The Starvation of America (675 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.71 on 25 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by YourDadGuido (View user info) at 2005-01-22 13:20:39 EST
If you're republican and you have never heard of Leon Strauss, than you're a perfect candidate for this post and the meaning behind it.
"In Strauss's mature work, he would argue that Plato and Aristotle were wiser than modern thinkers like Machiavelli and Heidegger. This exultation of ancient thought wasn't merely a nostalgic celebration of the good old Greek days. 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.
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.
Such a philosophical elite may discover truths that are not fit for public consumption. For example, it may find that its city's prosperity derives ultimately from "force and fraud," or that the gods do not exist. Aware that Socrates was executed for blasphemy, ancient thinkers realized that philosophy was dangerous: It had to be kept for the intelligent few rather than the ignorant many. Therefore ancient philosophers (and their medieval followers) wrote in code. Using metaphors and cryptic language, they communicated one message, an "esoteric" one, for an elite of wise readers and another, "exoteric" one, for the unsophisticated general population. For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity." - Jeet Heer, The Philosopher, Boston Globe.
Strauss erected a school of thought that attempted to re-construct the notion of Platoic form in society and government. The foundational idea rested upon a the division propogated by Plato in the Republic - society spilt into three groups: The Philosopher Kings, The 'Military', the Artisans. However, in Straussian Poliitcal Theory the world would take a slightly different form - The Philosophers, The Politicans, and The Mass. The distinction between the two lies in who rules: in the Platoic Ideal World, the Philosopher Kings would be the leaders, but in the Straussian World it's the Politicans. In Strauss's thought, if these divisions were kept in perfect harmony, than the world will function properly without dramatic conflict or heightened unrest. Therefore, the philosophers are to never rule nor communicate with the mass, and the politicans were just there to guide the cattle, ignorant themselves.
The roles of each group works toward the overall function of society. The Philosopher's purpose is to look for truth in the world and to monitor what part of that truth the public could handle. Even though the philosopher's task was to find truth, it's purpose was to never communicate to the public - to leave them in the ignorance of simple morality. The politicans purpose is to play to the ignorant public and to reinforce simple morality to the them. Therefore, the 'lubrication' of teh system was this notion of simple morality, where the Politicans and the Mass use it, the philosophers knows it to be untrue, but shouldn't say anything about it.
I could discuss the implications Strauss say with the current trend of society, but I would like to keep this post relatively short. Just to make note, Strauss thought the current development of democratic society was doomed to fall into tyranny and nihilistic tendacies (no morality), so, he felt it was absolutely essential to 'save the world'.
"The most well known Straussian is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War. But others, such as Abram Shulsky, the Director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, are also mentioned as conduits of Strauss's influence. Outside of government, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and Project for the New American Century executive director Gary Schmitt are among the public intellectuals tied to Strauss or his students." Michael Desch, What Would Strauss Do?, The American Conservative.
Neo-conservatism, is what Straussian Political Theory is dubbed. We've heard this word thrown about, but we rarely investigate the philosophy behind it - what it actually means. In most cases, Neo-conservatism is referenced toward Foreign Policy, however, it works on both levels, both foreign policy and domestic. The rest of this post will rely on the domestic aspect in reference to the Bush Administration's Rhetoric.
To be simple, the Republican party has adapted this notion of simple morality. In its strategy, the campaign rheotric used by Bush, is constructed in a manner of good and evil, black and white, right and wrong. Through this use of simple moral rhetoric, the public gains access towards a sense of good, right, and just - thus, they are instilled with simple morality propogated by the Republican. This simple morality is in instilled in the mass - the United States having a sense of being the "beacon of freedom" in the world and the crusader against "outposts of tyranny". The Bush administration, utilizing these rhetorical device and simple morality, has gained a dominate foothold in the psyche and self-perception of the US voter and the general public.
America is starved. Since we've adopted this "Us vs Them" mindset, since we view ourselves to be the righteous, we are starting to starve discourse of relativism and we are starting to push a notion of assimilation back by physical force. The War on Terrorism isn't a War on a group of individuals with a violent agenda, it's a War on Culture and a War on the invisible Demon of the Public Knowing The Truth, that Strauss feared so much. Therefore, we the people, have allowed an administration to cut off rational thought, to plant in simple morality into us, and used this form of "brainwashing" to administer a righteous policy aimed towards United States Hegemony and enact elitist aimed policies that only benefit a rich, white majority.
