Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

[hiti]

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/HarperBush/

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."

Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.

Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.

Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?

[Topaz]

I read about Strauss and the one guy in Bush's group that really believe in this philosophy is Paul Wolfawitz or "the wolfman" and he's now the Head of the World Bank. Another way to describe this is "World Order" or the most power nation or nation running the world. I was beginning to wonder if Harper has the same way of thinking and that is way he feels the same way as Bush. The only thing is, I don't think Canada would be high on the list of ruling, do you??

[scribblet]

Booga booga

[margrace]

One of the main aims of the recently defrocked Tom Delaney was to make sure that Republicans maintained control of the US forever.

I watched an interview recently in which Mr. Harris

[scribblet]

Left wingers are as much bound to their own ideology, and will of course, attempt to manipulate and scare the voters. I kinda doubt that the majority of voters have ever heard of Strauss, let alone believe any of what is posted on the net or attribute it to the CPC.

This is a scare tactic by which their own negative qualities are projected onto the opposition in order to divert attention away from themselves. I find these kind of scare tactics worse than anything Harper might actually come up (not dreamed up by the opposition). I'm guessing that this type of writing is starting to surface again as it look like we may have a spring election - maybe sooner.

If you think some sort of Straussian ideology is influencing the CPC, take another look. It's the liberals who are completely Straussian - remember - they are the natural governing party and only they represent Canadian values -

[Figleaf]

Anyone who examines Strauss or his followers will be hard pressed to distinguish that philosophy from fascism. The fact that such thinking has a high level of currency in the Bush administration fits perfectly with their antipathy to democracy and the demonstrated Republican campaign against the U.S. constitution.

It's extremely troubling to see this crypto-fascism taking hold in Canada now.

[Figleaf]

It's the liberals who are ...[blahblahblah]

Do you mean Liberal?

[myata]

As the Iraq fiasko clearly shows, these grandiousous schemes may only exist in the alternative reality. The americans will eventually realize that, down X trillion $$ and several thousnad lives of their compatriots.

[scribblet]

It's the liberals who are ...[blahblahblah]

Do you mean Liberal?

Guess I should have used a capital L.... like I said this whole Straussian thing is a manufactured debate..I'm not all that familiar with it, something that I have never seen or heard discussed anywhere, as it simply is not an issue for most people as it doesn't really relate to actuality.

[Canadian Blue]

I thought Harper was considered more of a "Classical liberal" then a neo-con. I know that while he was in the Reform party he was considered a libertarian.

[Figleaf]

You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative.

[bradco]

I thought Harper was considered more of a "Classical liberal" then a neo-con. I know that while he was in the Reform party he was considered a libertarian.

Technically Harper matches up pretty good with the Classical Liberal tradition.....probably along the lines of Locke to Friedman. Same as Paul Martin would be considered a "reform liberal" if you tried to match him into the liberal tradition (I wrote a paper for a political science course that made this argument...it got an A ).

"You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative."

As this quote shows, peoples understandings of what is "liberal" vs. "conservative" have changed so significantly in the 20th century that they dont realize how contemporary politicians would fit into the ideological tradition. No politician in Canada could stand a chance if he didnt adhere to at least the classical liberal tradition. I bet someone like Locke would have had his ideas on liberty constrained by social conservatism (dont forget Locke was a major investor in the English slave trade). The fact is we have evolved in western democracies so that classical liberals are now conservatives and reform liberals are now just liberals.

[PolyNewbie]

I thought both Harper & Bush were neoliberals and all the neocon nonsense was just main stream media spin.

There is a really good video on Straussian philosophy and Osama Bin Laden is also a Straussian and he is playing this game for his reasons. He worked with the neocons in blowing up buses full of children in Kosovo to get that started.

The video is called "The Power Of Nightmares" and is free on Google video.

I would be interested in hearing what philosophy people have to say about this. I started becomming interested in philosophy because of this Straussian ideal that I first encountered while being extorted and threatened by a lawyer (publically - hope there are some judges reading this - I'd love to see one in court just to use my middle finger to let them know they are number one with me). It made me curious that Bush was a product of the same thing.

It seems this philoposphy is being taught at universities all over and it is the root of malfeasance and corruption that we now see all over the place.

[Canadian Blue]

You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative.

While Harper was in the Reform party he often was said to mistrust social conservatives. I think one of the reasons why he left was because he believed the social conservatives had to much of a grip on the reform party.

There is a really good video on Straussian philosophy and Osama Bin Laden is also a Straussian and he is playing this game for his reasons. He worked with the neocons in blowing up buses full of children in Kosovo to get that started.

Okay, do you believe that everything must be related to some conspiracy theory???

[scribblet]

You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative.

