The fence is sometimes a painful thing to sit on. Trust me: it's much easier to be anything but a liberal these days. When I say liberal, I mean something different from what George. W. Bush means — he clearly intends the word to suggest something like "closet Stalinist who performs back-alley abortions for kicks, while fisting."
No, I'm using the word in a slightly more traditional sense. Although it still requires defining. "Neocon," for instance, means something like "classical liberal." Yet I am not a neocon (even though otherwise beloved friends are). "Ted Kennedy" means something like "American liberal." And yet I have never left a girl to drown in a car.
I guess the closest thing to my definition of "liberal" would be the term as currently employed on campus. Which is to say: it designates a person reviled by the left, and despised by the right. Or, in geographical terms, it designates — for Americans — a Canadian.
I am, nominally, a Canadian. I was born there — in Toronto to be precise — although I have spent most of my life running like hell from the place. I am currently a resident alien stationed officially in Manhattan, and if I had to define myself in terms of geography, I would call myself a New Yorker. When you think about it — despite obvious differences — New York occupies pretty much the same political ground as Canada. Occasionally New Yorkers and Canadians hold their noses and vote Giuliani, or Tory — generally when the left is getting a bit too anarchical. Occasionally they drift towards actual socialism, but get stopped short by concerns about fiscal responsibility. Both places often fall prey to Political Correctness, but here New York puts Canada to shame: my country of birth has nothing remotely like the First Amendment. (Some day I'll write about the recent pogrom at Concordia University, as a result of which the administration decided that Jews should be seen and not heard.) Still, despite our differences regarding the joy of censorship, there's a reason why 200,000 Canadians live in New York.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Natalie Bennett
A bit of decent, Mill-ish dullness sounds good to me, as long as you can add a dash of anarchism to leaven the mix.
2 - Victor Lana
Douglas,
Nice on the money post. But let's not forget the actual meaning of "liberal." There are more than 6 definitions in my small dictionary here, but #5 strikes me as most salient:
"Broad-minded, tolerant, especially not bound by authoritariansim, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."
Synonyms include: generous, bountiful, munificent.
And the Latin root, liberalis, means suitable for a freeman.
From a New Yorker to a Canadian, enjoy being liberal. You have nothing to lose but your jeans.
3 - John Bil
Liberal = socialist, pro government
Conservative = socialist, pro government
Libertarian = anti big government
4 - Dave Nalle
>>"Neocon," for instance, means something like "classical liberal." Yet I am not a neocon (even though otherwise beloved friends are). "Ted Kennedy" means something like "American liberal." And yet I have never left a girl to drown in a car.<<
You really, really need to read up on what Neocons actually believe. Nothing could be farther from a 'classical liberal.' Central to their philosophy is an expansionist, imperialist foreign policy which borders on a communistic 'convert or die' attitude. Nothing could be farther from liberal, be it classical or otherwise.
Dave
5 - Eric Berlin
There's nothing technically "comunistic" about a "convert or die" attitude...
6 - Dave Nalle
I made the communist comparison, because that type of foreign policy was central to Lenninism and later Stalinism. They had an absolute belief in the need to spread their philosophy and to destroy those who would not accept it. Neocons pretty much believe the same thing, even if their actual ideology is different.
Dave
7 - Eric Berlin
Yes, I'll agree, I was just making the point that communism in of itself is not inherently war mongering (Stalin tried like hell to stay out of Hitler's cross-hairs, for instance), though its best known practitioners certainly make it seem so.
8 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Actually, most of the neocons I know (and some of them are at the very center of the movement) would call themselves "classical liberals." Like it or not, Jeffersonian universalism implies at the very least an imperialism of *ideas* -- and it's that attitude (perverted, I would argue, in the current administration) that fuels the current warmongering.
I don't happen to agree with Ignatieff that this particular war is at all Jeffersonian in the purity of its motives: the problem is that the current crop of influences upon the commander in chief tend to be *Straussians* (eg. Wolfowitz, Krystol); who are, in fact, the very opposite of classical liberals (although they tend to wear liberal masks in public).
But classical liberalism is by its nature universalist, and that involves exporting and replicating itself. Period. Liberals want the world to be liberal. The current administration thinks that liberal democracy grows from the barrel of a foreign gun -- which is, yes, a touch Maoist -- there are better ways of spreading ideas. And, as I say, I think they have intentions somewhat more ominous than the mere propagation of liberal regimes.
