And, again, I must reiterate that it is not America I am biased against, but Straussian neoconservatism.
That you are trying to paint me as an enemy of America is, as you might say, “telling”.
Can we stop propogating this silly meme? It’s like saying: Well, Boston might have won the most games in the playoffs, but NY got the most total runs. It simply doesn’t matter, because that’s not how we keep score.
Candidates for president campaign to win an electoral majority, not a popular majority. If the rules were different, the results would probably be different, too. There is no way of knowing what those results would be.
Regarding the conspiracy theory angle:
Lets review what we’ve learned about these dreaded Neocons during the first page of the thread:
From the OP:
[ul]
[li]The Neocons led us into Iraq as a ploy to win the 2004 election.[/li][li]The Neocon view is based on a philosophy of a Leo Strauss, a former teacher of some of them. 50 years ago. *[/li][li]They screeched about how the Soviet Union secretly coordinated terrorist organisations worldwide, only to be informed that this was propaganda that the CIA had made up from whole cloth in the first place. *[/li][li]They opposed a thaw in the cold war, since they saw the power of government as dependent on an external threat.[/li][li]Negotiation, diplomacy and détente are dirty words to them.[/li][li]Gorbachev wanted to create an Afghan democracy, which they opposed.[/li][li]They hold fundamentalist christianity in contempt. *[/li][li]Neocons are dishonest.[/li][li]Neocons are blatantly elitist.[/li][li]The only Achilles heel of the Neocons is democracy itself.=[/li][li]The Neocons are psycopaths.[/li][/ul]
- Since retracted by the OP.
[ul]
[li]Clinton became the next home-spun bogey-man to focus the fear and hate towards. Always a focus, always an enemy; always evil to confront, real or imagined. - Post 2.[/li][li]The heart of the Neocon lie is that it’s about evil vs good. - Post 19[/li][li]The black and white agenda of leaders who wish nothing more than to fool the people into following their cries and living with their manufactured fears. - Post 19[/li][li]People consent to be manipulated by the Neocons or grow to accept the lies of the Neocons. - Post 19[/li][li]The Neocons use religion as a societally binding myth. - Post 21[/li][li]The enemy of Neoconservatism is reality. - Post 31[/li][li]Strauss’s thesis is that all great philosophical texts contain “hidden meanings.” - Post 34[/li][li]Philosophers and intellectuals cannot and should not write clearly enough say what they really mean – cannot because it is too dangerous. - Post 31[/li][li]The neocons are nationalist fanatics. - Post 45[/li][li]They are an enemy of liberty, except for a wealthy minority. - Post 45[/li][li]Neocons always are arrogant, self-rationalizing, greedy pigs. - Post 45[/li][/ul]
Listening to liberals talk about Neocons is just like listening to stormfronters talk about the ZOG. It’s a wild conspiracy. It doesn’t have to make sense. The less sense it makes, the more they believe it. Holes in the logic of the conspiracy are explained away by the evil manipulative power of those in it.
It my opinion, based on reading your posts. It is quite impossible to prove factually.
How can it be a conspiracy if I, the one who wrote the OP, explicitly state that it is not a conspiracy?
I remind you of Stormfront, you remind me of Creationists talking transitional forms, tomato tomahto. I see little point in arguing semantics with one who mischaracterises me so, how shall I put it, neoconservatively.
Actually, Debaser, since it occurs to me that I will never convince you that certain elements of the US administration of the last 30 years have pursued a Straussian agenda no matter how many ‘transitional forms’ I present you with, can we at least agree that Strauss’s philosophy is elitist, dishonest and requires a perceived threat?
I don’t know that I’d neccesarily agree with that (although there are people who know Straussian thought better than I do). It’s “dishonest”, but not in the sense you’re implying. It’s dishonest, according to Strauss, because in order for a society to exist, the population needs to believe that the law is just and “in accord with nature”. But, law is a human invention, created by compromise, and fundamentally pragmatic. So, it can’t be just or natural. (This, by the way, is why philosophers are subversive, because they look for what is True, and end up challenging the neccesary assumptions the City makes)
I don’t know that I would call it elitist or requiring a perceived threat, though, although Shadia Drury thinks that.
Why don’t you put the ‘transitional forms’ down (whatever they are) and present me with some facts supported by cites. You know, like in a debate!
So a group of people called “neoconservatives” have taken control of the country. (Although they don’t actaully admit to being neoconservatives, just those on the far left do.) These neocons have taken up the ideology of Leo Strauss. (Again, they don’t admit this and there is no proof of it, at least none offered by the OP.) The neocons led us into a war with Iraq in order for Bush to win reelection in 2004. (No proof of this, though.) They have a philosophy that in order to have power the government must have external enemies, even if they aren’t real. (Again, no proof offered.)
Nope. No crazy conspiracy here!
