US/Western support for brutal dictatorships (it's your fault too)

[GostHacked]

No it really isnt.

Shady just got 'Shady'd'.

[Moonlight Graham]

No they could care less about liberating people from dictatorships. What they care about is having wars and enemies. They basically think that a nation at war is less likely to be overcome by nihilism or what they called "permissive egalitarianism".

And they certainly arent fans of democracy.

But you're talking about Strauss. He died in 1973, and taught this stuff to his students etc. in the 50's. There are other varying strands of neoconservative thought, other thinkers, and other movements. Like those who were against socialist policies in the US & globally because it was "anti-liberalism" and "anti-democratic". The current movement, as I would define as starting with the fall of the USSR and the 1st Gulf War, is as I described in my other post and what most people now view neoconservativism as. The neocons like Robert Kagan and Paul Wolfowitz who were a part of the PNAC think tank in the 90's, and who dominated the ranks of the George W. Bush admin. You can't tell me Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfie et al. are anti-democratic. If they were it would get out fast and would have affected the elections.

from wikipedia:

The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neoconservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other; a war of ideology where the United States must take responsibility for security and show leadership in the world by actively seeking out the enemies and also change those countries who are supporting enemies.

The Bush Doctrine, and neoconservative reasoning, held that containment of the enemy as under the Realpolitik of Reagan did not work, and that the enemy of United States must be destroyed pre-emptively before they attack — using all the United States' available means, resources and influences to do so.

[Moonlight Graham]

Rather than the Enlightenment value of "invididual freedom," the Straussians believe in the striving for "human excellence" and "political virtue" (which does not denote "honesty," by the way) as the proper direction for society.

Strauss seems like a man who read Plato's The Republic a few too many times for his own good, or more accurately just took some of Socrates' horrid ideas in the "just city" he & Bloom believed to be ironic and thought they actually could be good ideas. Things like the "noble lie" being good for the polity. Heck maybe some of the reason why Wolfowitz and crew were such damned liars is because they thought they were spreading the "noble lie" for the good of polity. Or maybe they were just jerks.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's not, either, that all "neocons" think this way; even within the strange and airy realm of Straussian philosophy, there are the believers in "surface" truths (the "exoteric"), versus those who understand the "hidden" truths (the "esoteric").

Rather than the Enlightenment value of "invididual freedom," the Straussians believe in the striving for "human excellence" and "political virtue" (which does not denote "honesty," by the way) as the proper direction for society.

So does this mean that some neocons even in the Bush admin/PNAC who appear to be pro-democracy & pro-liberalism actually aren't (they know the "hidden truth"), and are preaching the spread of democracy as a Socratic "noble lie" in a sense? That they can "handle the truth", but much of the public can't, so the public must be fed the myth? And may you also be saying in a sense that some other neocons can't handle the truth, or just buy into the popularly believed neocon notions of "pro-democracy" etc., or hold neocon beliefs at the "surface level" rather than "hidden level".

If so my mind's just been f'ed! I gotta go write a Tom Clancy-meets-Dan Brown novel!!

Edited June 29, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

But you're talking about Strauss. He died in 1973, and taught this stuff to his students etc. in the 50's. There are other varying strands of neoconservative thought, other thinkers, and other movements. Like those who were against socialist policies in the US & globally because it was "anti-liberalism" and "anti-democratic". The current movement, as I would define as starting with the fall of the USSR and the 1st Gulf War, is as I described in my other post and what most people now view neoconservativism as. The neocons like Robert Kagan and Paul Wolfowitz who were a part of the PNAC think tank in the 90's, and who dominated the ranks of the George W. Bush admin. You can't tell me Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfie et al. are anti-democratic. If they were it would get out fast and would have affected the elections.

from wikipedia:

Anti democratic is the wrong description. I think the neo-con intellectuals looked at democracy much the same way that other philosophers did, especially Plato, and Neitche.... Crowd Control! But they believed real power should lie with a small group of exceptionally intelligent men that just instinctively knew what to do

The "wise few" and the "vulgar many".

And they looked at democracy and at populism as tools they could use to combat liberalism.

[bleeding heart]

So does this mean that some neocons even in the Bush admin/PNAC who appear to be pro-democracy & pro-liberalism actually aren't (they know the "hidden truth"), and are preaching the spread of democracy as a Socratic "noble lie" in a sense?

I personally doubt it. I think they believe in "democracy"--as in formal democratic forms--but aren't so concerned with actual democratic principles. But that could be wrong too. Just as likely is that they engage in Orwell's "doublethink" (the single greatest insight of 1984, in my view, a weakness inherent, probably, to human psychology.

That they can "handle the truth", but much of the public can't, so the public must be fed the myth? And may you also be saying in a sense that some other neocons can't handle the truth, or just buy into the popularly believed neocon notions of "pro-democracy" etc., or hold neocon beliefs at the "surface level" rather than "hidden level".

Yes...but, like I said, I don't consider them quite as radical as they ahve been portrayed. In a sense, much of this is normal power relations between the governed and those who govern. Pre-neocon administrations weren't Straussians, but they were still deceptive little buggers. The Canadian leadership is not dissimilar, I don't think. The chief difference is that the neocons are well to the hawkish side of the spectrum, and don't appear to be terribly interested in peace.

George Bush, on the other hand, very well might have been somewhat more "traditional" in his worldview. It's quite difficult to parse it all out, obviously.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes...but, like I said, I don't consider them quite as radical as they ahve been portrayed. In a sense, much of this is normal power relations between the governed and those who govern. Pre-neocon administrations weren't Straussians, but they were still deceptive little buggers. The Canadian leadership is not dissimilar, I don't think. The chief difference is that the neocons are well to the hawkish side of the spectrum, and don't appear to be terribly interested in peace.

The neocons are hawkish in foreign policy like many traditional conservatives. I think the main ingredient that informs neocon ideology of the last 20 years, as I've said, is that they are primarily concerned with maintaining and strengthening US power hegemony. This is done through aggressive foreign policy. I'm surprised more Americans aren't very concerned with other countries catching up to them. If concerned with power-relations (this isn't my personal stance), the US should do everything to undermine China economically instead of growing them.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[bleeding heart]

The neocons are hawkish in foreign policy like many traditional conservatives.

Moreso, I believe. Bush's second term was more "traditional" because their own overreach demanded an alteration in policy objectives. If the Iraq debacle had gone well, Iran would already have been attacked.

However, I believe that the Establishment liberals--the Democrats and their intellectual supporters--are about as hawkish as are conservatives. It's just that they are, frankly, superior at violence, in no small part because they're better at garnering support from outside the directly political/elected realm...both domestically and internationally.

Bush would have been crucified for Obama's drone policies.