(Note that Jefferson was not particularly shy of bloodshed, however, when it came to universalizing his ideals: he was simply keen on the violence remaining local. He was quite pleased to see the French take up arms against the French.)
By the way, anti-globalist academics in England tend to use the word "neo-liberalism" to refer to what we call neo-conservatism. I suggest it's you that should do a bit of reading on the subject.
9 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
>You really, really need to read up on what >Neocons actually believe. Nothing could be farther >from a 'classical liberal.' (David Nalle at his most stridently wrong)
In fact, from a very few seconds of "reading" on the web, I found a number of (admittedly banal) definitions of neo-conservatism, most of which look something like this:
"NEO-CONSERVATISM
A resurgence of economic and political beliefs associated with classical liberalism of the early 19th century. Should correctly be called neo-liberalism."
(from the very profound "Online Dictionary of The Social Sciences")
Now, I'm not keen on dictionary definitions, and the truth is that the current crop of neocons have, hidden in their midst, the most vicious closet enemies of classical liberalism. If Bush were clever enough to understand what many of his advisors *really* believed, he'd faint. (Virtually all Straussians are, for instance, militant atheists.)
Straussians, however, are not really neocons. They are the most paleo of the paleocons. Strauss thought that even Edmund Burke was too modern (in that he believed in historical progress.)
It's true that neo-conservatism has drifted in recent years towards a caricature of itself, which looks less and less like classical liberalism. And it's because it has become infected by Straussian "noble lies."
Bush inserting his mawkish piety into the public sphere -- his theocratic tendencies -- are anything but neoconservative. Which is to say anything but classically liberal, or Jeffersonian. And that tendency is encouraged, ironically enough, by a group of very very clever atheists. (Most of them students of Leo Strauss, or of his student, Allan Bloom.)
So, yes, the issue gets complicated. But at its least nuanced: to identify neo-conservatism as classical liberalism is not only correct, it borders on a truism.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>Actually, most of the neocons I know (and some of them are at the very center of the movement) would call themselves "classical liberals." Like it or not, Jeffersonian universalism implies at the very least an imperialism of *ideas* -- and it's that attitude (perverted, I would argue, in the current administration) that fuels the current warmongering. <<
They can call themselves anything they want, but they really don't seem to fit with the beliefs of classical liberalism, at least not as they practice their politics. As I alluded to before, their messianic foreign policy is rather like that of the soviet union. Remember, these folks are mostly former Democrats and followers of the Social Democtatic philosophy of people like Max Schachtman. As a group they were alienated from the Democratic party by the failures of the Johnson administration and moved into the GOP in the 70s on the assumption that the GOP was pro-military and anti-communist, and because they were relatively indifferent to the GOP's domestic policies.
>>I don't happen to agree with Ignatieff that this particular war is at all Jeffersonian in the purity of its motives: the problem is that the current crop of influences upon the commander in chief tend to be *Straussians* (eg. Wolfowitz, Krystol); who are, in fact, the very opposite of classical liberals (although they tend to wear liberal masks in public).<<
I don't even think Jefferson's motives were ever pure. Jefferson was capricious and inconsistent and more often than not acted in contradiction to his expressed beliefs.
>>But classical liberalism is by its nature universalist, and that involves exporting and replicating itself. Period.<<
NOT by force of arms, or by economic subversion or by any of the other techniques espoused by Neocons. Classical liberalism is certainly a universal philosophy, but part of the belief in liberty is the belief that people have to find their way to liberty for themselves. The question which is open to debate is whether it's even possible to impose liberty on people who don't understand or necessarily want it. They SHOULD want it, but sometimes their priorities are different.
>>By the way, anti-globalist academics in England tend to use the word "neo-liberalism" to refer to what we call neo-conservatism. I suggest it's you that should do a bit of reading on the subject.<<
My reading on classical liberalism is quite extensive, and I'm pretty familiar with the Neocons and their beliefs as well.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
>>>You really, really need to read up on what >Neocons actually believe. Nothing could be farther >from a 'classical liberal.' (David Nalle at his most stridently wrong)
In fact, from a very few seconds of "reading" on the web, I found a number of (admittedly banal) definitions of neo-conservatism, most of which look something like this:<<
Perhaps you should try more than a few seconds of reading from a web search. There's all sorts of stuff on the web, some of it wrong and some of it - like what you reference - much too simplistic and nowhere near comprehensive. Why not go to the source and read what the Neocons are writing? Start with the Statement of Principles of the PNAC.