Well, he's not a social conservative

[Canadian Blue]

Harper really isn't a social conservative. He's not pro-life, look at Calgary Southwest on the link provided.

[http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/elections/federal2006/province.html]

So far I haven't noticed much of a change in social policy besides allowing another free vote on marriage. But that was a campaign promise so he is simply following that promise. He did stop funding legal challenges against the government. But so far the Harper government isn't really that much of a threat to us. The only people that believe Harper wants to take away our liberties for a social conservative agenda usually tend to be conspiracy theorists.

[Figleaf]

Harper is definitely social conservative. He's:

-pro-forced-childbirth;

-anti-daycare;

-anti-gay;

-pro-drug prohibition;

-a member of a traditionalist church; and

-leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges.

All that = So-Con.

[Canadian Blue]

-pro-forced-childbirth

What does that mean, are you saying he's pro-life.

-anti-daycare

Anti publicly funded daycare for sure.

-anti-gay

In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general.

-pro-drug prohibition;

Of course, many people liberal and conservative think crack, heroine, and ecstacy should remain illegal

-a member of a traditionalist church

I know many New Democrats and Liberal's from the old Alliance Church that I went to with my parents. Just because a person is a christian doesn't make them a So-con. Not all christian's share James Dobson's view of the world. Which church does Harper go to?

-leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges.

How so, I haven't seen much with regards to enshrining religious values, besides Harper saying God Bless Canada at the end of every speach.

I think you need to add a bit more substance to your comments, however I doubt I'll see any in the near distance future.

[Figleaf]

-pro-forced-childbirth

What does that mean, are you saying he's pro-life.

'Life' includes trees, frogs, fish, and dogs. Environmentalists are pro-'life'. I mean Harper favors laws that would require pregnant women to unwillingly undergo labor and childbirth.

-anti-gay

In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general.

Same difference.

-pro-drug prohibition;

Of course, many people liberal and conservative think crack, heroine, and ecstacy should remain illegal

A true liberal would not want the state to dictate personal recreation or medication choices.

-a member of a traditionalist church

... Just because a person is a christian doesn't make them a So-con.

In itself, no. But as part of an overall so.con. profile, it's practically a requirement.

-leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges.

How so, ...

The planned Defense of Religion law.

[Canadian Blue]

'Life' includes trees, frogs, fish, and dogs. Environmentalists are pro-'life'. I mean Harper favors laws that would require pregnant women to unwillingly undergo labor and childbirth.

Are you talking like 9 months into it. Can you point to evidence that show's Harper's pro-life, since thats what the actual movement is called, similar to being pro-choice.

In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general.

Same difference.

Well, their is a difference. Howard Dean brought forward civil unions in Vermont, but I don't think he's opposed to gays in general for that action. As well the argument for the anti-SSM side is also about the future of marriage laws which could change with reference to polygamy. After all they are all "consenting adults".

QUOTE

QUOTE

-pro-drug prohibition;

Of course, many people liberal and conservative think crack, heroine, and ecstacy should remain illegal

A true liberal would not want the state to dictate personal recreation or medication choices.

Well, would you want your kids living in a society were people are free to do crystal meth, heroine, and cocaine. A society has to have some rules to maintain law and order. Even many liberals would agree with that, even a few New Democrats and Greens.

In itself, no. But as part of an overall so.con. profile, it's practically a requirement.

Their are social conservatives in the Catholic chruch, mosques, temples, etc. I can name some MP's who would match the Socon list who are of different faiths. Ezra Levant comes to mind.

The planned Defense of Religion law.

Isn't that to protect Religious groups from any possible complaints by groups screaming discrimination. Protecting religous liberty is a "liberal" trait.

Figleaf are you a liberal or a libertarian? Theirs a big difference between the two.

[bradco]

"-pro-forced-childbirth"

Pro-lifers are not necessarily socially conservative. To argue that killing a fetus restricts its right to life is an argument based on liberalism. The abortion debate framed like this is two liberal arguments stressing different sides of a case where rights conflict. It is a myth that pro-lifers are socially conservative. Even religious arguments are moral based arguments and not religious ones. At least I dont think abortion is mentioned in the bible? (for the record I sit on the fence in the abortion debate)

"-anti-daycare;"

Nothing to do with social conservatism. This is a "small" government arguement which fits perfectly in the classical liberal tradition.

-anti-gay;

This is the one area where he becomes socially-conservative and not liberal. However, as I argued in a previous post it would probably be consistant with a lot of old-school liberal thinkers. Basically, it would make him a classical liberal who failed to evolve with society.

"-pro-drug prohibition;"

Maybe a non liberal stance. However, if we are to follow Mill than maybe drug prohibitions are in place because their use harms society. Such a stance is therefore consistant with a liberal tradition and not necessarily social conservatism.

