an excellent Memorial Day weekend. And you American readers -- take a moment (or several) to reflect on those who have given their lives so that we can all enjoy a BBQ or canoe trip or the celebration of your choice.
See ya on the other side.
A few months ago, I attended an interesting seminar at UH on "Islam And The West." It turned out that one of my old grad school friends -- an expert on the 'stans of the former Soviet Union -- was doing some of the briefing. And for the most part, it was highly informative. It was also clearly the polished product of a (well funded) bureaucracy. Very neatly packaged in a multimedia presentation that, no doubt, knocks the socks off the important people who see it.
But ultimately, CIA downplayed the threat of militant (political) Islam to central Eurasia because that area has always practiced a cultural form of Islam. Fine. Good analysis, so far as it goes, and useful to know.
The problem is that the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, though somewhat broken now as a result of bad judgment (i.e. siding with the Taliban), had risen as a political force in the Ferghana Valley region. Demographics suggest it or a similar movement could rise again, and the presence of American forces in the region could foment resentment over time. A potential problem, one would think. Except the company line at CIA downplays it as a potential problem, despite what individual analysts might think.
THAT is a problem. And I suspect it is widespread. It's the sort of thing David Brooks is talking about in this column that I read in the paper copy of the Atlantic a few months ago, and promptly forgot about.
And it is one of the reasons that Secretary Rumsfeld, despite the criticism of liberal columnists and others, has put one of his top lieutenants in charge of DoD's new office of intelligence, and has insisted on DoD becoming more involved in intelligence analysis.
CIA has great information (knowing 10% of what they know would make my own work much easier), tremendous resources, and excellent individual analysts. But the analysis it produces can sometimes be somewhat less than the sum of the parts. That is useful for makers of foreign policy to know.
Patrick Buchanan has an interesting interpretation of history (to say the least):
Reagan began a military buildup Moscow could not match and supported anti-Soviet rebels in Angola, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. But like Ike, Reagan never sent a U.S. army to fight a foreign war. Grenada was a walkover that swept a Soviet pawn off the board. His great mistake, putting Marines in Lebanon in the midst of a religious-ethnic civil war, proved costly. But Reagan had the courage to admit a mistake. He pulled out and never went back.As we've discussed previously, the perjorative manner in which Pat Buchanan and other liberal columnists (yes, I say other liberal columnists, because Pat increasingly resembles Maureen Dowd) use the term neoconservative is imprecise at best, and inaccurate for the most part. And there are few foreign-policy conservatives who are advocating the use of military force to overthrow all of the undemocratic regimes of the Middle East. Nice hyperbole, Pat. Hardly unusual, these days. Pat huffs and Pat puffs and Pat... writes columns like this.But for not invading Lebanon and smashing the Islamic militias who blew up the Marine barracks, Reagan is today condemned by the same neoconservatives who see Colin Powell as the principal impediment to their Pax Americana. They believe the way to win the War on Terror is to widen it into “World World IV” and overthrow all the undemocratic regimes of the Middle East.
But yes, some of us who call ourselves conservatives DO criticize Ronald Reagan for his reaction to the Lebanon bombing. It emboldened Islamists worldwide. If Reagan had it to do over, I suspect he would choose otherwise. At least Pat realizes he's so far on the fringe these days that he needs at least to try to dress up his ideas as those of his old boss, Ronald Reagan. But Pat is no longer a Reaganite. And Reagan WAS wrong from time to time.
Here's more from that same article:
The presence of Powell, a realist in the War Cabinet, is today the best guarantee the president will not launch the kind of utopian crusade that brought down all the other Great Powers. For while the neocons were doing graduate work at Harvard and Yale, Powell was doing his in Vietnam. That is the difference....Really, strip away the language about conservatism, and is this much different than Dowdy Maureen's typical fawning over Colin Powell in the NY Times? And isn't it terribly disrespectful of the President? Essentially, you get the idea from Pat that the neocons would run roughshod over the idiotic bumbling President if not for the presence of the savior, Colin Powell, conservatism's true ally (well, there is that problem of his views on social issues like affirmative action, but Pat's not ranting about that right now). Now, one might expect Pat to be a little bitter, since President (then Candidate) Bush effectively banished him from the GOP, and he was forced to hang out with the Perot idiots to get any political press at all. He's just over the top most of the time these days.