Or for an easier start, try this introductory article in the Christian Science Monitor.
Your definitions are fine as far as they go, but while they may describe Neo-Conservatism in its ideal form, they do not accurately represent the beliefs of the people in government or influencing government who identify themselves as Neocons.
At least you realize that Neocons aren't Straussians. The people in Bush's circle aren't Straussians either.
>>It's true that neo-conservatism has drifted in recent years towards a caricature of itself, which looks less and less like classical liberalism. And it's because it has become infected by Straussian "noble lies."<<
The Straussians are more compatible with classical liberalism than the Neocons are, but they aren't classical liberals either. Maybe the problem here is that you don't actually understand what classical liberalism is.
>>So, yes, the issue gets complicated. But at its least nuanced: to identify neo-conservatism as classical liberalism is not only correct, it borders on a truism.<<
That would be at the level of nuance so low that all meaning is lost. Neoconservatism as a philosophy is incompatible with classical liberalism and as it is practiced it's literally antithetical to classical liberalism.
Dave
12 - Michael J. West
"NEO-CONSERVATISM
A resurgence of economic and political beliefs associated with classical liberalism of the early 19th century. Should correctly be called neo-liberalism."
Were the definitions like this one that you found written by neo-conservatives?
Because honestly, this definition sounds an awful lot like propaganda. Like, "You see? This is what liberalism is SUPPOSED to be like. Just goes to show you how misguided today's liberals are."
13 - Dave Nalle
I think the way others define Neoconservatism are a lot more meaningful than how they define themselves. But even more significant is to look at what they advocate and what they do and draw your own conclusions.
Dave
14 - Bob A. Booey
Why do you people insist on being so confident in things you don't know about?
I'm looking at you here, Dave.
Most neo-cons ARE Straussians and vice versa, whether they know it or not. Not all neo-cons are Straussian and the influence of Strauss is overrated in those who were not educated at the University of Chicago, the clearest bastion of conservative philosophy in academe.
Dave, we've already been over the definition of neo-conservatism and your lack of knowledge about it once before. Please read all the articles below before you pontificate about it any further, because that last discussion didn't go too well for you.
Neo-cons are not classical liberals if you're talking about people who are primarily concerned with pluralism and rights enjoyed in a minimally invasive state. They were not anti-government, they were former Marxists who turned against the excesses of Stalinism and wanted to harness the Liberal state to achieve greater public morality in foreign affairs.
The intellectual heritage of neo-cons, including Wolfowitz and Perle directly, has been decidedly shaped by the Chicago school of conservative political theory and natural law. The founders of neo-conservatism like Kristol, Glazer and Podhoretz Supporters of an Israeli state have found a lot of support in Straussian ideas of public morality.
Straussians believe in the traditional intellectual canon and Western tradition, yes, but it's that intellectual foundation that supports neo-conservatism's moral interventions in the outside world. They are NOT paleocons who believe we should be isolationist and disregard the rest of the world and shut off our borders to immigration.
Religion is central to how neo-conservatism has played out as a movement and is one of only many points linking Straussian natural law philosophy to foreign policy through the defense of Israel and an aggressive foreign policy against Communism.
As part of Dave's continuing education, here are some articles so you all can stop throwing around philosophical labels so incorrectly.
Here's a couple of basic quotes to sum it up if you're too lazy to read all these links:
"The original neoconservatives started off in the 1930s and 1940s as Marxists. This tight-knit circle of intellectuals included Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, and Nathan Glazer. They came to be deeply disillusioned by Stalin’s brutal dictatorship, abandoned their hope for communism, and began to perceive the Soviet Union as an aggressive enemy of liberal democracies. It was this issue that split the early neocons from the Democratic Party, which they saw as alarmingly indifferent to the Soviet threat. As their alienation from the Democrats grew, they also moved to the right on domestic issues. Inspired by philosophers such as University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss, the neocons argued for a greater role for religion and morality in the public realm."
"Some definitions are more high-falutin. Michael Lind " widely hailed as a conservative who moved to the Left " channels some of the more feverish paleocons when he writes in the British magazine, The New Statesman, that "Most neoconservative defence intellectuals … are products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history." But a recent article in the New York Times says the neocons aren't Trotskyists, they're Straussians: "They are the neoconservatives, or neocons a catchall name for a disparate group of authors, academics, media moguls and public servants who trace their intellectual lineage (accurately or not) to the teachings of a German émigré named Leo Strauss."
