SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 4:28:36 AM
From: Thomas M.  Respond to of 769670
 
Wolfie:

<<< In 1992, during his waning days as undersecretary of defense in George H.W. Bush's administration, Wolfowitz penned a secret memo that earnestly depicted the Russia of Boris Yeltsin as the direst threat to American national security and further called for war between the Russians and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the former tried to menace the newly liberated Baltic nations. >>>

prospect.org



To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 9:22:11 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I have hardly read so much complete and utter crap in one post. La Rouche and his minions lie like dogs. Strauss favored democracy, Kojeve favored democracy, Bloom favored democracy, their followers favor democracy. This is all ghastly pseudo- history, which is characteristic of La Rouche publications........



To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 9:34:05 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769670
 
LaRouchites

The LaRouchites believe the world is controlled by a sinister global conspiracy of evil-doers. LaRouche traces this conspiracy back to the Babylonian goddess society, and says the historical battle between good and evil is exemplified in the philosophical division between Platonic order and Aristotelian chaos. The Aristotelian conspirators are diverse: the Queen of England (" a dope pusher" ), George Bernard Shaw, Jimmy Carter (" a hundred times worse than Hitler" ), Playboy magazine, Milton Friedman, Fidel Castro, Jesuits, Masons and the AFL-CIO. A remarkable number of the sinister conspirators turn out to be Jewish.

The LaRouchites have supported foreign dictatorships such as the Marcos regime in the Philippines and the Noriega regime in Panama. LaRouche has written that history would not judge harshly those who beat homosexuals to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS.

In the early 1970's, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. took his followers from the political left and guided them into fascist politics. LaRouche's cadre roamed the streets of New York, Philadelphia, and other cities with clubs and chains beating up trade union leaders, activists, socialists, and communists. At the time they still proclaimed themselves leftists, but the mainstream left shunned the LaRouchians. Then LaRouche began to adopt some of the economic theories of early national socialism. He thought that to make the revolution, there had to be a strong working class, and a strong working class, he figured, required full-employment. Full employment, he reasoned, would best be accomplished by developing a strong, modernized industrial base in the United States. LaRouche then concluded that development of a strong industrial sector was being hampered by the high interest rates demanded by the main sectors of finance capital in the U.S. and overseas.

LaRouche launched an unsuccessful 1976 Presidential bid when he paid cash for an hour of network television air time to warn the nation of a Soviet/Rockefeller/British plot to destroy the world using Jimmy Carter as a puppet. LaRouche's attack on the centers of finance capital during his presidential campaign drew applause from parts of the American political far right, including those forces that equated finance capital with Jewish banking families.

LaRouche's shift toward a Jewish conspiracy theory of history came shortly after the ultra-right Liberty Lobby began praising a 1976 USLP pamphlet titled "Carter and the International Party of Terrorism." The pamphlet outlined the "Rockefeller-CIA-Carter axis," which was supposedly trying to "deindustrialize" the U.S. and provoke a war with the Soviet Union by 1978. (At this point LaRouche had not yet discarded his support for the Soviet Union, nor announced his support for "Star Wars" defense against his perceived threat of imminent Soviet attack.)

In an overall favorable review of the USLP treatise on the Rockefeller-led global conspiracy, Liberty Lobby's newspaper, Spotlight, complained that the report failed to mention any of the "major Zionist groups such as the notorious Anti-Defamation League" in its extensive list of government agencies, research groups, organizations and individuals controlled by the "Rockefeller-Carter-CIA" terrorism apparatus. LaRouche never was one to miss a cue, and soon his newspaper New Solidarity was running articles with bigoted views of Jews and Jewish institutions. The shift regarding who controlled the worldwide conspiracy came at an opportune time, since Nelson Rockefeller's untimely death had left a major hole in LaRouche's theoretical bulwark.

While often hidden or coded, sometimes the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the LaRouchians stands out clearly. In the December 12, 1990 issue of New Solidarity, a letter to the editor asks why the newspaper "scarcely mention[s] the Warburg and Rothschild families, the most important International Bankers. Is it because they are of Jewish ancestry?" Editor Nancy Spannaus responds:

We do attack the Warburgs and the Rothschilds for the evil they do and did. But they are not the highest level of the international financial oligarchy. That requires looking at the Thurn und Taxis family, the British Royal Family, and so forth. These guys love to use the so-called Jews as their front men.