Looking ahead, there is no threat on the horizon to justify World War IV. Not China, which is contained by her neighbors. Not Islamic fundamentalism, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Afghanistan to Iran to Sudan. As in the Cold War, with patience and prudence, America can outlast them all. And in the struggle to prevent the rise of an empire that will surely collapse in blood, Colin Powell is true conservatism’s ally.
For me, the war against Iraq was a no-brainer: a madman who had demonstrated his willingness to attack his regional neighbors and to use weapons of mass destruction could not be permitted to acquire -- and possibly share with terrorists -- more destructive weapons of mass destruction. Period.
It's a wonderful thing that we liberated an oppressed people from the hardships of Saddam's tyranny. But we have already begun to see critics questioning how the U.S. is handling every aspect of the postwar regime, and it will get worse. All of you surely read the Brothers Judd blog already, but this comment from Orrin is well worth keeping in mind on Iraq, especially as nitwit journalists continue to assess America's work in postwar Iraq:
The Iraqi people have been handed--quite literally--an opportunity to build a decent society, run by themselves. But there is, and can be, no guarantee that they'll seize the opportunity and use it wisely. Given how few decent societies exist now or ever have it seems highly unlikely that they will build one. But they do have a chance and that's a whole heckuva lot more than they had three months ago.That's no small gift from one people to another. THAT is worth keeping in mind.
A BBC columnist has come up with quite a conspiracy theory on the Jessica Lynch rescue -- it was all conceived so that the U.S. military would have cool rescue footage for propaganda purposes!
Those of you who have been following this blog lately know what the next step should be -- Shadia Drury can denounce Leo Strauss as providing the impetus behind this vile deception! *heavy sarcasm*
You would think the Dems might learn one of these days. And maybe even Drudge, who runs this headline: Senate OKs Temporary Dividend Tax Cut; And Cheney Breaks The Tie...
Making these cuts "temporary" was merely a way to get wavering moderates on board with the legislation, and shouldn't be read as anything more than that. Indeed, one might even suspect that the White House might be secretly pleased if the cuts remained temporary in the final legislation, since they could revisit the issue and beat the Democrats over the head with it again and again.
This is the White House that admitted to the Washington Post, after all, that it planned on annual tax cuts for both political and economic reasons. "Temporary" tax cuts are perfect in that respect! They allow the GOP to agitate for reducing the tax burden, and they force Democrats to argue FOR tax increases. Sometimes, smart politics and smart economics converge.
William Pfaff is the latest nitwit journalist to take up the thought of Leo Strauss -- and to get it terribly wrong. This column is even worse than that Jeet Heer piece we deconstructed a couple of days ago, so bad that I'm not going to do the same thing.
However, Pfaff goes even further than Heer in smearing the GOP as a collection of idiots, a collective particularly susceptible to -- everyone together boys and girls -- the radical neoconservatives (conveniently influenced by... that's right, Strauss!). Excerpt:
The trouble with American conservatism during most of the 20th century was that it was not particularly intelligent. The Republican Party was and is a business party, anti-intellectual and to a considerable degree xenophobic.The ties of Perle, Abrams, Kagan, and Kristol to Strauss are tenuous, at best. Wolfowitz did NOT do a dissertation under Strauss, who taught political theory, but under Albert Wohlstetter, on nuclear proliferation. And in any case, a sinister, far-reaching conspiracy to control something as BIG as American foreign policy should include more than two people who have had any significant training under Strauss or Straussians (Wolfowitz and Shulsky) and who are not even cabinet secretaries, shouldn't it?.
The radical neoconservatives, who appeared in the 1960s, are the first seriously intelligent movement on the American right since the 19th century. They want to remake the international order under effective U.S. hegemony, destroy America's enemies and cripple or eliminate the United Nations and other institutions making a claim to international jurisdiction.
.
They have a political philosophy, and the arrogance and intolerance of their actions reflect their conviction that they possess a realism and truth others lack.
.
They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council, and the writers Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
.
The main intellectual influence on the neoconservatives has been the philosopher Leo Strauss, who left Germany in 1938 and taught for many years at the University of Chicago. Several of the neoconservatives studied under him. Wolfowitz and Shulsky took doctorates under him.