Now here are some links over a couple of comments. Read up before we ever talk about the definition of the word "neo-con" again:
Here are some links to excellent articles about the intellectual lineage of neo-conservatism (from both conservative and liberal writers) if you have a ton of time on your hands:
Goldberg, National Review I
Goldberg, National Review II
Goldberg, National Review III
More below.
15 - Bob A. Booey
Goldberg, National Review IV
Free Republic
American Conservative Magazine
More.
16 - Bob A. Booey
Weekly Standard
Dan Drezner, Political Scientist @ U of C
Wall Street Journal
More below.
17 - Bob A. Booey
Slate magazine
The Week magazine
More National Review
Yet more to come.
18 - Bob A. Booey
Frum, National Review
Logos Journal
Krauthammer, National Interest
One more, I think.
19 - Bob A. Booey
There, read up and don't come back trying to defend that you were right. LEARN something, be educated. You're welcome -- I'm sharing some research I've done on this topic for other purposes and maybe you'll educate yourself if you don't always think you're right and expert on everything, which is the exact opposite attitude of people who actually KNOW and LEARN about the world.
Conservative icon Frances Fukuyama, National Interest
You're all very welcome. Consider this your BABsie seminar in political philosophy. Please read ALL those articles in their entirety before any other pedantic comments about neo-conservatism since it REALLY bugs me when people mis-use and mis-label philosophy. Please do not bloviate or pontificate again about this topic unless you're referring to things in these articles that show you've LEARNED something. I don't want to hear any "I was right" weak defenses, because all the comments on this topic have been really, really ill-informed and off-the-mark.
I'm being stern with you all because I think you need to learn how to learn instead of committing the worst sins of Internet commentary where everything's an argument to be "won" or where everyone's an expert on everything.
That is all.
20 - Bob A. Booey
Here's a fixed link to The Week article:
The Week magazine
That is all.
21 - Dave Nalle
>>Why do you people insist on being so confident in things you don't know about?
I'm looking at you here, Dave.<<
Why does it never enter your consciousness that we might actually know about the things we write about - certainly as much as you do, you arrogant twit.
>>Most neo-cons ARE Straussians and vice versa, whether they know it or not.<<
The Straussians I know - and I deal with a lot of them - would certainly disagree. They hate the Neocons.
>> Not all neo-cons are Straussian and the influence of Strauss is overrated in those who were not educated at the University of Chicago, the clearest bastion of conservative philosophy in academe. <<
As I said before, we're talking about Neocons here. They may have some Straussian influences, but they can't be classified as Straussians.
>>Dave, we've already been over the definition of neo-conservatism and your lack of knowledge about it once before.<<
No, we went over it before and it became clear that you were talking about a theoretical view of Neoconservativism based on some peculiar idea of your own, not the actual beliefs which Neocons currently adhere to.
>> Please read all the articles below before you pontificate about it any further, because that last discussion didn't go too well for you.<<
Odd, as I recall it ended with you having been clearly demonstrated to be presenting a skewed and innacurate version of Neoconservatism which didn't match reality.
>>Neo-cons are not classical liberals if you're talking about people who are primarily concerned with pluralism and rights enjoyed in a minimally invasive state. They were not anti-government, they were former Marxists who turned against the excesses of Stalinism and wanted to harness the Liberal state to achieve greater public morality in foreign affairs.<<
This is a book definition of Neoconservatism which has little or nothing to do with current Neocon beliefs except, perhaps, as background information.
>>The intellectual heritage of neo-cons, including Wolfowitz and Perle directly, has been decidedly shaped by the Chicago school of conservative political theory and natural law. The founders of neo-conservatism like Kristol, Glazer and Podhoretz Supporters of an Israeli state have found a lot of support in Straussian ideas of public morality.<<
This is possible, but since it isn't expressed in anyway in their current beliefs and philosophy I don't see how it's relevant..
>>Straussians believe in the traditional intellectual canon and Western tradition, yes, but it's that intellectual foundation that supports neo-conservatism's moral interventions in the outside world. They are NOT paleocons who believe we should be isolationist and disregard the rest of the world and shut off our borders to immigration.<<
That's pretty much what I said earlier.
