Has The New Republic drank the Kool-Aid?

[quaoar]

I was watching coverage on Sunday morning of the Iraq election and saw a panel with a guy from the Weekly Standard and Ryan Lizza, WH correspondent for the New Republic.

Lizza was pretty much agreeing with the idea that this was a big win for Bush and the Democrats were going to have to tread lightly on this issue from now on.

This comes, of course, after NR editor Peter Beinart blasts the party as too liberal.

So when did The New Republic sell out?

[latteromden]

1. Well, I honestly don't know exactly how PNAC ties into all this, but

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Check out the first signatory on that list. *shrug* I don't know.

[Kerrytravelers]

5. It was written two days ago...

and the editors name is listed alongside William Kristol...

'Nuff said, right? (Literally- right.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Well, there it is.

PNAC has requested an increase in the size of the military, when the military is already not meeting its recruiting goals.

They are asking for a draft. And everything the PNAC has asked for so far, they have received.

[oasis]

46. PNAC requires a draft for future armies of occupation. It's plain as day.

www.newamericancentury.org

[0007]

23. Like I hate to be ugly but.......

..right wing rag and you don't know? :shrug:

[Finding Rawls]

25. Do you disagree?

I believe that the letter was pretty dead on. Just because Kristol signed it doesn't mean that the point made in the letter is invalid.

Partisan crap

[xchrom]

32. rawls? the anti tax guy

from the seventies?

[Finding Rawls]

40. Anti-tax guy? nt

[Taxloss]

2. Funnily enough, I watched "Shattered Glass" tonight. n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

6. I love that movie!

Peter Sarsaarg is one of my favorite actors. Did you see Kinsey? One of my fvorites. Liam Neeson... yum... My husband and I have Liam as the #1 name to name our son. Not after Neesoj, but we love the name so much.

Ok, rambling thoughts... sorry... too many wine spritzers. Soemthings Gotta Give is on TV right now... just feeling in the zone!

[Taxloss]

10. Great film.

I work as a sub-editor and writer, so it has particular significance for me.

"Are you mad at me?"

[quaoar]

11. You work at TNR?

So what's the deal? What happened to the publication that was once the voice of the left?

[Taxloss]

17. No!

I British. I used to work at a Brit political magazine, like TNR but much, much less influential. But it was read by the DPM.

[Kerrytravelers]

13. "Ok, I already told you, I"m not your Kindergarten teacher...

I don't respond to "Are you mad at me?"

[Taxloss]

19. He really was the master of passive-agressive office politics

wasn't he?

[Kerrytravelers]

21. Lord, when I watched that movie the first time, I was like, Chloe, what

the hell Why defend that idiot? I totally sided with Sarssargd's character. Even now, how can you be so defensive of a co-worker who is so deceptive. How can you be a reporter and not see that?

I wasn't there, so I don't really kow the ansers to that, butit is amazing what people can get away with when others think they are charastamic.

We have daily proof in* and Ah-nald. :eyes:

[Jack Rabbit]

3. The NR sold out when they backed the Iraq war

. . . and endorsed Lieberman for the nomination.

[BlueManDude]

34. they were instrumental in sinking Clinton's health care reform

published a long, critical article by a GOP woman who later became Lt Gov of NY under Pataki. It was very influential (and completely innacurate) among the opinion elites. I would not wipe my ass with that magazine.

[Tinoire]

51. Thanks. Had no idea about that. n/t

[BlueManDude]

52. It has not been a progressive mag for years.

some call it neo-lib. i can't tell wher the neo-cons end nd the neo-libs begin.

[BlueManDude]

4. More than ten years ago n/t

[autorank]

8. Uh, TNR has 30,000 subscribers. Screw them.

Which means they're half the size of DU and DU subscribers do a hell of a lot more with that publication than TNR readers do with it. Why don't they have DU people on these panels?

[Finding Rawls]

44. 60,000

and you know that a large percentage of those 60,000+ DU profiles do not log in and post.

[autorank]

45. Actually I don't know that. How do you?

[Finding Rawls]

48. Use some common sense

There are not 60,000 regulars here.

[autorank]

66. I use common sense all the time and I'm more than a little

familiar with online service usage/nonusage. However, I don't see how you can say what the % of active users is unless it's published. Even if it's 50%, it's equal to TNR, presuming of course 100% of TNR readers do something other than line the kitty box with it.