According to LaRouche, one and a half million Jews, not many millions, perished during the Holocaust, and they died from overwork, disease, and starvation in work camps rather than from a planned program of extermination. This denial of the Holocaust is coupled with pronouncements in LaRouchian publications such as these:

The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolph Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. (1978)

America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry and labor. (1978)

We shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of `democracy.' (c. 1980)

Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of international Jewry. (1978)

Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. in short, a self-sustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim. (1973)

Sexism and homophobia are central themes of the organization's conspiracy theories. LaRouche announced that women's feelings of degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical placement of sexual organs near the anus which caused them to confuse sex with excretion. A September 1973 editorial in the NCLC ideological journal Campaigner charged that "Concretely, all across the U.S.A., there are workers who are prepared to fight. They are held back, most immediately, by pressure from their wives...."

LaRouche has propounded ideas which represent outright racism. LaRouche, for instance, targeted the Hispanic community in a November 1973 essay (published in both English and Spanish) titled "The Male Impotence of the Puerto-Rican Socialist Party." An internal memo by LaRouche asked "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" He described the majority of the Chinese people as "approximating the lower animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid personality....a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities."

publiceye.org



To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 9:42:44 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
What Hath Strauss Wrought?
From the June 2, 2003 issue: Misreading a political philosopher.
by Peter Berkowitz
06/02/2003, Volume 008, Issue 37

THE NEW YORK TIMES, the New Yorker, and the Boston Globe, among others, have sounded the alarm: The Bush administration, particularly its foreign policy team, is in the grip of a coterie of neoconservative intellectuals who are themselves in the grip of the antidemocratic and illiberal teachings of Leo Strauss, a political philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago in the '50s and '60s and who died in 1973.

On its face, this scenario is wildly implausible. It supposes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice, non-Straussians by all accounts, are stooges and dupes. It insinuates that neoconservative intellectuals--Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is at the top of everybody's list--have craftily ascended to positions of power in the federal government from which they aim to implement Strauss's teachings. And it invests Strauss, a student of political philosophy whose life's work consisted in writing learnedly about thinkers from Plato to Heidegger, and sharing his discoveries with students, with almost superhuman powers: Through the force of his ideas, we are told, this scholar and teacher is able, a generation and a half after his death, to command the respect and loyalty--and indeed, to compel the actions--of highly successful and well-placed individuals not only in politics but in the media and the academy.

Despite its wild implausibility, the scenario is in one important respect true. And that has to do with the influence of Leo Strauss on a generation of neoconservative thinkers, some of whom are active in our politics (and some of whom can even be found writing in these pages).

Judging from the recent hubbub, which restates an accusation that has gained much currency in the academy, that influence is nefarious. Strauss is said to be an elitist who scorned democracy. He is attacked as an atheist who encouraged his students to see through the falseness of religion, while manipulating it to discipline and mollify the masses. And the realization of his ideas, we are warned, requires his followers to establish by force of arms a foreign empire for America.

These accusations, similar versions of which are often leveled at neoconservatives, are nonsense, and in parts vicious nonsense. Yet the ideas that the accusations pervert are those of Strauss, and when those ideas are restored to their true shape they can be seen as articulating core neoconservative convictions.

Strauss was not an elitist--but he was a lover of excellence. He believed in the cultivation of the mind, and sought to restore respect for its manifestation in the ambition for honor and nobility in the soul, which he understood to be not only compatible with but essential to democracy. On the occasion of Winston Churchill's death, he told his class that "We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty, than to remind ourselves and our students, of political greatness, human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence." Strauss also shared Churchill's famous praise of democracy as the worst regime except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Although he regarded modern democracy as flawed, it is, Strauss suggested, the form of government best suited to the protection and enjoyment of human liberty, and therefore should be defended wholeheartedly.

Strauss may have been a religious doubter, but he showed time and again that the question of the truth of religion seemed to have been left unsettled by the greatest figures in the history of political philosophy, and that therefore religious teachings, which concern man's highest and deepest longings, must be studied with care and an open mind. He loved the Hebrew Bible and sought to show that it was rich in wisdom about the human condition. He saw that religion could be either salutary or destructive, depending on the circumstances and the religious teaching in question. And he certainly believed that in our day religion could play a positive role in counteracting the tendency of liberal democracy to indiscriminately break down custom and convention.