>>Religion is central to how neo-conservatism has played out as a movement and is one of only many points linking Straussian natural law philosophy to foreign policy through the defense of Israel and an aggressive foreign policy against Communism.<<
This doesn't fit terribly well with the fact that traditionally Neocons have been atheists. You can't have it both ways. You seem to be confusing the Neocons with the Theocons who believe that the state of Israel is a central element in achieving a Biblical 'end of days' scenario.
>>As part of Dave's continuing education, here are some articles so you all can stop throwing around philosophical labels so incorrectly.<<
Perhaps you should read the articles I cited earlier so you have at least a basic familiarity with Neocons as they exist today so we aren't talking about two different things. Your irrelevant theoretical definitions of Neoconservatism aren't adding anything here.
Dave
22 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Thank you, Bob. One book to add to this (and I'm afraid you either have to read the entire book, or spend a couple of years studying with Straussians):
"The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss," by Shadia Drury.
Drury is the leading non-Straussian scholar of Strauss. At the center of this school of thought is the insistence upon esoteric (as opposed to exoteric) writing; so anything written by Straussians themselves -- unless they've taught you how to read them -- will go out of its way to *hide* what the author truly thinks.
No less a scholar than Martha Nussbaum wrote an embarrassing review of the Closing of the American Mind, in which she identified Bloom as a "religious man." Why? Because she didn't do her homework. *Anyone* reading that book, who wasn't aware of the Straussian hidden agenda, would assume that Bloom was a devout Jew.
Why do I pretend to know different? Because I *studied with Bloom*. And with Thomas Pangle, his student. If you've spent a few years with Straussians, in and out of the classroom, you get some sense of the esoteric teaching.
And I'm by no means an expert on Strauss -- he's perhaps the most difficult of the twentieth century philosophers. I have a master's degree in philosophy, and that does not, frankly, qualify me. I came very close to doing a PhD at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago -- the epicenter of Straussianism -- and had I done that, I'd probably feel more confident in the identification of what Strauss truly intended.
That said, I can tell you this. The Straussians are in almost every sense the opposite of any 19th or 20th century definition of "liberal." They are in fact quite suspicious of the concept of democracy -- I sometimes think that any regime, as long as it were capable of subversion by philosophers, would suit them fine.
They are, as I say, atheists. When Strauss was offered the possibility of teaching at Hebrew University, he proposed (comically) to lecture about the centrality of atheism in the history of Jewish thought.
What I cannot say for sure is whether Strauss was truly a nihilist. Which is to say: whether he in fact believed in nothing. I do know, from his letters to Benjamin, that he identified with Nietzsche: I don't have the quotation in front of me, but the gist of what he said is that Nietzsche spoke for him, except in his dangerous decision to reveal the dark truth to the masses.
It's not surprising that we get foolishness like David Nalle's, "The Straussians are more compatible with classical liberalism than the Neocons are, but they aren't classical liberals either."
The Straussians don't *want* you to know what they believe.
If this sounds like a vast conspiracy theory, it's because that's precisely what it is: Leo Strauss's identification of "esoteric writing" is in fact a surprisingly successful attempt to re-read the entire history of philosophy as a conspiracy. He, and his students, argue that philosophy is a private conversation between great men, and that *all* philosophers go out of their way to hide the essence of that conversation from ordinary readers.
My current question -- and I'm not sure whether even Strauss's closest students could answer it with certainty: is *whether Strauss himself believed in the history of esoteric writing.* That is to say, whether he believed that philosophers themselves deliberately hid the true meaning of their work. I am beginning to think that Strauss created this notion as a tool of "strong misreading" -- so that he could himself subvert the text, and project his own ideas into, for instance, Plato. (This, if it were true, would be utterly shocking to the most rigorous Straussians, who believe that the master worshipped the integrity of the text. But it would explain many things... not the least of which is that the only works of philosophy I have ever read which are *unambiguously* esoteric, are the works of Leo Strauss.)
Here are some things, however, that I can say with certainty:
The Straussians abhor economism.
They despise Isaiah Berlin's concept of "negative freedom" -- which is at the center of any notion of liberalism: the idea that the individual should be free *from* the influence of the state.
They see piety as a necessary lie. Politicians in particular should disguise their cruelty beneath a cloak of faith.
They regard it as necessary for philosophers to ally themselves with the "gentleman class" -- of which Bush is a key member. This is not because they particularly respect or value these people: it's because only through that alliance is philosophy, as a practice, *safe*.