[Finding Rawls]

68. I think that common sense

would allow you to admit that 60,000 is not an accurate number of active DU participants. And as for The New Republic, this might help you out:

CIRCULATION

Audited circulation: TNR is a member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (USA) and subject to all international rules regarding paid circulation due to acts of God, accidents, wars (declared or undeclared), fires, strikes, work stoppages, government action, or any other hostile act or circumstances beyond the control of TNR which may cause circulation to fall below the average net paid circulation.

Publication date: On sale the Monday preceding the Monday cover issue date

Rate base: Rates are based on average net paid circulation for the term of this rate card

Circulation: 60,000

How obtained: Direct mail solicitation, single copy and online sales



http://www.tnr.com/ad-policies.mhtml

[autorank]

72. Well then, we're even. 50% of either 60K is 30K.

What's you point? Putting down DU and it's influence. I don't get it. My response to you was that TNR was bupkis as far as influence goes as measured by circulation. You responded by dowing DU? Strange.

[Finding Rawls]

74. I'm a big fan of the New Republic

I come to DU because I'm a Democrat and I like to argue about what the Democratic Party should stand for in its platform. I appreciate Skinner putting this together and keeping it going. However, I believe that TNR is a quality magazine that is doing a lot to advance important ideas that the Democratic Party should accept. Do I think that DU has a larger impact than TNR? No. TNR's circulation is 60,000 and its articles are discussed and debated in other publications. I would estimate, ESTIMATE, that there are probably 10,000 to 20,000 people who are active members.

I'm not putting DU down. That's a lot of people, active people. I just happen to believe that TNR has a larger impact and don't feel that it's a NeoCon mag.

[autorank]

75. Welcome to DU. Stick around. Interesting dialog.

This is from my paper, the PentaPost, a Mistah Kurtz column (6/19/04):
"We feel regret, but no shame. . . . Our strategic rationale for war has collapsed," says an editorial hammered out after a contentious, 3 1/2-hour editors' meeting."

I take this as a good and ominous sign. The good sign is that they responded to their readers and acknowledged their mistake. When they made that mistake, I was stunned. How could this be, I asked? This collection of bright, insightful folks made a huge mistake, one that is certainly forgivable but not to be forgotten. The Iraq war was such a bad idea, anyone thinking rationally should have seen it. From rigged intelligence to the cheap rhetorical tricks of Bush and Cheney mentioning 911 and Saddam's name so closely together they established a connection in the half-awake public, this war was a ringer. TNR's support, 'strategic rationale,' was so flawed, I find most anything they say suspect but I'll buy a copy and give it another look. I prefer the Washington Monthly.

With regard to relative influence, we may be comparing light bulbs to hammers. DU is rarely discussed in other publications except for the occasional cheap-shot from the NYT (attributing 1 semi-idiotic post to a DU editorial line) and others. However, it is a hot bed of electronic activism. Once a position has been reached hear, the influence of the service begins to multiply. My understanding is that Boxer and those who supported her in the debate (without the voting support) were stunned at the number of emails and calls they received on Ohio election problems and voting rights issues. A great deal of that (no way to really measure) came from DU and extended DU contacts. I for example, have 8-10 friends online who are politically motivated. We share frequently and, on this issue, the DU material and information was used by my friends to make contacts. I'm quite sure that there is an even greater multiplier effect from others.

TNR is discussed by various folks but obviously at higher levels and under more genteel circumstances.

Thus the two are different ways influence is spread; DU being the hammer, albeit electronic, and TNR being the light bulb.

Since you're relatively new, let me suggest that you look for the pearls and avoid the sand. There quite a few pearls to be had and a lot of fun also.

Nice talking to you..

Since you're relatively new, let me suggest that you look for the pearls and avoid the sand. There quite a few pearls to be had and a lot of fun also.

Nice talking to you.

PS. Some of what goes on here is political catharsis. People post things with some real passion, there are responses, and positions are changed. I wouldn't take that as irrationality but, rather, for what it is--a heated discussion among people who are friends for the most part. If someone gets personally offensive, e.g. name calling, then that's the limit and they are usually chastised sooner or later.

[JNelson6563]

9. I thought they sold out long ago

didn't they like Lieberman in the primaries?

Julie

[LiviaOlivia]

12. God I loved that magazine but now TNR is terrible.

I have decided not to renew. I looked at the latest issue and it is shit. I dropped it in 2001 after many years and then picked it up again in 2004 for election info. TNR has become incestuous and it's staff in D.C. live in a 21st century version of the Court of Versailles. IMO.