More evidence that nitwit journalists should stick to matters they are equipped intellectually and methodologically to handle. Pfaff can't even get his FACTS write (that's simple journalism), and wants us to take his thoughts on political theory seriously? Please.
Daniel W. Drezner has some pertinent thoughts on Strauss and neocon "conspiracies" here. Quite a few people should stop watching their DVDs of X-Files episodes, take a deep breath, and read it.
Neil Cavuto takes aim at laughable NY Times columnist Paul Krugman:
Look, I'd much rather put my cards on the table and let people know where I stand in a clear editorial, than insidiously imply it in what's supposed to be a straight news story. And by the way, you sanctimonious twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan.The full column is here.Let me see if I have this right, Mr. Krugman. Journalists who opposed this war are OK. Those who support it are not. Says who? You?
I'm less of a journalist because I was in favor of this war, but you're more of a journalist because you were not? You imply that by being in favor of this war, I'm pandering, and by extension, my company is pandering to the White House.
Nowhere does it ever occur to you, one can legitimately not agree with you. That doesn't make me less of a journalist. But, Mr. Krugman, it does make you more of an ass. Here's the difference: You insinuated it, I just said it.
While most financial shows put me to sleep (don't even get me started on that idiotic Rukeyser, who knocks Kudlow and Cramer off the air a half hour early every Friday), Cavuto's rocks. And so does Cavuto.
Sometimes, Jay Nordlinger really comes up with zingers. Like this one:
In USA Today, Sen. Byrd said, "I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan."I love it.Hmmm. I have a memory of 1984. Fritz Mondale has shot an ad of himself on an aircraft carrier. I believe that, as a senator, he opposed the building of that carrier. So Reagan — in the second debate (which went much better for him) — says (something like), "If Mr. Mondale had had his way, he'd have been standing in some pretty deep water."
Nice.
Our friends at the Brothers Judd blog call attention to the latest effort by a journalist to expose the "secrets" of Leo Strauss. It's one of the worst recent efforts, which is saying something considering just how bad some of those efforts have been.
Let me just take a few paragraphs to illustrate. The piece begins:
ODD AS THIS MAY SOUND, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington.
How interesting, because in all of his years teaching political theory and writing numerous essays on various philosophers through time, Strauss largely avoided writing on contemporary politics. His major contribution to the discipline of political science, of course, is that he took texts and ideas seriously, and believed in carefully analyzing the texts of the masters for both their exoteric and esoteric meanings. He did draw serious students, largely because some students were smart enough to reject the dominant methods of philosophical interpretation (various "isms" such as deconstructionism, historicism, etc.). It is hardly surprising that some of these serious students of politics and philosophy wound up in government -- especially since many of them were trained in a method (myself included) that is not regarded as "political science" by the discipline.
Certainly, Strauss was no ordinary Republican idea-maker: Steeped in ancient philosophy, he had dark forebodings about democracy, religion, technology, and nearly everything else that can claim the allegiance of the contemporary conservative (or liberal, for that matter).
This is just nonsense -- and not supported, one should note, with any quotes or references.
A typical Strauss volume is a densely packed commentary on a classic text like Plato's ''The Laws'' or Machiavelli's ''The Prince,'' festooned with footnotes drawing on an array of hard-won languages from ancient Greek and Latin to medieval Arabic. It's often difficult to discern where Strauss's paraphrases of dead writers leave off and his own views begin-and this has only deepened the mystery that attaches to his work.
Strauss's work is not easy to understand. For one thing, Strauss became intimately familiar with the thinkers he studied, in their native languages. Strauss believed the great philosophers spoke to each other across time, almost in their own language. His books read almost like a conversation. If one is not intimately familiar with the people he is citing, then yes -- it's going to be a more difficult read. Shadia Drury and others have put forth the view that Strauss's own writings contain the same esoteric messages that he claimed to find in the ancients, and ascribe diabolical intent to Strauss. I'm far less convinced of the diabolical intent.
