A very interesting analogy. I haven't seen it either. Of course, one difference was that Strauss was a real scholar -- controversial, of course, but one who is regarded by professionals outside his circle to have made real contributions. I agree with this assessment, btw. Rand was a bad popular novelist who created a cult around ideas that only acolytes take seriously in the form that she expressed them. There are a handful of lib philosophers who have treated Rand as if she was a real philosopher, including Chris Sciabarra, a student of Ollman's who wrote an excellent book on Marx and Hayek, btw, but mainly philosophers and political theorists regard Rand as a crank, an incompetent amateur, while Strauss is regarded as in the fold.
However, there is something to Brian's idae that the appeal of both -- to different groups -- is similar.
Both appeal to those who see themselves as
> being smarter than
> others, and offer what seems to be an easy means to
> gaining power over
> those unfit, miserable clods-- and it's a method
> that satisfies certain
> kinds of resentment over _not_ having power. With
> Rand, it's being a
> clever capitalist. With Strauss, it's the swaying of
> the public mind
> with well-crafted lies.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/