I think Strauss is overrated as a neoconservative influence (especially by Shaida Drury, who really, really, really doesn’t like him). Sure, some of the neoconservatives studied under Strauss (like Wolfowitz) or were influenced by him or his students, and a lot of neocons (and conservatives in general) agreed with Bloom’s depiction of the modern university in “The Closing of the American Mind” as moral relativist and flawed, but there’s a big step from that to saying that Straussian philosophy was instrumental in the neo-conservative movement. As far as I know, neither Irving Kristol nor Norman Podhoretz were influenced by Strauss at all (in spite of what you’ve quoted).
I’m saying that the lies about Iraq weren’t “noble lies”, as Strauss defined them. A “noble lie” is an underlying myth in a society, seen as objectively true, that forms the basis of the society and gives the society meaning. “All men are created equal”, “The king rules by the will of God”, and “All political power is and should be held by the workers” are noble lies. They’re fundimental statements that are taken as unquestionable dogma by the societies in which they’re believed. “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” is just a lie thought up by an administration to advance a specific foreign policy goal. It can, and has been challenged and discredited without impacting the fundamental nature of American society.
I don’t like it much, but can’t see how it would be legally forbidden. Can’t rationally disagree with refusing to hire a Nazi but I recognize that its not strictly cricket. Besides, how could you prove a mind set? One might inquire about political acitivity as a means to determine the candidates sincere involvement with public life. Unless someone actually wrote down “Democrat - Do Not Use This Brain”, a bald faced lie and batting the big browns will skate.
Of course, as an example of towering chutzpah, its a chestnut.
I just want to say one thing about entry level hiring into the federal government. About 99% of us are hired through a specific program-I know DOJ names theirs a little differently but most of the other agencies call it the LHI (Legal Honors Intern…I hated that name but what can you do).
Each agency specifically lays out the admissions standards to the program in their recruiting booklet every year. You have to meet certain standards or you are almost always an automatic reject-sometimes very taxing GPA requirements. Some agencies are harder than others-the one I worked for required a cum laude level GPA. My memory of DOJ is that it is notoriously hard-esp. Antitrust, which is a very coveted program. All the LHI positions are reasonably coveted because unlike many other jobs for the Feds, attorneys who are hired through the honors program go straight to a reasonably high grade/decent salary (GS-11) and make GS-13 within 2 years. I mean, not decent as compared to a private firm, but you can eat.
I am not going to comment on whether or not they’re LEGALLY allowed to judge us by our political backgrounds (it sure as hell isn’t in my brochure). When I met my “class” (i.e., all the entry-level attorneys hired the same year as me), I did notice that all of us had significant experience in “liberal” causes (though many of us went on to work in financial transactions) because that’s what my agency is known for.
What bugs the hell out of me is if they’re admitting Regent grads who do NOT make the GPA cut and academic standards cut to their Honors program and passing over those of us who did have the gpas to qualify. In my opinion, it tarnishes the validity of the entry-level Honors program, the justication for paying us more than people with ph.ds even, and it infuriates me that people who were better qualified might have been passed over because they weren’t from the proper political party. And REGENT? How hard is it to find a qualified conservative? There are more than enough with good grades from decent schools.
Typical left-wing prejudicial bullshit. Ostracizing and denouncing a person based simply on their choice of alma mater and law school. Despicable really, you all should be ashamed of yourself.
I was driving around in central Florida a month ago and accidentally tuned my radio to a Christian conservative radio station during its “news” hour. One topic was the make-up of the people involved in the attorney-firing scandal. The reporter mentioned the fact that many are evangelicals and “people of faith”, and basically implied that Christians should pray for these folks during these trying times.
I hope these folks also pray for we the people of the United States.
The founding fathers had it right, it all got screwed up by the Patriaot act and amendments that let the Pres stack the deck without congressional oversight. Bring back the balance of the three branches, Right now two are packed. I don;t remember the source, and do not take credit for it, but “Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is not a democracy.”
While not particularly pleased with many decisions or actions of certain Republicans lately, I do not personally regard the answer as being the Democratic Party. Sadly, that ship has sailed - it is so far gone that, to my mind, its political program is well nigh unredeemable, and exists solely as a collection of special interests and automatic opposition to any Republican initiative, worthy or not.
The choice left to me is working within my party to make it a better one, both by ensuring that good candidates win in our primary and general elections and by helping to make the party’s advanced programs good ones - sound policies that the public will support and that will strengthen the country.
I notice lots of Democrats remained so after not only a Carter administration that was a domestic and foreign policy failure, but also a disastrous 49 state presidential electoral loss. Would you have abandoned the party at that point, or would you have worked to make it a better one that was more responsive to the electorate?
I’m pretty intelligent, and I’m a current Republican. I am not blind to my party’s faults at all, I’m merely resigned to the fact that to me it is the only option I have to work with, given the worse nature of the other one.
I think you’ve misread the statement, which was that many Democrats stayed after a disastrous Carter administration and still stayed after the 49 state loss by Mondale.
I regard that as absurd, but I’ve responded in this new GD thread if you care to join me.
The question I’d ask you is, just how bad does your party have to be, before it’s irredeemable? The fact remains that the vast majority of elected Republicans stand foursquare behind almost everything wrong that this Administration has done. And that’s not likely to change. Those Congresscritters are elected because their constituents are of a similar mind.
Big difference. Carter was basically good but inept. He was not indicative of a corrupt party serving big business and religious yahoos, and amassing power for itself at the expense of the people, rather than trying to serve the American people.
That’s the part I don’t grok. Given today’s GOP, how can you say any non-extremal examples are worse?
Well, Regent University Law School has had a publicly stated purpose of training people to become involved in government, and to carry their particular stance on what Christian ethics entails into what they do on the job. The school has been accredited for ten years, in existence for 20, and drew heavily from Oral Roberts University’s Law School when that institution closed down (library and some faculty transitioned from ORU to RU).
Mel White warned that this was precisely what Pat Robertson’s long-range plan was, and that it was based in R.J. Rushdoony’s “Christian Reconstructionism” aimed at making America theocratic, in his 1994 autobiography Stranger at the Gate, based on his own time working with and for Robertson, Falwell, and others in the Religious Right. Nobody listened then, and it’s passed off as lunatic-fringe view today.
(Not to mention Heinlein extrapolating trends for 40 years, starting in 1940, to say essentially the same thing.)
Now that I’ve had my Cassandra moment for this quadrennium, I’ll wait another five years and watch things culminate.