Does anyone actually believe the people winning elections are the ones giving up on democracy.
Bush won under our rules. I’d be absolutely shocked if he really thought the system of American democracy was badly screwed up. Winners tend to like the rules. They dismiss the grumblings of the losers. In the next few years, a Democrat will win then the Republicans can take on the role of denouncing the imperial presidency and his / her disdain for democracy.
Yes it is. http://www.lacosapizza.com/shorris.html
Someone has to do it.
To be fair, a “Bonapartist” or “presidentialist” state is not incompatible with democracy in principle (so long as the executive is, in fact, freely and fairly elected). Just ask Andrew Jackson.
Leo Strauss is not the “founder of neo-conservatism.”
Lew Rockwell is not a remotely reliable authority on Leo Strauss.
I also find this “people are unfit” comment very funny. There’s a thread on this board right now about how Bush won the 2004 election, and in it people bemoan the fact that voters were too stupid to disregard Bush’s distracting tactics about gay marriage and terrorists and see him for the fool he is.
Which is it? Are the people to be trusted to vote, or not? Or are the people only to be trusted when they vote Democratic, because that’s obviously in their best interests, and not when they vote Republican, because as any idiot can see, that’s a poor choice?
Or whether
Strauss’s theory of the “noble lie” isn’t how it’s portrayed in that article. It doesn’t give the executive the right to lie about whatever he wants. For Strauss, drawing from Plato’s Republic, every society/government is based on fundamental unquestionable tenets…things like, “All men are endowed by God with human rights” or “The workers control the means of production and the state serves the worker”, or “God has given us this land” or “The Pharoah is a god”. None of these statements are true…they’re all lies, and the philosopher knows they’re lies. But they’re “noble lies”, because it’s neccesary that the people of the society believe in them, or else the society would fall apart.
From Plato’s “Republic”, book III
Sure, free and fair elections do not necessarily a good soceity make. But they’re a real help.
Never said they weren’t. But without those other things I mentioned, it is just giving the people the chance to pick their particular slavemaster.
Again, Iran is a great illustration of this. They have fiercely contested elections, and yet their population does not live in anything resembling a stable liberal society.
It’s a great illustration of how elections alone are more or less meaningless. Iran’s elections can hardly be termed free and fair when it is the religious beauracracy that decides who may run in those elections. Hell, the U.S.S.R. had elections.
Here’s a piece by Karen Kwatkiowski detailing exactly how the neocons led the US to war through the influence in the Bush Admin. You’ll have to watch a brief commercial to read it (it’s on Salon) but it’s VERY thorough and VERY persuasive.
Bangs head against desk
EC, it’s fairly obvious the Neconservatives (who aren’t) were one of the major voices in favor of going to war. This has nothing to do with your total lack of understanding of their political philosophy. Thy happen to have some influence and are composed of pretty convincing people. They know about Strauss, no doubt, but it’s not a major part of their philosophy.
You know, the OP makes a fine description of Tony Blair’s Labour party.
(I will be using the term “you” in a generic sense here, meaning “all conservatives and Republicans” and not referring directly to Uncle Beer.)
Look, I understand that you guys want to drop the neocons like the skunks they are now that the war in Iraq is showing all signs of going belly-up in terms of positive results for the US. But back in the early days of the Bush Admin., you were all lovey-dovey with them. You were rubbing noses together and making kissy-face, yes you were. And given that you were such vociferous supporters of the Bush Admin. under the neocon agenda, you will just have to forgive us if we continue to put some (meaning a very large) measure of responsibility on you for their actions. To lump you in with them, in fact. And if you don’t like it, well you know what you can do.
Ok, so Leo Strauss didn’t actually found the neocon movement in the sense of writing a charter or anything, but he’s widely acknowledged to be the source of most neocon ideas. This is just nitpicking.
Change “Federalist” to “yeast”, “John Adams” to “baker” “FDR” to “baking soda” and this could be about baking bread.
I don’t see how you can be all that pro-democracy when you believe in lying to the public and government by a cabal of “knowledgeable” people. Maybe these principles are democratic to you. Not to me.
Only Wolfowitz studied under Strauss, but that doesn’t mean he’s the only member of the White House who has been influenced by Strauss’ ideas. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Doug Feith and many others have all been cited in the press as being heavily influenced by neocon ideas.
If you don’t think Strauss had anything to do with neoconservatism, that’s your privilege. But your ideas are, to put it delicately, kind of isolated.
Adopting neocon ideas doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t think. It just means you have some bad ideas stuck in your head.
See my response to Uncle Beer.
Ah, the old ad hominem. When come back bring argument that’s not so … flabby.