Debaser, I think you misunderstand what forum this is. A thesis, in a debate, is a proposition - a contention - it cannot be factually proven. It is an explanation set forth in view of interesting or puzzling facts, but not a fact in itself.
In the first lines of my OP I said that “I simply cannot believe what America has become”. The fact which I find so overwhelmingly puzzling is that, somehow, people believe things which are simply not true which they didn’t believe until recently, for example:[ul][li]72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD or a major program for developing them, even after Duelfer’s report.[/li][li]75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.[/li][li]only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq.[/li][li]Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues - the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%) - and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty.[/ul]How is this the case? People do not simply start believing demonstrably false things randomly: there must be some explanation. (Incidentally, what’s yours?)[/li]
In exploring the possible source of these myths, we must surely look to government. We might look for other instances of similar myths regarding terrorism and external threats: in my OP I proposed examples such as Team B and the nonexistent non-acoustic submarine detection system, or the appeal to evidence which the CIA had made up in the first place linking the Soviets to global terrorism. These examples prove precisely nothing, just as single fossils do not themselves “prove” evolution - I merely drew attention to their similarity to the false statements in the list above.
And so, we ask, is there any particular philosophy which might influence the spreading of such puzzling and demonstrably false beliefs? For all the controversial or debatable premises inherent in libertarian, social democratic, classical liberal or traditional (“paleo”) conservative philosophy, none of them even come close to accepting outright the idea that the political elite might use plain old lies to further their ideology. The only place I have seen such a contention is in the (necessarily abridged) philosophy of Leo Strauss, although I would of course be interested if you knew of another popular political philosopher who appeals to such 2400 year old dogma.
And so, finally, we ask whether it is reasonable to associate Straussian philosophy with any political movement, or any particular elements of the US administration. Self identifying neoconservatives such as Irving Kristol and our own Captain Amazing state explicitly that Strauss is an important influence on neoconservatism, and many of his students, or students of his students (the most important being Strauss’s 1972 PhD student Paul Wolfowitz) occupy important positions in government according to another self-identifying neoconservative, Robert Locke.
It may be that, from Strauss via the neocons to Bush, the advocacy of the “noble lie” becomes so dilute that it is not the most significant factor in why people believe weird things and Bush’s 2004 victory. It may be that neoconservatism does not need an enemy to the extent that I am suggesting here. All of this I propose in an attempt to explain today’s America, where so many people hold to such demonstrably false beliefs that not even overseeing 3000 deaths at the hands of a CIA trained terrorist, or losing a truth-telling contest with Saddam Hussein, harmed George W Bush enough to lose the 2004 election. This is not a conspiracy - it is merely a possible explanation. If you think it “crazy”, I can only shrug and say “Fair enough. What is your explanation for that list of widespread, factually incorrect beliefs?” so that we may compare and contrast.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a low and such a high in the same debate thread at once. Not only did Sentient conceive an excellent topic for debate, but he laid out his thesis with eloquence and clarity. Yet he finds himself having to invest the first two pages in educating Debaser on such elementary matters as what propositions are and what a debate is. If Debaser’s ignorance is mere mimicry, then it’s gone on long enough — the joke is past stale. On the other hand, not much is more unseemly than crashing a debate whose concept one does understand for the sole purpose of derailing it by the pretense of befuddlement.
Regarding the topic, I’m reminded of an episode of West Wing. The Republican Congress had appointed a special prosecutor, a Democrat, to investigate the president’s MS-gate. As the investigation unfolded, opinion polls for the president were dropping like lead anchors. CJ asked Republican White House staffer, Ainsley Hayes, what Republicans thought about the Democratic prosecutor. “He’s percevied as fair,” she told CJ. “He’s trusted and well liked. He’s very well respected, and has no enemies that I know of.”
CJ pondered a moment, and headed out the door.
“Where’re you going?” Toby called out to her.
“To see Leo,” she answered. “We need a different enemy.”
Just pointing out that a large amount of IRA and other paramilitary weapons used here either came from, or were financed by, people in the USA.
cite
http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/arms.html
Actually, I will broaden the discussion to ask everyone (but especially those of a neoconservative philosophy):
What is the explanation for why so many Americans believe those demonstrably erroneous statements in the PIPA list above?
Now that my history lesson has come true (determinism in motion!), can it reasonably be said that had people not believed in those demonstrably false statements, neoconservatism would have been rejected?
I wish I could answer this factually because I can only answer it anecdotally by using my father. My father tends to hear what he wants to hear and believe only what he wants to believe. He’ll hear a breaking news story about something and totally miss later reports explaining or correcting the first report. When we’re talking later, that incident may come up and he will not accept that the first report is not the whole story… as long as it supports his beliefs.
My father is a man who is a registered Democrat but always votes a straight Republican ticket.