[Lindacooks]

65. I was so disgusted by their coverage of the 2000 election

that I cancelled my subscription and haven't read them since.


They were SO critical of Gore, repeating many Repuke talking points; I found that absolutely sickening.

[jpgray]

14. They sold out a long time ago (nt)

[quaoar]

15. And yet the MSM

still uses TNR pundits on panels to represent the liberal view opposite pundits from the Weekly Standard etc.

[jpgray]

16. Yep. TNR and Tammy Bruce, away! (nt)

[Redleg]

18. They drank it a long time ago.

EOM

[The Zanti Regent]

20. Once upon a time, a MAN named Henry Wallace ran the New Republic

The SAME Henry Wallace who was FDR's Vice President, a man who had guts. In the 50s, everyone else backed down and blew Joe Mc Carthy except Henry Wallace and Ed Murrow.

Wallace stood up to him and broke Mc Carthy while the rest of the media (EXCEPT MURROW) hid in the corner.

The New Republic held it's solid beleif in liberalism, but when Henry Wallace died, it began to move to the right. It really moved rightward when such assholes as Sullivan and Kelly took it over and turned it into an anti-Clinton rag.

Sullivan and his ilk egged on liars like Steven Glass. Now I refuse to even look at what has mutated into the NEW REPUBLICAN

[AG78]

22. Smart guy

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm

Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman President), Roosevelt had two previous Vice Presidents - John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945). In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

[LittleClarkie]

24. Didn't they endorse Leibermann and call Kerry's foreign policy dangerous?

They appeared to be quite pro-Israel in a "protect them like a neo-con" sense. No?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Yes, they have drunk the Kool-Aid

They did so many years ago when they supported the interventions in Central America wholeheartedly.

[Tinoire]

27. Peter Beinart. A Rhodes Scholar Empire builder. Totally changed TNR.

Peter Beinart is another empire-building Rhodes scholar in Cecile Rhode's finest tradition who thinks the entire world is just another Rhodesia that needs to be colonialized by the master race. Very sad, sick stuff.



Peter Beinart has been Editor of The New Republic since November 1999.
He graduated from Yale University in 1993, winning both Rhodes and Marshall (declined) scholarships for graduate study at Oxford University.
After graduating from University College, Oxford in the summer of 1995 with a masters of philosophy degree in international relations, Beinart returned to The New Republic as managing editor. He became senior editor in June 1997 and Editor two years later. He writes The New Republic's weekly TRB column, which also runs in The New York Post.

http://www.leadingauthorities.com/20647/Peter_Beinart.htm

Peter Beinart is a former chair of the Liberal Party, and is currently the editor of the New Republic. He'll be speaking about either public opinion's role in presidential decision making or why political parties should move to the center

http://www.yale.edu/libs/The%20Lib%20Schtick11.html
----

There is something people need to understand about the whole philosophy and aims of Cecil Rhodes. One of the tools he pushed for building the Anglo empire was a takeover of the press, the others were free trade and a one world government. He left his entire fortune, the wealth of colonialized and looted Rhodesia, to establish the Rhodes scholarship and the secret society that would build the empire for the master Anglo race. I put the part where he mentioned the press in red.

===
Cecil Rhodes’ “Confession of Faith” of 1877

Rhodes originally wrote this on June 2, 1877, in Oxford. Later, that year in Kimberley, he made some additions and changes. What follows is that amended statement. The spelling and grammar errors were in the original.

It often strikes a man to inquire what is the chief good in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on his idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself thinking over the same question the wish came to render myself useful to my country. I then asked myself how could I and after reviewing the various methods I have felt that at the present day we are actually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit that if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars, at this moment had we not lost America I believe we could have stopped the Russian-Turkish war by merely refusing money and supplies. Having these ideas what scheme could we think of to forward this object. I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

At the present day I become a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end.

The idea gleaming and dancing before ones eyes like a will-of-the-wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible. I once heard it argued by a fellow in my own college, I am sorry to own it by an Englishman, that it was good thing for us that we have lost the United States. There are some subjects on which there can be no arguments, and to an Englishman this is one of them, but even from an American’s point of view just picture what they have lost, look at their government, are not the frauds that yearly come before the public view a disgrace to any country and especially their’s which is the finest in the world. Would they have occurred had they remained under English rule great as they have become how infinitely greater they would have been with the softening and elevating influences of English rule, think of those countless 000’s of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men. I bring facts to prove my assertion. Does an English father when his sons wish to emigrate ever think of suggesting emigration to a country under another flag, never—it would seem a disgrace to suggest such a thing I think that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag than wealth under a foreign one.