Their reading of Machiavelli has taught them that there is more power in being the *advisor* to princes, than there is in being a prince.
Nalle tells us that, "The people in Bush's circle aren't Straussians." This is the kind of ignorance which makes this conversation almost worthless. Paul Wolfowitz was *in Leo Strauss's class.* Not only that, but prior to this stint at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz lived in a house at Cornell with Allan Bloom -- Bloom was the faculty advisor.
(Wolfowitz was also a student of Albert Wohlstetter's, a man I don't know a great deal about, except that he stressed the necessity of maintaining American superiority through the development of the most technologically sophisticated weaponry.)
All this to say: yes, Bush's circle contains more than one *highly* influential Straussian, and this administration's foreign policy in particular cannot be understood without reference to Strauss.
(Oh, and Bob: much as I quite liked what you just wrote, could you please stop signing things "that is all"? It's unbearably pompous.)
23 - Dave Nalle
Cooper, I have to admit that your explanation of the Straussians was enlightening or at least intriguing. My understanding of their beliefs has been entirely external. If what you says is true and there's an esoteric element which is deliberately concealed, then all bets are off. This isn't something which any self-proclaimed Straussians I've talked to openly admit to, but then I guess that as you explain it they wouldn't.
The question it raises in my mind is whether this 'hidden agenda' of the Straussians is real or whether it's entirely in the minds of their detractors.
>>Nalle tells us that, "The people in Bush's circle aren't Straussians." This is the kind of ignorance which makes this conversation almost worthless.<<
Sorry to have intruded. Go on talking with Babs. I'm not intimately aware of the personal biography of Paul Wolfowitz. I had merely concluded form his public statements which don't match my understanding of Straussian beliefs, that he and his associates were not practicing Straussians.
My confusion here may come from the fact that the Straussians I've talked with before seem to be of the school of Henry Jaffa whose take on Straussianism seems to be much closer to classical liberalism, rather than from the Bloom group which Wolfowitz is apparently associated with, which is closer to Neoconservativism philosophically.
I will freely admit that my understanding of Strauss is limited. His philosophy is too theoretical for me to enjoy reading. I understand the Neocons quite well, because their philosophy is a primarily political philosophy and that's something I can relate to. Strauss is more purely intellectual, and frankly that's something I have little patience for.
Dave
24 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, your problem here is the people you know who claim to be "Straussians" aren't Straussians, aren't from the Chicago school, and don't know anything substantive about neo-conservatism or Strauss. And on this subject, neither did you.
I'd drop to your level and throw around the word "idiot," but I don't think that's quite right. I think the problem isn't your intelligence, but your approach to information and knowledge. You're one of the most close-minded people I've ever encountered and I think anyone who's discussed anything with you on this site might agree.
I'll try to be civil and ignore your personal attacks because, in my own brusque way, I was trying to share some knowledge with you. It's really too bad that makes you so angry.
Is it so HARD to read the articles I link you to, which point out that Wolfowitz himself is directly from the Chicago school?
The articles you linked to were meaningless and introductory, no offense. I did read them. They said nothing, which is why I referred you to some real research I've done for previous academic work (at least what was available online and not in book form).
Douglas says the same things I do and he's useful while I'm an arrogant twit?
Apparently he did a better job at communicating with you (which is near impossible) without you getting your panties in a bunch, but I'll really leave it to the readers of this site who the over-emotional, bombastic, know-it-all who constantly draws the wrong conclusions from a little bit of incomplete information is.
Yes, I'm smarter than you and I just might occasionally be right when we discuss issues. Get over it. You're too old to call me names.
And might I remind you, the last time I had to correct you on this definition was because you thought neo-cons had some sort of domestic agenda that jived with religious doctrine, which is the exact opposite of what you're saying now. I argued that neo-conservatism was primarily about foreign policy and did not imply any concomitant domestic agenda akin to the one you were describing at the time.
Most neo-cons today are not atheists due to how the political movement has developed. Their support of an Israeli state need not be religious, it's also a political movement. The founders of neo-conservatism were former secular Marxists for whom the Holocaust, Stalin and Zionism were turning points and many early Straussians were also atheist, as Douglas points out. But the intellectual movement has come more and more to embrace religion and natural law as the basis for public morality.
Dave, I'd ask you for an apology, but I don't think that's in your character and I'm frankly not offended in the least because this is typical of how all discussions with you degenerate.
