What?

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 7th, 2010 at 1:32 am and is filed under What Ever Happened to Andrew Sullivan?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

37 Responses to “What?”

1. Jamie says:
   

   Notice how he doensn’t once mention the terrorism of the Palestinians?

   Also, isn’t this the same man who has been waxing moronic about our military adventurism in that region of the world?

   January 7th, 2010 at 1:35 am
2. Tom says:
   

   Notice how he doensn’t once mention the terrorism of the Palestinians?

   Well, actually he did, in the third paragraph.

   And, yes, I’m also sick of the war crimes and theocratic insanity of Hamas

   But still. I remain amazed that anyone can look at the world, see all the horrible things that people do to each other, and then say “You know who really gets my goat? The Israelis.”

   January 7th, 2010 at 11:23 am
3. Jamie says:
   

   Huh it might have been edited, or maybe I was just tired last night, but I could have sworn it only said “crimes” not “war crimes”.

   January 7th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
4. Apollo says:
   

   I’m not sure that “war crimes” is a good way to refer to Palestinian terrorism. Soldiers pointlessly killing civilians during an actual war – that’s a war crime. Saddling up women with suicide bombs as part of a campaign whose entire point is to kill civilians – calling that “war crimes” only makes sense in a world where the phrase has no meaning. Which may or may not be our world, but it’s certainly the world inhabited by the Obamaniacs.

   And, Tom, the ability of some to get infuriated by the Israelis is also beyond me. Moreover, the notion that Israel “dictates” our foreign policy to us is beyond preposterous. That so many on the Left now hold both of those two notions might lead some to see anti-Semitism, and I wouldn’t tell those people that they’re wrong. I think it’s interesting how the only majority Jewish state is the one that gets people uniquely worked up, and is consistently described as being a shadowy, manipulative force working in the background.

   January 7th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
5. Tom says:
   

   Agreed on all points.

   January 7th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
6. Geoff says:
   

   You don’t need anti-Semitism to explain the Left’s anger at Israel. The modern Left tends to draw moral lines along power differentials. Of the two sides in a fight, the richer and more powerful side is assumed to be in the wrong. Israel has fighter jets, advanced weapons systems, and nukes. The Palestinians have rock-throwing youths and suicide bombers. Whose side do you expect the Left to take?

   Talking about terrorism isn’t going to change the argument, because this bias toward “the little guy” applies no matter what the little guy in question has actually been doing. The little guy’s crimes can be explained away, and any suffering he brings on others, or himself, is a further indictment of the big guy.

   Take all of that, and then factor in the billions of dollars we spend arming Israel, and it would be surprising if the American Left wasn’t fuming about it.

   Where, by the way, is Leftist anti-Semitism thought to have come from? You can trace anti-Semitism back pretty clearly through its various incarnations, but I don’t see one that leads up to the modern Left. There were plenty of Jews in all of the main liberal movements of the last hundred years, and they still vote Democrat by a wide margin. I’m not getting why a bunch of liberals would wake up one day and decide to start hating on the Jews.

   January 7th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
7. Jamie says:
   

   Since both Communism and Fascism, both known for their antisemitism, are movements that grew out of the left – its not really hard to find antisemitism in the hard left at all.

   Hell look at the eugenics movement of the early 20th – that absolutely had racist/antisemitic overtones to it.

   January 7th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
8. Tom says:
   

   Talking about terrorism isn’t going to change the argument, because this bias toward “the little guy” applies no matter what the little guy in question has actually been doing. The little guy’s crimes can be explained away, and any suffering he brings on others, or himself, is a further indictment of the big guy.

   That’s actually a very valid point. That is, Geoff’s point about the Left; not the Left’s point.

   Since both Communism and Fascism, both known for their antisemitism, are movements that grew out of the left – its not really hard to find antisemitism in the hard left at all.

   As a fellow Liberal Fascism fan, it’s worth noting that Italian Fascism wasn’t particularly anti-Semitic, and there was certainly no lack of Jews among early Communists.

   January 7th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
9. Jamie says:
   

   This is true – and yet both movements developed strong antisemitic movements in later years.

   January 7th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
10. Geoff says:
    

    The modern left has no direct line of descent from Fascism (leaving aside the question of whether the latter sprang from the former) and (pace Limbaugh et al.) even the modern hard left has very little to do with Soviet-style Communism. It’s all a very thin nail on which to hang a blanket accusation of widespread anti-Semitism.

    January 7th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
11. Jamie says:
    

    Actually the modern left sprang from movements in the 20s and 30s that were very sympathetic to fascism – so its not a hard stretch at all.

    January 7th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
12. Geoff says:
    

    Actually the modern left sprang from movements in the 20s and 30s that were very sympathetic to fascism – so its not a hard stretch at all.

    I still think it makes much more sense to attribute anti-Israel sentiment on the left to political tendencies they display time and again in the modern world, rather than on anti-Semitism inferred from tenuous 80-90 year old links.

    January 8th, 2010 at 10:25 am
13. Julian says:
    

    Leo Strauss -> Harvey Mansfield -> William Kristol.