Put your mind into another train of thought. Fancy Australia discovered and colonised under the French flag, what would it mean merely several millions of English unborn that at present exist we learn from the past and to form our future. We learn from having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.

I contend that there are at the present moment numbers of the ablest men in the world who would devote their whole lives to it. I often think what a loss to the English nation in some respects the abolition of the Rotten Borough System has been. What thought strikes a man entering the house of commons, the assembly that rule the whole world? I think it is the mediocrity of the men but what is the cause. It is simply—an assembly of wealth of men whose lives have been spent in the accumulation of money and whose time has been too much engaged to be able to spare any for the study of past history. And yet in hands of such men rest our destinies. Do men like the great Pitt, and Burke and Sheridan not now to exist. I contend they do. There are men now living with I know no other term the (Greek term) of Aristotle but there are not ways for enabling them to serve their Country. They live and die unused unemployed. What has the main cause of the success of the Romish Church? The fact that every enthusiast, call it if you like every madman finds employment in it. Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his County. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.

Take another case, let us fancy a man who finds himself his own master with ample means of attaining his majority whether he puts the question directly to himself or not, still like the old story of virtue and vice in the Memorabilia a fight goes on in him as to what he should do. Take if he plunges into dissipation there is nothing too reckless he does not attempt but after a time his life palls on him, he mentally says this is not good enough, he changes his life, he reforms, he travels, he thinks now I have found the chief good in life, the novelty wears off, and he tires, to change again, he goes into the far interior after the wild game he thinks at last I’ve found that in life of which I cannot tire, again he is disappointed. He returns he thinks is there nothing I can do in life? Here I am with means, with a good house, with everything that is to be envied and yet I am not happy I am tired of life he possesses within him a portion of the of Aristotle but he knows it not, to such a man the Society should go, should test, and should finally show him the greatness of the scheme and list him as a member.

Take one more case of the younger son with high thoughts, high aspirations, endowed by nature with all the faculties to make a great man, and with the sole wish in life to serve his Country but he lacks two things the means and the opportunity, ever troubled by a sort of inward deity urging him on to high and noble deeds, he is compelled to pass his time in some occupation which furnishes him with mere existence, he lives unhappily and dies miserably. Such men as these the Society should search out and use for the furtherance of their object.

(In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe)

Once make it common and it fails. Take a man of great wealth who is bereft of his children perhaps having his mind soured by some bitter disappointment who shuts himself up separate from his neighbours and makes up his mind to a miserable existence. To such men as these the society should go gradually disclose the greatness of their scheme and entreat him to throw in his life and property with them for this object. I think that there are thousands now existing who would eagerly grasp at the opportunity. Such are the heads of my scheme.

For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object.


http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/rhodes_confession.html

===

I also desire to encourage and foster an appreciation of the advantages which I implicitly believe will result from the union of the English-speaking peoples throughout the world and to encourage in the students from the United States of North America who will benefit from the American Scholarships to be established for the reason above given at the University of Oxford under this my Will an attachment to the country from which they have sprung but without I hope withdrawing them or their sympathies from the land of their adoption or birth.

CECIL J. RHODES, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, ed. W. T. Stead, pp. 24–29 (1902). The will was dated July 1, 1899.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/499.html

[loudsue]

28. Wasn't Bill Clinton a Rhodes Scholar??

Am I remembering that correctly?

:kick::kick::kick:

[Tinoire]

29. Yes. Kind of puts a whole new perspective on Free Trade

and globalization, doesn't it? This is all so wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. so was bill bradley

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. and robert reich

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. and kris kristofferson...

eom

[Idioteque]

67. Don't forget Wes Clark =P (n/t)

[RafterMan]

30. Oh come on

An Oxford Rhodes scholar isn't any more an "empire builder" than a student at William and Mary is a royalist.

What a ridiculous post.

[Tinoire]

33. Right. And Leo Strauss just wants to spread the love too.

I'm going to take it you didn't study Rhodes because he was extremely clear about why he was leaving that money behind- for the Anglos to rule the world by control of wealth.

His own words about should be good enough for you.

Denial is ridiculous.

[RafterMan]

41. Yes, I know all about Rhodes

including the fact that those quotes you post are over 100 years old!

The fact that what you post about him is true does not change the fact that his dead hand cannot control events from the grave.