Despite his life of quiet scholarly obscurity, Strauss has exerted a strong posthumous sway among those who bustle through the corridors of power. Washington Straussians have included Robert A. Goldwin, who had the bizarre and unenviable task of organizing weekly seminars in political theory and practice attended by President Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s; Carnes Lord, National Security Council advisor in the Reagan administration; and William Galston, deputy domestic policy adviser in the first two years of the Clinton administration. Irving Kristol, an intellectual whose name is virtually synonymous with neoconservatism, has named Strauss as a major influence, and Straussian writers and ideas regularly grace the pages of magazines like National Review, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard, which is edited by Irving's son William Kristol. The Bush administration's Straussians include the Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, who studied with Strauss at the University of Chicago, and the bioethics adviser Leon Kass, a colleague at Chicago.
This is a strong posthumous sway? To put this slightly differently -- how many economists of Keynesian persuasion have held high positions of power in D.C. over the same time period? More than this handful of Straussians (and calling the Kristols Straussians simply because they cite him as an influence is a stretch).
Strauss also claims a large, if rather clubbish, following in the academy, especially among scholars of political theory and American constitutional history.
Imagine that -- Strauss taught political theory at the graduate level! Some of his students (most prominently Harry Jaffa) went on to specialize in American political theory. Shocker!
And yet even those academics who know Strauss's work best often sharply disagree about its fundamental meaning. There are East Coast Straussians, West Coast Straussians, and even some Straussian Democrats. Clifford Orwin, a professor at the University of Toronto strongly influenced by Strauss, describes him as a wise teacher who counseled prudence and moderation. But Shadia Drury, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and the author of ''Leo Strauss and the American Right,'' completely disagrees. For her, Strauss was nothing less than ''a Jewish Nazi'' whose pretense of American patriotism and piety hid a cynical and extremist antidemocratic ideology.
Shadia Drury has written such mistake-ridden pieces on Strauss that it should not really be considered "scholarship." She's probably one of the first Straussian "conspiracy theorists." To his credit, this journalist does get her view of Strauss correct. Unfortunately, he is not intellectually equipped to understand how silly her view is.
Was Leo Strauss a friend of liberal democracy, or an elitist who wanted society to be ruled by a secretive cabal? An ardent opponent of tyranny, or an apologist for the abuse of power? An atheist or a pious Jew?
These questions indicate a complete lack of understanding of the Straussian enterprise. Strauss taught the intimate study of a thinker, so that a scholar might come to know that thinker better than the thinker knew himself. Bringing preconceived notions to a thinker or a text only drove a person towards verifying those notions, instead of understanding the thinker on his own terms. It might be useful to attempt to understand Strauss in the same way, instead of imposing these questions.
To understand Strauss, we need to look beyond the famous students and self-styled acolytes and examine the man himself.
Strauss himself would point readers to his WRITINGS, and not his background. Strauss himself eschewed the academy's method of attempting to understand philosophers by examining "the man himself" instead of the man's writing! Surely a journalist writing on Strauss should know this. So why study Strauss in a manner Strauss himself rejected?
As the political theorist Stephen Holmes observes, Strauss believed that classical thinkers had grasped a still-vital truth: Inequality is an ineradicable aspect of the human condition.
Inequality IS an ineradicable aspect of the human condition. However, what that says about equality of natural and political right is an entirely different matter. The author here either does not grasp the distinction, or wants to imply something sinister.
For Strauss, the modern liberal project of using the fruits of science and the institutions of the state to spread happiness to all is intrinsically futile, self-defeating, and likely to end in terror and tyranny. The best regime is one in which the leaders govern moderately and prudently, curbing the passions of the mob while allowing a small philosophical elite to pursue the contemplative life of the mind.
This is an interpretation made by the journalist, and not necessarily a good one.
While his teachings and books bewildered mainstream American social scientists and drew many hostile comments, students flocked to this odd and beguiling refugee scholar.
That says much about contemporary social science.
Many would go on to become important academics in their own right, including the philosopher Stanley Rosen (a leading light at Boston University), the historian Harry Jaffa (who later wrote speeches for Barry Goldwater), and Allan Bloom, whose 1987 bestseller ''The Closing of the American Mind'' would-paradoxically-bring Strauss's thought to a mass audience.
Harry Jaffa is not an historian, but a political theorist. He taught in the government department of Claremont McKenna and the Claremont Graduate School (and is now retired). Allan Bloom's little tome should be regarded as influenced by Strauss, but it should be regarded as Bloom's teaching, not Strauss's.