The United States is starved for the intellectual thought. And the Republicans are the only ones who benefit.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-02-07 00:58:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is indeed a right and wrong. If there wasnt, then you cant say that thinking there is is 'wrong'.
Using physical force to put your beliefs on others is wrong, which is in any kind of statism, including socialism. Saddam did this. Terrorists do this. It is debateable whether the war was worth it, but that's how it is.
War is the second worse thing humans do.
Statism is the worst. Two people with guns pointed at eachother isn't quite as bad as a man pointing a gun at one without.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-02-07 00:45:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Aristotle ruled and Plato wasn't that great.
I responded to your very classy and reasonable comment on my political rant. I did this a few months ago as a joke, but I decided to respond to what you and others said.
Never the less, this was kind of interesting.
Submitted by Ed_0150 (user info) at 2005-01-23 06:47:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-23 02:15:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Granted that conservatism and neo-cons are two different things, hence the reason many traditional conservatives loathe the notion of neo-cons, but what you must realize is my inspection was directed towards the "Bush" portion of the Republican Power, i.e., those in power and the strategies of the 2004 Presidential race. You keep making the running argument that it applies ONLY to foreign policy, but if you've failed to read Strauss (and believe me, everyone that was listed in the quote CALLS THEMSELVES A DISCIPLE OF STRAUSS) because his picture was aimed at the entire society (global and national). Thus, this is where they derive the notion of US Hegemony Good because they see themselves as righteous. Whatever tired idealist argument for Democracy they use, it still shows that they believe themselves to be superior. Hence, all I was discussing. US righteousness mindset can only be ill for the rest of the world, ah la, Iraq.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-23 02:07:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
One last point then I'm off. None of the people that you referrence describe themselves as Straussian. That is what the conservative tried to label them, (you'll note the source of your quote is Buchanans rag.)
Neocons and conservatives don't get along, as you should know.
Submitted by Slypher (user info) at 2005-01-23 02:01:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love you.
Sweet-Ass Post.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-01-23 01:54:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A damn fucking good little piece here.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-23 01:49:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I suspect you are having trouble differentiating between neocons and Republicans. Traditional Republicans, and conservatives, are more influenced by realism and isolationism. You can't blame everything you hate about the Republican party on Neocons. There are no "domestic policy" neocons, it is purely an organizing philosophy of foreign policy, and it has subscribers from all political pursuasions.
It's really better than any American alternative, because there is no American alternative at the moment. Outside of neocons, there is nothing to direct foreign policy like our theory of containment did during the coldwar. The Europeans have an alternative, which is to expand the network of international institutions and increase interdependence. I think that's a good philosophy as well, and not diametrically opposed to what neocon's believe. However, it tends to work better for state actors rather than nonstate actors like terrorist and organized crime.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-23 01:40:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is no "masking truths" - the discussions take place wholely in the open, look at the website you referenced. You can agree or disagree with what Neocons believe, but it certainly is plainly available to the public.
Once again, Neocons don't have a domestic agenda. It's a purely foreign policy movement, with people of all sorts of domestic difference. It's linked with Republicans now because it is a Republican administration putting the theory into the spotlight.
Not all Neocons are Republicans. Some are Democrats, some are Socialist. What does Christopher Hitchens have in common with Donald Rummsfeld other than foreign policy? Hitchens thinks Kissinger should be tried for war crimes, and is a high profile leftist.
The whole notion that neocons believe the U.S. culture is the best is unfounded. What neocons believe is that representitve government, in it's wide variety of forms, is superior to dictatorships, for reasons I've said earlier. But if I'm wrong, tell me, who are these people who yearn for a dictatorship?
I note, but disagree with your assesment of Iraq being a failure. But that is a different discussion.
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-23 01:17:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"That's a very basic description of what we neocon's believe. It has nothing to do with keeping truths from people. It simply a guiding principle about America's role in the world should be."\
Born from Straussian Political Theory. And it is about masking the truth because neocons assume that the United States is in a position to reform the world. We can use real world implication like Iraq to prove the failure and the anomisty/atrocities created when we attempt to nation build with American moral in mind.
Also, reference the people of Strauss. Many Republican Strategists fall into the neo-con side of the spectrum (which does account for domestic policy).