Finally, Strauss was not a proponent of American empire--but he did teach the importance of American strength in defense of liberty. Writing in the midst of the Cold War, as a refugee from Nazi Germany and as a student of tyranny, Strauss insisted that totalitarians of the left and the right posed a profound threat to liberal democracy--a threat that liberal democrats tended to underestimate because of their habit of supposing that all individuals and nations are as open to reason and persuasion as liberal democrats consider themselves to be. Strauss encouraged liberal democracies to be strong in defending themselves and forceful in conducting a foreign policy in accord with their principles.

Strauss was no ordinary liberal democrat, but he was a staunch friend of liberal democracy. The urgency of defending liberal democracy by encouraging its virtues, combating its vices, and never losing sight of its enemies is the great political lesson that those of his students who became neoconservatives embraced. To be sure, Strauss seemed to prefer the classical Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle to modern political philosophy. He was a proud Jew and took the claims of religion with utmost seriousness while keeping his distance from organized religion. He dwelled at length on liberal democracy's undemocratic and illiberal tendencies, in part because he loved the truth and in part because he was devoted to America's well-being. He was the kind of friend who makes one better by constantly exhibiting, through example and argument, the look of excellence. Not always an easy sort of friend, but the sort of friend, you would think, whom true liberals in every time and place would appreciate.

Peter Berkowitz teaches at George Mason University School of Law and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

weeklystandard.com



To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 9:51:50 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769670
 
History's pallbearer

Before he published his famous essay The End of History, he was a policy adviser to Ronald Reagan. Though described as global capitalism's court philosopher, his ideas have a humanitarian underpinning. Now he has turned his attention to the implications of biotechnology. Nicholas Wroe reports

Saturday May 11, 2002
The Guardian

On the morning of September 11, Francis Fukuyama was working in his seventh-floor office at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. When American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon he crossed to the other side of the building and watched the smoke rising over the city. While his first thoughts were about the safety of himself, his family and friends who worked for the defence department, it soon became clear that Fukuyama was in for a period of professional as well as personal anxiety. The following week the Guardian diary deadpanned that, "efforts to contact thinking-man's thinker Francis Fukuyama to ask whether he feels moved to publish a sequel to his 1989 essay The End of History prove fruitless". It seemed that every other media outlet had had the same idea, and the man who had so spectacularly anticipated the collapse of communism, declared that the alternatives to liberal democracy had exhausted themselves and had been described as the "court philosopher of globally triumphant capitalism" was called to account.

Fukuyama was no stranger to his ideas being scrutinised, challenged and occasionally publicly ridiculed. When the Berlin Wall fell a few months after his essay first appeared it seemed to cement his status as both prophet and sage. But within a year the Gulf war had been and gone. Then, in 1993, the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published a competing theory that said, rather than arriving at the end of history, we were about to be launched into a clash of civilisations. Following the subsequent war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda, the Nation magazine summed things up with the front-page headline "The End of Fukuyama". Following the New York and Washington attacks, Huntington's stock inevitably rose further as Fukuyama's declined. But as the communitarian thinker Amitai Etzioni points out, Fukuyama "is one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."

Fukuyama spent the autumn thinking about the implications of September 11, and the spring teaching a postgraduate class on the subject. "It was obviously a huge analytical challenge," he says, speaking in the same Washington office. "The question was 'what the hell were we confronting here?' I didn't want to be one of those people who stake out a position then stick to it, even though it has become untenable. This was a whole new set of data coming at us from the real world." His hopeful conclusion was that the terrorism was in essence a last-gasp, rearguard action "by a culture that will over time be modernised". "Even within the Islamic world," he explains, "the hijackers do not represent a dominant trend, and over time they will have to confront modernisation, and modernisation will win."

It is alleged that when Margaret Thatcher first heard about Fukuyama's theory her response was "end of history? the beginning of nonsense!" But his theory is, of course, more subtle and intellectually complex than the apparent simplicity of the title implies. History in this sense is the direction of history, not the history of events or people. Liberal democracy is the culmination of ideological evolution, with no non-barbarous serious systemic alternative, and so the debate over fundamentals has been concluded.

The theory draws heavily on Hegel and, more specifically, the way the 20th-century French-Russian philosopher, Alexandre Kojeve, interpreted Hegel. It was Kojeve who asserted that Hegel had been essentially right in claiming that history, in this sense, really came to an end when Napoleon, representing the ideals of the French revolution, defeated the Prussians at Jena in 1806. And the motor for the global progress towards liberal democracy is the human need for recognition which, for instance, ensures that people eventually reject even prosperous dictatorships. "Hegel saw rights as ends in themselves," wrote Fukuyama," because what truly satisfies human beings is not so much material prosperity as recognition of their status and dignity."