Mindful of the collapse of Weimar Germany's fragile democracy, Strauss was distrustful of American liberals; he believed they were too weak-minded and trusting to fight communism. In fact, Strauss believed that the United States shared certain ills with Soviet communism: Both societies put the material well-being of the masses ahead of the cultivation of virtues among an elite. But Strauss also saw America's constitutional government as the last, best hope for excellence in a modern world besotted with egalitarianism.
Citations? This is the journalist's interpretation of Strauss, presented as settled.
Once in Washington, Straussian conservatives could carry on their war against modern liberalism's moral relativism at home and naive pursuit of detente with the Soviet Union abroad.
The journalist gets surprisingly close to what's important about Strauss -- his rejection of the relativism of the modern academy -- but then completely blows it by trying to tie Strauss to a directly political project.
With his teachings about philosophers who write in code and secret doctrines for the elect, Leo Strauss can seem like a conspiracy buff. In fact, some of Strauss's followers like Allan Bloom and Willmoore Kendall do use the word ''conspiracy'' to describe the history of Western thought. Not surprisingly, conspiracies have flourished around Strauss himself. The followers of Lyndon H.
LaRouche, the fringe presidential candidate who believes that the world is being governed by Jewish bankers inspired by a Babylonian cult and that the Queen of England is a drug dealer, argue that Strauss is the evil genius behind the Republican Party. More sensible folk, like the New York Times writer Brent Staples, who earned a doctorate in psychology at Chicago in the 1980s, have also decried the ''sinister vogue'' of Strauss.
Note the effort to try to tie people like Allan Bloom and the late, great Willmoore Kendall to obvious nuts. As for conspiracy buffs, Strauss is far less of one than nitwit journalists who see a Straussian conspiracy behind George Bush's Presidency.
So where did Strauss really stand? ''He was an atheist,'' says Stanley Rosen flatly. ''They [Straussians] all are. They are epicureans and atheists.'' (The epicurean comment is perhaps a reference to the late Allan Bloom, who was legendary for his enjoyment of the high life. After his death, Bloom's esoteric life as a closeted gay man turned out to be very different from his outward posture as a proponent of traditional values.)
False (not to mention silly). See Harry Jaffa and Tom West as examples of Straussians who are not the type suggested by Stanley Rosen "flatly."
While some Straussians dispute the idea that the master was a godless cynic, it does seem that Strauss wanted a regime where the elite lived by a code of stoic fortitude while governing over a population that subscribes to superstitious religious beliefs. ''He agreed with Marx that religion was the opium of the masses,'' says Shadia Drury. ''But he believed that the masses need their opium.'' Sociologically, Strauss's approach would seem to work well for the Republican Party, which has a grass-roots base of born-again Christians and a much more secular elite leadership-at least in its foreign-policy wing.
We've already dismissed Shadia Drury's sloppy work on Strauss. Relying on her as one's authority is problematic. Note, however, the virtual blood-libel*** of suggesting "Strauss's approach" (as mis-interpreted by Ms. Drury) as being in sync with the Republican Party.
Some traditional and religious conservatives have become deeply wary of Straussians. ''They certainly believe that religion may be a useful thing to take in the suckers with,'' notes Thomas Fleming, editor of the right-wing journal Chronicles. ''Exoteric Straussians are taught to repeat mantras about democracy, liberty, and republican government which the inner-circle Straussians don't appear to hold to. One of Allan Bloom's students told me that Professor Bloom had taught them that Plato was just an American-style democrat. This is just absurd. Plato taught the rule of a tiny elite, which is what the Straussians actually believe.''
This is just silly -- and perhaps a good reason to question anything Mr. Fleming or his journal publishes. Does anyone with any sense really believe there's a little society of Straussians in the academy, with a rulebook about exoteric teachings? Come on. That's just silly. And all of this is based on a student who told the journalist that he heard Bloom say something about Plato once? Come on. Get serious.
But just how ''sinister'' was Leo Strauss himself? The answer depends on how a reader approaches his books. If you read Strauss with a well-disposed spirit, he can be interpreted as a genuine friend of American liberal democracy. He worked to create an elite that was strong, sober, and sufficiently free of illusions about the goodness of man to fight the totalitarian enemies of liberal democracy-be they fascists, communists, or Islamicist fundamentalists.