"-a member of a traditionalist church;"

Theres a difference between choosing to believe a religion and its morals for yourself and trying to impose those on others. You can privately be socially-conservative but still subscribe to liberal ideology by not forcing it on others.

"-leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges."

Protection of the right to religion. Sounds like a liberal idea to me.

All this makes him not all that much of a social conservative. The broader point I make here is that even those that are branded as the social conservatives in Canada are truly liberals. They just dont know it. Liberalism already won as the superior and acceptable ideology.

[normanchateau]

In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general.

Opposed to gays in general. He voted to exclude sexual orientation, and therfore gay bashing, from hate crimes legislation. The legislation passed thanks to the BQ, NDP, Liberals and even some members of Harper's own party. But Harper voted against it.

[scribblet]

Harper really isn't a social conservative. He's not pro-life, look at Calgary Southwest on the link provided.

[http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/elections/federal2006/province.html]

So far I haven't noticed much of a change in social policy besides allowing another free vote on marriage. But that was a campaign promise so he is simply following that promise. He did stop funding legal challenges against the government. But so far the Harper government isn't really that much of a threat to us. The only people that believe Harper wants to take away our liberties for a social conservative agenda usually tend to be conspiracy theorists.

And actually, what he did say there would be a vote to determine whether the issue of SSM should be re-visited - a no brainer since we know it won't pass.

I don't agree that being against gay marriage is gay bashing nor is it 'homophobic' - words used to stifle legitimate debate.

[Figleaf]

Can you point to evidence that show's Harper's pro-life, since thats what the actual movement is called, similar to being pro-choice.

I don't care what the movement's propaganda want to call it. And no, I won't provide 'evidence'. If you think Harper isn't pro-forced-childbirth, then say so.

In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general.

Same difference.

Well, their is a difference. Howard Dean brought forward civil unions in Vermont, but I don't think he's opposed to gays in general for that action. As well the argument for the anti-SSM side is also about the future of marriage laws which could change with reference to polygamy. After all they are all "consenting adults".

In Canada, which we ARE talking about here, people who oppose SSM in effect oppose equal rights for homosexual couples. That's anti-gay, no matter what they want it called.

A true liberal would not want the state to dictate personal recreation or medication choices.

Well, would you want your kids living in a society were people are free to do crystal meth, heroine, and cocaine.

Yes. As a true liberal, I believe individuals should not be interfered with by the state in matters of personal choice. Harper does not fit this criterion.

A society has to have some rules to maintain law and order. Even many liberals would agree with that, even a few New Democrats and Greens.

Do you mean Liberals, or liberals?

Any 'liberal' who endorses drug prohibition is not truly liberal, at least to that extent.

Their are social conservatives in the Catholic chruch, mosques, temples, etc.

Yes, and?

I can name some MP's who would match the Socon list who are of different faiths. Ezra Levant comes to mind.

Yes, and?

The planned Defense of Religion law.

Isn't that to protect Religious groups from any possible complaints by groups screaming discrimination. Protecting religous liberty is a "liberal" trait.

The law would exempt religious expression from laws that would otherwise apply if it weren't religious. Therefore it would create a special privilege for religion.

Figleaf are you a liberal or a libertarian?

I'm a classical liberal.

[Figleaf]

"-pro-forced-childbirth"

Pro-lifers are not necessarily socially conservative.

Maybe not, but as part of an overall so.con. profile, it's practically a requirement.

To argue that killing a fetus restricts its right to life is an argument based on liberalism.

Actually, liberalism is concerned with the freedom of individual people, not protoplasm. To pretend pro-forced-childbirth is a liberal position is fallacious.

"-anti-daycare;"

Nothing to do with social conservatism. This is a "small" government arguement which fits perfectly in the classical liberal tradition.

Opposition to daycare can be premised on a person's view that 'proper' families have a mother at home which is a social conservative position.

"-pro-drug prohibition;"

Maybe a non liberal stance. However, if we are to follow Mill than maybe drug prohibitions are in place because their use harms society. Such a stance is therefore consistant with a liberal tradition and not necessarily social conservatism.

I don't know what writings of Mill you refer to there, but it would be necessary to demonstrate some substantial level of harm inevitable harm resulting drug use to cause a true liberal to think the state should prohibit peaceable private use.

Protection of the right to religion. Sounds like a liberal idea to me.

The constitution already protects freedom of religion. The proposed act would provide a special privilege to religion that is not provided to others.

The broader point I make here is that even those that are branded as the social conservatives in Canada are truly liberals.

1. Branded? I thought they were happy to be social conservatives!

2. Social conservatism and liberalism are NOT the same thing at all, in the least.