Even those who reject his conclusions acknowledge that they are consistent and intellectually robust. Professor Alex Callinicos of the University of York has written about Fukuyama from a Marxist perspective. While he complains, for instance, that Fukuyama too readily equated socialism only with what happened in the Soviet Union, he acknowledges that Fukuyama's theory is difficult to refute. "He has a sufficiently sophisticated and supple theoretical framework for him to look at something like the Gulf war and say it is the wrong sort of history. He says the advanced capitalist societies of the west have gone beyond history and ideological conflict, but the more backward bits of the world are still trapped in history. It gives him a philosophical framework that allows him to explain away things like Islamic fundamentalism and September 11.".....

education.guardian.co.uk



To: Doug R who wrote (439222)8/7/2003 10:05:03 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769670
 
Bloom believed that the failure to recognize "felt need" in education has destructive consequences for democracy. It produces a certain kind of learner, one who looks outside himself for direction and motivation. This kind of learning, ays the foundation for the development of other-directed types as opposed to types who are self-directed.

Bloom understood well that a democracy, more than any other type of polity, depends on its citizens' capacity and willingness for self-direction and self-control. The more a democracy must depend for its order on control and direction through external authorities-police force, harsh penalties, surveillance, etc.-- the less, by definition, it is a democracy. Education that is not based on "felt need" produces other-directed not self-directed types and thus undermines democracy.

The main task of schooling in a democracy, Bloom says, is to give students a liberal education. What is a liberal education? A liberal education for Bloom is helping students to pose what he says is the question: ' "What is man?," in relation to his highest aspirations as opposed to his low and common needs.' He writes:

A liberal education means precisely helping students to pose this question to themselves, to become aware that the answer is neither obvious nor simply unavailable, and that there is no serious life in which this question is not a continuous concern. Despite all the efforts to pervert it…the question that every young person asks, "Who am I?, the powerful urge to follow the Delphic command, "Know theyself," which is born in each of us, mean in the first place "What is man?" And in our chronic lack of certainty, this comes down to knowing the alternative answers and thinking about them. Liberal education provides access to these alternatives, many of which go against the grain of our nature or our times. The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration…Most students will be content with what our present considers relevant; others will have a spirit of enthusiasm that subsides as family and ambition provide them with other objects of interest; a small number will spent their lives in an effort to be autonomous. It is for these last, especially, that liberal education exists.
At the end of this passage Bloom mentions what for him is the goal of education, particuarly in a democracy. This is autonomy. All education worthy of the name, says Bloom, makes us free. Moreover, and as I have already mentioned in the opening points about Rousseau, it is the loss of our freedom that, for Bloom, is at issue in America today, indeed in the modern world.

Education and The American Moment

In the closing paragraph of the Closing of the American Mind Bloom writes:

This is the American moment in world history, the one for which we shall forever be judged. Just as in politics the responsibility for the fate of freedom in the world has devolved upon our regime, so the fate of philosophy in the world has devolved upon our universities, and the two are related as they have never been before. The gravity of our given task is great, and it is very much in doubt how the future will judge our stewardship.
If Bloom is right and this is the American moment, then how much of this moment's prospects depend on education? Bloom believed very much that education was an important condition of the American moment. How American moment goes, whether it goes well for America and the world or poorly, depends in no small way on the role of education. The prospects of democracy, democracy especially, hang on education.

This has always been the case, for democracy, more than any other kind of politcal-social arrangement, depends on people's willingness and desire to control themselves. A democracy must have people willing and able to exercise self-control and self-order. And this is something that is not automatic in human nature but must be learned. Education, especially a certain kind of education is crucial in a democracy; on it everything else depends.

What kind of education is this? It is, Bloom would argue, a liberal education, and in our time this means an education that balances science with art, inquiry with creativity. If Bloom stood for anything, it was that we now more than ever need in our societies the opportunities for children (and adults) to inquire and create freely together. As John Dewey and others have observed, free, intelligent and creative communication is the practical essence of a democracy, and essential for continual democratization. To the extent that our schools enable children (and adults) to inquire and create freely together, they contribute to the democratization process. To the degree they fail to do this, they hinder that process. For me, this was Allan Bloom's most useful message.

bsic.org