The answer shouldn't depend on how a reader approaches his books, since the reader didn't write the books. Why not read Strauss in an attempt to understand Strauss as Strauss understood himself, instead of in any kind of "spirit?" In any case, if one looks at the work done by prominent students of Strauss now located at the Claremont Institute and Ashbrook, one would have to think he at least produced some students with great affinity for the principles of the American regime. That, of course, would be insufficient data to judge Strauss -- but it is useful data nonetheless.
But if you read Strauss with a skeptical mind, the way he himself read the great philosophers, a more disturbing picture takes shape. Strauss, by this view, emerges as a disguised Machiavelli, a cynical teacher who encouraged his followers to believe that their intellectual superiority entitles them to rule over the bulk of humanity by means of duplicity. The worst thing you can do to Leo Strauss, perhaps, is to read his books with Straussian eyes.
Actually, reading Strauss using Straussian textual analysis techniques is exactly what I suggest in the previous paragraph, and something the journalist rejects. All he does here is repeat Shadia Drury's interpretation of Strauss, without attribution. Her interpretation of Strauss, to be charitable, is flawed.
(05-14-03) A person who has asked me not to reproduce his email has written me to complain that I have used the term "virtual blood-libel" to accuse the author of anti-Semitism. Let me make perfectly clear that I am making NO SUCH ACCUSATION, and I don't think the context of this commentary supports any such interpretation. Perhaps if I had used the term "literal blood-libel" there might be some genuine confusion. But to err completely on the side of caution, I used the term "virtual blood-libel" to mean, precisely, an outrageous assertion. The acknowledged king of bloggers himself uses the term in the same manner here (although he omits "virtual"), so I think my meaning should be plain enough to blog readers. If not, this addendum should make it perfectly clear.
To rephrase: I think it is an outrageous assertion to suggest that Strauss's teachings (as interpreted by Ms. Drury -- problematic enough, that) are particularly suited to the GOP, with its grassroots superstitious evangelicals. Indeed, I think that's a terribly condescending, uninformed view of the GOP. But my objection has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. At all.
(05-15-03) A blogger new to me, Josh Cherniss, engages in textual analysis of the same article, with much the same result. Other good, fair stuff on Strauss there.
Ken Masugi has some interesting thoughts on Presidential advisor Karl Rove. Masugi is commenting on a New Yorker profile of Rove, in which the advisor's antipathy to Progressivism is traced, but summarily dismissed. Masugi thinks the New Yorker may have inadvertently been on to something.
A couple of days ago, General Kurtz was lamenting that debate on the internet was being shut down.
Today, the internet is apparently a less oppressive place, as the General shares the following thoughts on John Derbyshire's column on metropolitan conservatives:
I think Derb’s column today on “metropolitan conservatives” is great. My sensibility differs from Derb’s in some important ways, but broadly speaking, I’m a metropolitan conservative of the type he describes.There's a shocker.
Maybe he just needs to hang out more with Rich Lowry and listen to (bad) country music?
Seriously, it strikes me that for the most part, conservatism and metropolitanism are, to some extent, incompatible. A metropolis of the New York City variant is, invariably, far from nature (not in the environmental sense, but in a broader, conceptual sense) and so built on convention that it becomes an almost utopian enterprise. And when is the last time you heard of conservative utopianism?
(05-09-03 Update) Glenn Ellmers has a thoughtful reaction to Derbyshire on the Claremont blog.
Orrin Judd occasionally raises the question of a conservative environmentalism, wondering what shape such a creature might take. It's a good question, and one that not many conservatives care to get into. Still, we have a few bright stars in the area, and one of those is Steve Hayward, a political theorist by training who posts regularly to the Ashbrook blog (on all political matters) and is AEI's resident expert on the environment. A few recent posts may be of particular interest.
We make occasional reference to Leo Strauss here, and happen to think every student of political philosophy should be familiar with him. Unfortunately, nitwit journalists continue to get hold of Strauss, and are rendering "Straussianism" nearly as incoherent as they've rendered "neoconservatism" (more recently, there seems to be an effort to conflate the two). To wit, this awful article about Strauss in the NY Times, and the references to Strauss in Seymour Hersch's latest.
Ken Masugi provides some needed corrective to the NY Times article here, and Nicholas Antongiavanni goes into much more detail here. Much of the discussion that ensues in the comments section is typically academic, and some familiarity with Strauss is helpful in order to follow.