[Tinoire]

61. A testament is a testament & this one has a very strong Trust

I know a few and they're very smart, usually charismatic people but there is a definite agenda to that Trust. Do you disagree that young minds are molded in Universities? This is precisely why the powerful try to control them all. Rhodes Scholars aren't necessarily bad people but they are definitely molded. Now if you want to believe that the Trust ignores Rhodes' Testament, that's fine but the Trustees of his will have been very conscientious in respecting it. They wouldn't even allow women to benefit from the money. It took an act of Parliament in 1975 to force the trustees to accept women. They kept refusing on the grounds that the will didn't specify women(1). Those trustees, like trustees everywhere, stick very closely to the spirit of Rhodes' will. Wills, testaments, trusts, trustees- that's how a dead hand can control events from the grave, or at least try to.


Office of the American Secretary
The Rhodes Trust

Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The Rhodes Scholarships, in short, are investments in individuals rather than in project proposals.

http://www.rhodesscholar.org/brochure.html

===

(1) Until 1977 no women were elected to Rhodes Scholarships, because the Will, as interpreted by the Rhodes Trust Acts of Parliament confined the awards to ‘male students’. When the British government introduced legislation to outlaw sex discrimination, a clause in the Bill permitted single-sex educational institutions and charities to continue to discriminate in favour of one sex. Following lobbying by the Rhodes Trustees, a further clause was inserted into the eventual Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 allowing single-sex educational charities to seek leave to open their awards to both sexes. Under this clause the Secretary of State for Education made an order in 1976 declaring Rhodes Scholarships to be tenable by women, and nullifying the effect of the words ‘manly’ and ‘manhood’ in the will.


http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/rhodesworld.html

[Finding Rawls]

42. I'm betting you don't know that much about Strauss

Just that the evil and shadowy "Straussians" are running the government.
OOOOHHHHH. SCCCCAAAAARRRRYYYY.

[thebigidea]

54. whereas you can tell us all about him, right?

Go on, give us some facts on Strauss other than your spectacularly unfunny bits of blather.

[Finding Rawls]

56. Some "facts" on Strauss?

He's a little complicated, but how about you start with "Natural Right and History." Then you might have an idea of the man.

[Tinoire]

57. Since I doubt that poster has any..

Thanks Big Idea, I hadn't seen that post.

Since I doubt that poster has any facts to present, I'll post this here for lurkers. United for Justice with Peace has a link to a very good article up about Strauss:

(snip)

His ideas emerge from his life experience. Strauss fled Nazi Germany for the safety of America in 1937, and blamed not fascism but the Weimar Republic’s liberal democratic ideals for permitting the rise of Nazism. A classicist, he taught the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Hobbes, instructing his students to look for secret “codes” in the texts. Truth, he believed, was the preserve of an elite few who might have to tell “noble lies” – an idea he lifted from Plato – to the uncomprehending masses. Are political entities, asked the charismatic Strauss, “not compelled to use force and fraud . . . if they are to prosper?”

“‘Weapons of mass destruction’ would be a noble lie,” says Shadia Drury, a scholar who has written two books on Strauss, “because you’re convinced this (war on Iraq) is the right thing to do and you are the wise few, the elite, who are leading the stupid masses, and the stupid masses aren’t going to agree to sacrifice their lives for nothing – for the glory of the nation – unless their own survival is at stake.” So you tell them their own survival is at stake.

Strauss believed that democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression, and since most people were naturally self-absorbed and hedonistic, Strauss believed that the only way to transform them was to make them love their nation enough to die for it. Such nationalism requires an external threat – and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured.

While not bound by religion himself, Strauss rather cynically promoted religion as a tool to maintain an acquiescent population. Authority and discipline are key values for Straussians, and the masses need religion to keep them in line. “Marx called religion the opium of the people,” says Drury. “Strauss thought the people needed their opium.”

(snip)

http://www.justicewithpeace.org/index.php?target=issues_neocons

[Finding Rawls]

58. That's laughable

Try reading the man's works, then make a decision.

[thebigidea]

60. and your decision was, what, then? "sign me up for more of that?"

Boy, I'm just so glad we have the likes of Billy Kristol keeping the tradition alive.

[Finding Rawls]

63. Replied to the wrong post?

What does this have to do with the works of Strauss?

[thebigidea]

69. What decision did YOU come to upon reading the works of Strauss?

Who else would I be asking?

Christopher Hitchens?

