Whose flag? AlterNet Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception By Jim Lobe, AlterNet Posted on May 19, 2003, Printed on November 9, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war? A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect. The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq. Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973. Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger. Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men – as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception." Rule One: Deception It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss 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, Strauss 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 Strauss 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, Strauss 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 Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999). Second Principle: Power of Religion According to Drury, Strauss 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 Strauss 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, Strauss 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, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss 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 (emphases added)." "Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians 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. Strauss' 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 Straussian 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. Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com. © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/ <end Peace, Doc On Nov 9, 8:20 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.ejectejecteject.com/ > > A FLAG, ON A HILL > > As Civil War battles went, it was a small and insignificant affair. > But in terms of story – and especially, in terms of lessons – it’s one > of my favorites. > > The war had not yet fully turned in October of 1864. And even though > Stonewall Jackson had been dead for well over a year – killed by > mistake by his own men at the Battle of Chancellorsville -- the > Shenandoah Valley still belonged if not to Jackson then to Jackson’s > ghost, for it was there that he and his “foot cavalry” had won their > eternal place in Valhalla. Jackson’s tactical brilliance and the > endless series of Union routs still hung like clouds of gunpowder in > the valleys and hollows of the Shenandoah. > > And so it came a no surprise to either the Union or the Confederate > soldiers on the banks of Cedar Creek to see, once again, a blue rout – > men throwing down rifles and knapsacks and running for their lives, > dodging perhaps the few hissing musket balls fired at their backs but > completely unable to escape the jeering and the insults and that high, > horrible Rebel yell, as that pack of feral wolves descended on their > camps, drank their coffee, ate their rations and sat going through > their personal effects, admiring photos and reading letters from their > sweethearts. Not a loss, but a rout. Another rout. The latest in an > ongoing series of routs without end, or so it must have seemed. > > The Union general was a young man, new to his command, and who in > point of fact had been back in Washington during the defeat. But as he > rode toward the sound of the guns that morning, curiosity turned to > apprehension, and apprehension to something worse, as he crossed Mill > Creek and came upon a low hill, to see before him “the appalling > spectacle of a panic-stricken Army.” > > Phillip Sheridan was his name, described by Shelby Foote as a man with > the face of a Mongol Warlord and a hair so short and dense it made his > head look like a bullet with a coat of black paint. > > Sheridan’s first instinct was to form a straggler line and prepare for > the final Rebel assault. But the Rebels were too busy celebrating. And > after he caught his breath, Little Phil noticed something surprising: > not a broken and routed army, fleeing for their lives, but small > groups of men boiling fresh coffee, speaking to one another calmly and > cheering him as he rode by. > > One of his aides described him at that moment: “As he galloped on, his > features grew gradually set, as those carved in stone, and the same > dull red glint I had seen in his piercing eyes when, on other > occasions, the battle was going against us, was there now.” > > You bet it was. > > The closer Sheridan came to the battle, the more cheerful and animated > his defeated men became. Encountering a small group of them, Little > Phil would stand in the saddle, and give a jaunty salute – as if to > congratulate them on a great victory, rather than another humiliating > defeat. > > The result was electric, if not universal. Amid the cheering, one > infantry colonel – whose descendents perhaps would go on to become > campaign advisors – stood in Sheridan’s path and begged him not to go > on. > > “The army’s whipped!” he cried. > > “You are, but the army isn’t,” growled Sheridan, who then put the > spurs to a horse who’s back was taller than he was and rode to the > scene of the disaster, shouting, “About face, boys! We are going back > to our camps! We are going to lick them out of their boots!” > > His men were not beaten. They just needed leadership. > > “We are going to get a twist on those fellows, men!” he shouted, > pounding down the pike. “We are going to lick them out of their > boots!” > > And that’s what he did, too. He and his routed army went back to that > field and licked those Rebels right out of their boots. > > “Run!” he shouted, standing in the stirrups. “Go after them! We’ve got > the God-damnedest twist on them you ever saw!” > > Battles don’t always go that way. But sometimes they do. It depends on > whether the individual soldier still has any fight in him. > > It has been a source of delight for me these past few days to see > nothing but evidence of this, all across our defeated lines. Nowhere > have I heard a shred of defeatism or despair. On the contrary. In > point of fact, the magnanimity and graciousness I have seen in defeat > in so many places on the right tells me that this is a eager and > seasoned army, one able to look defeat in the face and own up to the > errors in tactics and strategy that got us there. And nowhere do I see > a call to abandon our core principles and sue for terms, but rather > that our loss was caused precisely by our abandonment of the issues we > which hold dear and which have served us so well on battlefields > past. > > So consider this, my fellows in arms: > > On Tuesday, the Left – armed with the most attractive, eloquent, > young, hip and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a > candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a > shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically > unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the > time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose > praises were sung by every movie, television and musical icon without > pause or challenge for 20 months… who ran against the oldest nominee > in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal > disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack > could have succeeded and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one > in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his > opponent – that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity… > > Yielded a result of 53% > > Folks, we are going to lick these people out of their boots. > > There is much to do. That a man with such overt Marxist ideas and such > a history of association with virulent anti-Americans can be elected > President should make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we > have let fall the moral tone of this Republic. The great lesson from > Ronald Reagan was simply that we can and must gently educate as well > as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles on our faces and real > joy in our hearts, for unlike the far-left radical who gained the > Presidency on Tuesday, we start with 150 million of the most free and > intelligent and hard-working people in the history of the Earth at our > backs, with a philosophy that -- unlike theirs, which has resulted in > 100 million dead in unmarked graves -- has liberated and enriched more > people and created more joy than any nation or combination of nations > in our history. > > How can we lose this greater fight, my friends? How can we lose, > unless we give up? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