Most of the articles on Strauss are terrible because the authors seem determined to construct Strauss as the vanguard of an anti-democratic cabal (some East Coast Straussians may not entirely disagree with that notion, actually, but that's a long, boring story). And most of the rejoinders from people who actually know something about Strauss (i.e. serious students of political philosophy) underemphasize the importance of Strauss's textual analysis techniques (beyond the usual references to his esotericism). That's unfortunate, as his method was much more rigorous and systematic than his nitwit journalist critics seem to understand or many of his actual students seem able to convey.
My goodness, General Kurtz is certainly in a whiny mood today:
I’ve learned through hard experience [hard?] that when an otherwise intelligent e-mail contains a direct insult, it only brings trouble to reply. I try to hold to the same rule for blog critics, many of whom seem to spend more time crafting insults than arguments. In a given paragraph, the typical blog critique [links?] of my last article interspersed outright misrepresentation of my position with proclamations of amazement at my boundless stupidity.Isn't it a little audacious to claim that you're not going to dignify your blog critics with a reply (your choice, General!), and then to claim debate is shut down (implying the choice was made by someone else)?The biting wit that works so well in the hands of a smart and basically fair-minded fellow like Instapundit [obligatory suck up?] is devolving into something shallow and mean-spirited in the blogoshere as a whole [not unlike when social anthropologists muse about force structure, and call victory in Iraq lucky?]. Venom is no substitute, either for argument or for a good accounting of an opponent’s argument. It has come to serve as a way for bloggers to assure themselves that people who are not, say, libertarians, have no points worth listening to. [Not all bloggers are libertarians] And at some level, I think bloggers know that their insults actually protect them, by making their targets less likely to respond. [Bloggers respond to each other all the time. Isn't your complaint that you don't especially like the way bloggers are responding to YOU?] After all, who wants to dignify this stuff with a reply. Insults are cowardice disguised as courage. [Sometimes, a good nickname like General Kurtz is both amusing and accurate, if a bit acerbic. You can use C words, I can use A words. Woo hoo]
When the blogosphere gets this way (and it does pretty often), it shuts down debate.
Cry me a river.
Many conservatives have reflexively jumped to the defense of Bill Bennett after revelations of his gambling have come out in the press. I'm not one of them, and my beef is largely along the lines that people who make the rounds as a moral authority should probably not be surprised when journalists (and political enemies) go poking around to see what THEY do in their private time. I don't even particularly think gambling is a huge moral issue (rather, I think it's something done by people who are really bad at math). However, stories of hundreds of thousands of dollars being frittered away do raise some interesting questions that I think Bennett should answer.
As usual, Steven Hayward's thoughts are persuasive:
Bennett knows his Aristotle: virtue isn’t limited merely to public virtue (the Clinton problem), but is primarily about one’s private character. The pinnacle of virtue for Aristotle was moderation. Bennett’s gambling appears highly immoderate, even for a wealthy man. (I find it hard to believe that he is wealthy enough to blow $8 million--IF that figure is accurate--without it being meaningful. But even so--it represents a squandering of wealth that could go to better purposes. It’d be different if he lost that kind of money in church bingo.)Agreed.Recall that Bennett was very exacting that Hillsdale College come clean about every fact of the Roche affair. I think we conservatives who want to defend Bennett deserve the same from him just now.
Knowing a bit about Vegas (my wife grew up there, and had an aunt who owned a mid-sized casino on Fremont Street--the old Vegas before the strip), there are some aspects of his story I find troubling and difficult to believe. He says he avoids table games because people want to talk politics with him. Bennett, not wanting to talk politics? Well, okay, maybe so, but casinos cater to high rollers, and would surely have been willing to arrange private tables or regulate the company he had to keep if he asked for it. They do this all the time, and have VIP rooms for just such people. It doesn’t ring right to me. Gambling on slot machines late at night is not commensurate to Churchill working the tables at Monte Carlo in his tuxedo after dinner. (And even allowing for inflation, Churchill didn’t gamble the kind of sums Bennett does.) I think it possible--even likely--that Bennett may have a problem, and I think he should come clean if he wants us to defend him vigorously.
(Update) James Glassman, on the other hand, disagrees.