[Finding Rawls]

70. That he was a brilliant man

who articulated serious concerns about modern political philosophy. I'm by no means a defender of his philosophy, hence Rawls in my title, but those who now claim to be his followers are, in reality, nothing of the sort.

[thebigidea]

71. but wouldn't those that actually studied with him say the same of you?

Why is your interpretation of Strauss the valid one, and not those who actually knew him?

You're going to need to be a bit more specific than "brilliant" and "articulated serious concerns."

That doesn't give a single insight into his work at all - if one of us gave you that line, you'd probably screech: "oh, you've never read his work!"

[Finding Rawls]

73. My grasp of Strauss is far from adequate

The only text that I've studied extensively is Natural Right and History. However, I've read numerous journal articles on Strauss and feel that I can state with a fair degree of certainty that his ideas have been taken to new extremes by others. Honestly, trying to discuss the ideas of a man who believed in the importance of esoteric writing on a message board is unrealistic. Anne Norton wrote "Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire." She is extremely unsympathetic to Strauss and the "Straussians" and I believe that even she concedes that his followers have taken his ideas and used them to advance an agenda that Strauss would not have shared. It's a fairly quick read. A little over 200 pages.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Finding Rawls]

64. Yeah, you're right

the only people that could possibly have an interest in one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century would be neoconservative assholes.

[Tinoire]

55. Lol. "I've heard that tune before" ;) n/t

[bear425]

38. Is Peter Beinart a member of Skull and Bones, too?

Here's an interesting article about PB and George Will.

http://www.usresolve.org/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1104187299&archive=1105053491&start_from=&ucat=31&

edit: add link

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bones.htm

He's not Skull and Bones.

[CWebster]

31. They have adopted the "New Democrat" outlook

which endorses, rather than opposes, the Right far too often.

[ElectroPrincess]

39. I hope WE (progressives) stop the wave ...

Have you noticed a trend toward Lieberman and Colmes lately? Yes, more and more democrats are reassessing and out of a feeling of hopelessness are saying to themselves, "yes, perhaps big brother (repukes and *) is not that bad. Maybe I do love big brother?"

Settle in for a long cold winter of despair and destitution.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Drink it? They're brewing the damned stuff now!

Every time I hear Al Franken advertsing them on AA I want to :puke:. They're indicative of everything that is now WRONG with the "New Democrat" strategy. It's a strategy of convergence with and appeasement to the Republicans, not one of offering forth a viable alternative.

Fuck them.

[imenja]

47. 25 years ago

It hasn't been a leftist magazine for a very long time.

[IndianaGreen]

49. I saw Judith Miller of NY Times wetting her pants in excitement when...

she spoke of the "great election" and Bush's genius. The MSM media acted as a propaganda arm of the White House.

Here is another view:

Iraq elections set stage for deeper crisis of US occupation regime
By Patrick Martin
31 January 2005

The election January 30 in Iraq marks a further intensification of the contradictions confronting American imperialism, both in Iraq and at home. It will neither resolve the crisis of the American stooge regime in Baghdad, hated and despised by the vast majority of the Iraqi people, nor legitimize the US occupation in the eyes of the world and among large sections of the American public.

George W. Bush emerged from the White House briefly to make a triumphal statement hailing the vote. The US media carried wall-to-wall, gushing coverage all day Sunday. But even the combined propaganda powers of the US government and the corporate-controlled media machine cannot transform an election held at gunpoint and under military occupation into a genuinely democratic event.

Initial reports on voter turnout were driven by the political imperative to put the best possible face on the election and influence public opinion in the United States, which is increasingly turning against the war. The turnout figure began at 90 percent plus—numbers reported, naturally enough, on Fox News. Then an Iraqi election official put the figure at 72 percent nationwide. This was subsequently lowered to 60 percent nationwide, then to 60 percent “in some areas.”

The compliant US media dutifully swallowed all these numbers in succession, never challenging their accuracy or questioning how each figure could be so quickly supplanted by a lower one as the day wore on.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/iraq-j31.shtml

[Crunchy Frog]

50. I only know that several years ago

my mom got me a subscription to it and I finally had to ask her to cancel it because I felt that it had a very right wing tone.

This was some time ago, but it looks like its overall tone hasn't changed much since then.

[HootieMcBoob]

53. You mean The "New Republican" n/t

[JoshK]

59. A TNR writer recently called for violence against Stan Goff &

Arundhati Roy. See the details at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin01312005.html