I suppose I could have been more polite myself in sharing my information with you, as Douglas was, but your claims of always being right when others try to share ideas with you makes that folly in my mind.
I have some reason to be familiar with the intellectual trends coming out of this movement, as well. Douglas has earned more familiarity, to be sure, but I get prickly about the misuse of philosophy and these imprecise labels.
I think a part of the problem here is that a lot of people's definitions of "neoconservative" comes from inaccurate Internet commentary and even mainstream journalism which lumps various ideas and policies together that don't fit that label particularly well. A perfect example of this is the bizarre, apocalyptic "Theocon" label you have, something which no one could honestly argue for or believe outside the Internet. This is the most imprecise form of political labeling that doesn't reveal any real understanding about the issues and personalities in question.
Can we at least now agree that neo-conservatism's intellectual lineage comes from Straussians?
Douglas: I use the "That is all" closer as a kind of ironic bombast sort of thing because I'm surrounded by so many loud Internet types who holler their inchoate ideas constantly. It's meant as a joke, but out of respect for your manners and learning, I'll close without it on this one.
Thanks for the good discussion, Douglas.
25 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
David Nalle says: "The question it raises in my mind is whether this 'hidden agenda' of the Straussians is real or whether it's entirely in the minds of their detractors."
A legitimate question: the Straussian hidden doctrine is *so* utterly subversive, that it's difficult to believe that anyone could believe, much less teach such a thing. Even in writing about it, I realize I come across as a paranoid lunatic, on the order of Lyndon LaRouche.
That said: what I am saying is not in dispute. It's not "my take" on Strauss. I have it from the horse's mouth (or the foal's mouth, if you like). Bloom and Pangle both taught *every* text in this way. (The one possible exception is Kant: the categorical imperative seems to preclude the possibility of a noble lie -- I forget how Pangle dealt with this conundrum, although I am told that Strauss admitted that certain texts did not permit an esoteric reading.) Shadia Drury is the one to read, for an objective non-Straussian explication.
It is fascinating, dangerous stuff. Wolfowitz watchers spend a lot of time wondering who is ascendant in his thinking: Strauss or Wohlstetter. From what little I know of Wohlstetter, he is a piece of work himself -- in the final analysis, I'm not sure which would be the frying pan, and which the fire.
As for our discussion of the terms "liberal" and "neoconservative" -- the truth is that they have become approximately as precise as the term "romantic" (which has a comically vast number of often contradictory definitions).
David Frum, in the article recommended by Bob, denounces "paleoconservatism" but I find this a bit slippery. One of the more amusing definitions of paleoconservatism -- I forget the writer -- suggested that if you believe in the privatization of national parks, you are a paleocon. Well, David believes in privatizing the national parks.
Again, I know more about David Frum than you'll gain from his blog: he was in my class in high school, and we were friends for twenty years. I don't actually know whether we are still friends -- I haven't seen him in a couple of years, and I wonder whether politics would finally come between us. He's one of the brightest people I know, and his politics are approximately as disgusting as anything this side of Jesse Helms. My loathing for Bush has sent me increasingly towards the center, and I suspect that David and I are now too far apart to have a civilized conversation.
He does not seen himself as a "neoconservative," by the way. For one thing, he notes that the term has become anti-Semitic code -- and I tend to agree. Also -- and I agree with this as well -- the real neo-cons share specific biographical details, and he's far too young to be one of them.
One guy who intrigues me -- I've never met him -- is Bill Krystol. On the face of it, he seems to identify himself as *both* a Straussian and a neoconservative. Which leads me to believe that he is either confused (doubtful) or lying about the second half of the equation. Or, a third possibility: he's a neocon who takes what he needs from Strauss, and rejects the rest. There are a number of thinkers in that category -- George Grant, for instance, admired Strauss but rejected the atheism.
I also studied with Rabbi Emil Fackenheim, a contemporary and friend of Strauss's. He too admired much of Strauss -- the admiration was mutual, I believe -- but he was not a Straussian. Whether he was a theist, frankly, I don't know. Yes he was a rabbi, but at the center of his thought was the Holocaust, and I often wonder whether he lost his faith.
These categories are only useful as starting points. My post at the top is, if nothing else, an effort to suggest that I haven't the faintest idea how to define myself, except that I am clearly *not* certain things. I am not, for instance a Straussian. On the other hand, I have yet to encounter a school of political thought remotely as interesting: so he is very much the respected enemy.