>
> <URL:
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/717acusr.asp
>>
>
> --
> Michael Pugliese
>
>
Not a very good article in my opinion. The author uses the conspiracy theory trope to wildly distort the arguments made about the influence of Strauss, suggests that people think influence itself is nefarious, and then puts a nice spin on Strauss himself just to be on the safe side.
The conspiracy thing is pretty silly, it is such a common gambit that people really ought to know better than use it. People who worry about Straussian ideas don't think that the whole administration is under the control of a sinister genius, but rather that those ideas are themselves something to worry about, and the fact they flow unchecked amongst the top echelons of the administration indicates they have a certain resonance.
I cannot imagine who would argue that influence itself is bad. That is a very daft red herring.
So we come to the characterisation of Strauss' philosophy, which is mostly a matter of substituting caustic adjectives for mellower phrases. Not 'elitist', merely a 'lover of excellence.' Not a 'religious doubter' but a lover of the Hebrew Bible. A bit like saying "I don't hate Italians, I love pizza." He isn't 'opposed to liberal democracy' he thinks that we should 'defend virtues and combat vices,' which could mean anything, really. He is not a proponent of "American empire" but a defender of "American strength in the defense of liberty." Pathetic stuff, in my opinion, really inexcusable and clearly propagandistic. A philosophy teacher ought to know better than to think defenders of empire ever say anything other than they defend liberty.
Awful. I can't believe a person who writes like this gets to be a university teacher.
Thiago