|
Edited on Sun Jul-31-05 08:09 AM by tmorelli415
I don't believe that those in our party who in the past told us we should not act were trying to mislead us. They were mislead themselves.
The only way to stop them is to play by the same rules as they do.
***
The neo-conservative political ideology (Straussism)
The founder of the neoconservative movement was a man by the name of Leo Straus (also spelled Strauss or Strausse by some), he was a staunch, harsh political philosopher who believed Liberalism planted the "seeds of decay" into society because of the lack of morals and spiritual direction etc: here is a bit of info about him and his beliefs that he has since passed on to his neo-conservative students (including Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc)
Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
Straus was born and educated in Germany, relocated to the UK in 1934, then emigrated to the U.S. in 1937. After lecturing for several years at the New School for Social Research in New York, in 1948 he accepted a post at the University of Chicago, where he spent most of the rest of his career.
A charismatic teacher, he attracted a coterie of brilliant students, many of whom became prominent neoconservative thinkers and polemicists. A sizable number of Strauss devotees have served in Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing through Bushes I and II. For example, Abram Shulsky worked for the Office of Special Plans, currently under fire for cherry-picking intelligence during the buildup to the Iraq war, and maybe the name Paul Wolfowitz rings a bell?
Straus's best-known protege is probably Allan Bloom, author of a best-selling critique of U.S. higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (1987).
Straus also took a bizzare interest in ancient estrotic texts.
His philosophy can be summed up in 3 major principles:
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Straus is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Straus have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Straus believed that societies should be hierarchical; divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow.
But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Straus believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right; the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Straus analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Straus thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Straus and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Straus had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Straus viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Straus believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united; and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Straus' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Straus thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Strausians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars, not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power.
Straus' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny," as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983, that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a "myopic national security."
As to what a Strausian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his, and student Allen Bloom's, many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
Frightening isn't it? This, my friend, is what we are up against. True evil... It is not about God. The Fundies have been had. Let's just pray God does exist because we'll need a little help from Him before this is over.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