As you can see, look at the rhetoric utilized by the Bush campaign and the jargon used from Condi to Rummy. It bleeds neo-conservative ideas. Therefore, just on campaign rhetoric and strategy, alone, we can deem neo-conservatism to be both domestic and foreign.
It's exactly about America's role that is most distrubing about neo-conservatism perspective (domestic and foreign). When we assume ourselves to be morally superior - the 'beacon of freedom' and the destroyer of tyrants- we erect ourselves to be the most just nation in the World who's culture is simply better than the rest. This thought is incredible distrubing because it devalues the rest of the world.
On the notion of neo-conservatism not having a social agenda...IT'S A POLITICAL THEORY. The main objective is how to construct the ideal society, i.e. it's nothing, but a social agenda. No matter the political affiliation or religious affiliation, it's an agenda to construct society.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-23 00:16:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, Neocons don't have a common position on economic or social issues. While many are liberal, many are not. It's almost completely a foreign policy movement, and has very little to do with domestic policy. Kristol is an athiest, for example, and Wolfowitz is otherwise a liberal. Cristopher Hitchens was a Trotskyite, and is probably best described as a socialist still.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-23 00:05:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm a neocon, have been since it before it was uncool. I have the project site book marked.
Most neocons are socially liberal, and many are ex-democrats. They simply believe America can and should use it's power to promote Democracy and freedom. This is different from the the idealist policy of old because they believe that not only is it morally right, but it is also the surest way to protect our country from long term threats. This is because (1) democracies rarely go to war with one another, and (2) lack of legitimate avenues to effect public policy results in groups using illegitimate means, (terrorism). Thus, changing dictatorships into liberal democracies is going after the "root causes" of terrorism. So for neocons, idealism and realism are no longer competing philosophies. Instead, they have merged and support one another.
Bush's speech yesterday should be understood in that context. It should be remembered that the emphasis on WMD was only added when Tony Blair convinced them to go to the U.N. one more time for approval. WMD was a legal justification. Before then then the President spoke many times, including a somewhat famous speech at the AEI, that Saddam Hussain prevented further reform in the region, and without that reform the region would continue to generate terrorist.
That's a very basic description of what we neocon's believe. It has nothing to do with keeping truths from people. It simply a guiding principle about America's role in the world should be.
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 23:37:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-01-22 17:13:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
I really don't see what's so shocking about it all. Is not the aim of EVERY country to dominate to its own benefit? You think England wouldn't want to be sitting where the US is? France? Russia? China? India?
--------------------
Good question. The purpose of the post was to expose the reasoning behind many of the current US policy. Granted, that many of the countries you listed would love to be the world hegemon, but we need to inspect why they wish to be in that position. Most would adorn the title for the simple matter of economic gain, but the difference between them and the United States, is the thought that United States is the 'moral' superior. The implication of such a title can only have create terrible atrocities - based on the notion of: what if the United States is wrong? Than the world will be shaped in an ill image.
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2005-01-22 22:18:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yes, the fucking right-wing scum idiots completely forgot that people tend to do stuff without it being sanctioned, again.
Submitted by LordJirate (user info) at 2005-01-22 21:53:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You really should know better than to disseminate this information to the übercommunity. :þ
Submitted by pokeysrevenge (user info) at 2005-01-22 21:46:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Demolocke (user info) at 2005-01-22 21:35:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2005-01-22 20:07:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It took me ages to figure out what this was about. Impressive. Now i'm off to check about the american century.
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2005-01-22 19:11:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
996
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-01-22 17:13:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I really don't see what's so shocking about it all. Is not the aim of EVERY country to dominate to its own benefit? You think England wouldn't want to be sitting where the US is? France? Russia? China? India?
Great post.
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2005-01-22 17:11:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
997
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2005-01-22 17:08:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
998 more +2s coming...
Submitted by Zandy1123 (user info) at 2005-01-22 17:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna give this post about 1000 +2s.
seriously.
It's amazing what a little research does.
Straussians are a scary bunch. I can't believe people don't do their own research and put the pieces together.
Straussian ideals...New American Century...the Bush administration...they're all very very intimately tied.
go here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/57323
and read my last comment about New American Century.
This is why the Bush administration is to be feared.
Submitted by YELLOW-MAN (user info) at 2005-01-22 13:46:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent points, and you are right about the wrong vs. right notion. As i've heard it there is no real good or evil in this world it's all a matter of perspective.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-01-22 13:41:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess I better join the Republican party. Good post.