(Update 2) Hunter Baker offers a harsh appraisal (I'm purposely avoiding the more venomous liberal screeds -- like Kinsley's -- because those were expected)
Okay, we fell down around here a little bit over the weekend, without any warning. Other projects and being a bit under the weather combined to keep me from posting much here, and May is always a slow blogging month for me anyway, but I usually try to offer some warning.
It's likely to continue to be a little slow through May, but things should pick up at least a little this week. Thanks for your patience, all!
People who hate President Bush will decry the backdrop for his important speech last night as mere Presidential campaign positioning (so used are they to the previous commander in chief). That's their right, of course, though I can't help but think their hatred gets the best of their political judgment.
But here are a couple of different assessments of the backdrop. First, a comment from Orrin Judd's blog (I tried to make the same point previously in his comments, but this is much more eloquent):
Put yourself in the place of the USS Abraham Lincoln crew (or any other serviceman). You been away from home for ten months. You launched and recovered aircraft in war conditions in sweltering heat. All you want to do is get home.Second, a comment sent to NRO's blog:Then you hear the President is going to welcome you home on behalf of the nation. Personally. At your workplace, not his. And no, he's not going to land as cargo, ...er as a passenger on a plush helicopter. Instead, he's in the right seat on a jet coming in for a tailhook landing -just like everyday military operations.
When he strapped in, the President sent a very clear message. Carrier landings are risky even at the best of times. Bush was asking them to show him what they do for a living, what they do in defence of the nation. He respects and trusts them enough to place his life in their hands.
And every crew member knew it. They risked their lives on behalf of the President, and now the President would return the honour. Thats a clear statement that a blah blah White House press release will never duplicate.
It was a great display of leadership, and well worth the risk. And yes, it was way cool. And yes, I am jealous.
-Biased Observer
All these people accusing Bush of grandstanding are know-nothing schlubs. Most of what they know about the military they got from watching J.A.G. on TV. I was in the Navy and had occasion to land on the U.S.S. Kennedy once. It was one of the most frightening things I ever did. The pilot literally crashes the plane intentionally on the deck and at the point of impact jams the throttle to full power. A hook grabs a steel cable stretched across the deck and slams the plane down hard stopping it in about 60 feet from a speed of over 120mph. There is this tremendous impact and a huge metallic KA-BLAM!! as the plane comes down. At the same instant your spine is decompressing from hitting the deck the deceleration clobbers you too. The four point restraints cut into your shoulders so hard you wince in pain. As your forehead comes to rest on your chest if feels like your head is going to pop off your shoulders. You then slam back into the seat and immediately look out the window hoping your don't see fire and the flight deck crew running away.The President's action sent so many different (but good) messages that I think it was worth the danger involved.You then say to yourself or out loud, "HOLY-_____!!" and then, depending upon your upbringing, add a religious reference or a profanity to it.
I recall being very happy to get back to my "safe" job; jumping out of helicopters into storm tossed seas at night as a rescue swimmer.
The Secret Service must have gone bananas over this idea and the poor flight crew that flew with the POTUS must have been a nervous wreck knowing that the life of the President was in their hands while they crashed/landed on the carrier. You see, most of the aircraft and crews we lose in the Navy are during carrier take-offs and landings. Here is what the President probably did not know. The very best pilots in flight training get to fly combat jets. The guys who do not finish at the top have to take the remaining flight assignments in the order of their academic standing in flight school. In all likelyhood, the plane he flew in was piloted by a flight crew that did not graduate flight training at the top of their class. Not in the middle of their class either.
Everybody on that carrier gets what the President did. Everybody who ever experienced a carrier landing knows what he did.....What he did was this; He exposed himself to a very dangerous experience to show the troops that he was willing to take risks that they take everyday for low pay. Everybody on that ship got that message. It was meant for them, not us. It was by my measure a damned brave thing to do.
Apparently, we're not the only ones who like FoxNews. This blurb is from the WSJ's excellent Best of the Web feature.
We Report, You Decide
"Still desperate for war news, they tune to CNN, BBC, and what appears to be a local favorite, Fox. They like it, people here say, because it has been the most supportive of the war."--Christian Science Monitor, reporting from Kirkuk, April 29
"Iraqis will eventually want their parties and leaders legitimized by the Arab world and media. They won't want to be seen as U.S. stooges. They don't watch Fox News here."--Thomas Friedman, New York Times, April 30
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003