    A Nazi to Fox News in three steps. Or, to make it simpler,

    Leo Strauss -> Irving Kristol (who gets his buddy Harvey to get his son into Harvard, so they can all bitch about how affirmative action created grade inflation).

    A Nazi to neo-cons in two steps.

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
14. Julian says:
    

    Or, even closer:

    Leo Strauss -> Robert Goldwin -> Dick Cheney.

    A Nazi to the White House in three steps.

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
15. Jamie says:
    

    Did you seriously just call a Jew who fled Nazi Germany a Nazi?

    Seriously?

    A man who SPECIFICALLY wrote that Nazism expressed the brutal nihilism of modern liberalism?

    Are you an idiot or just ignorant?

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
16. Julian says:
    

    “Did you seriously just call a Jew who fled Nazi Germany a Nazi? Seriously?”

    This is exactly the sort of reaction that Strauss was counting on among the useful idiots who comprised his American auditors – a Jew who “fled” Nazi Germany couldn’t possibly have been a Nazi! Just… not… possible. But it was possible. There’s nothing *in principle* preventing a Jew from sympathizing with Nazis, and certainly not with fascists in general. The Nazis’s hatred of Jews made it tough for Strauss to be a Nazi, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t going to try (as was obvious to many of his German contemporaries, incidentally, e.g., Hannah Arendt or Hans Joas). By the way, when or where did Strauss ever “SPECIFICALLY” say what you impute to him (indeed, when did Strauss even say that brutality or nihilism were bad things – although, I grant you, he certainly made clear that he despised liberalism, in both the broadest and most specific senses). You may lack the ability to appreciate the very subtle rhetoric which Strauss deployed to address this subject (necessarily, given that he was living in the United States just after WW2), but a helpful introduction can be found in William H.F. Altman. “Leo Strauss on “German Nihilism”: Learning the Art of Writing”. Journal of the History of Ideas 68.4 (2007) 587-612. Or you could just read his correspondence to see some of his more explicit endorsements of fascism. Which he went on to teach to Goldwin, Mansfield, Kristol…

    (Incidentally, he didn’t exactly “flee”, either: thanks to the help of the Nazi theoretician Carl Schmitt he got a scholarship that allowed him to take a temporary hiatus during which he time he tried extensively to stay in contact with Schmitt and introduce himself to other prominent fascist intellectuals.)

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
17. Julian says:
    

    By the way, I especially like this sentence:

    “A man who SPECIFICALLY wrote that Nazism expressed the brutal nihilism of modern liberalism?”

    I can promise that, despite the desperate hectoring which the ALL CAPS imply, the author will never produce an actual quotation which SPECIFICALLY says those things (else, why not simply quote Strauss in the first place – surely a more effective strategy for defending a guru of the right than resorting to ALL CAPS. But hey, since that typing style worked so well for Sarah Palin in her resignation speech…)

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
18. Jamie says:
    

    Pure comedy.

    I’m no Strauss fan but your comments have nonsensical tinge of a La Rouchey. Try reading On Tyranny before start spouting off on something you know nothing about. Completely divorced from all reality.

    Bravo.

    January 8th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
19. Julian says:
    

    My friend, rather than resorting to name-calling (“La Rouchey”?) and ad hominem (I’ve read On Tyranny several times, thanks very much) and ALL CAPS (SPECIFICALLY), why don’t you instead stop telling me what to read, and simply show us what you have read by producing the quotation where Strauss SPECIFICALLY “wrote that Nazism expressed the brutal nihilism of modern liberalism” (although, again, you can’t simply take for granted that Strauss was opposed to either brutality or nihilism).

    As for On Tyranny, I commend to those who haven’t read it the following (imperfect, but useful) analysis of that work, which helps to show why Kristol & Kristol’s favorite intellectual was actually an a advocate of tyranny (nee fascism)):

    Alan Gilbert. “Do Philosophers Counsel Tyrants?”. Constellations 16 (1): 106-24.

    Or, you could continue to take advice on who is “completely divorced from all reality” from a man who writes nothing but a mixture of name-calling, ad hominem insults and ALL CAPS, without ever so much as telling us what SPECIFICALLY he was referring to when he claimed that Strauss SPECIFICALLY made certain SPECIFIC statements. Well, let’s see them. SPECIFICALLY. If you’re not “completely divorced from reality” it shouldn’t be hard to produce something that SPECIFIC, should it?

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
20. Julian says:
    

    I’ll be back in a minute… Kristol is coming on Fox right this minute, next to Karl Rove…

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
21. Jamie says:
    

    I can’t find copies on the web but I am specifically referring to his writings On Tyranny in which Strauss argues that Marxism and Nazism are responsible for the destruction of traditions and morals and people are subjugated to the state. I’m also referring to his unpublished lecture “German Nihilism” which can be found on the web if you choose to pay for it.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
22. Julian says:
    

    By the way: my pen name here is actually an esoteric reference to an obscure bit of Straussania… as those who’ve read Strauss SPECIFICALLY enough might have guessed….

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
23. Jamie says:
    

    I’m fresh out of gold stars for the man who references On Tyranny w/o even bothering to understand it.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
24. Julian says:
    

    I’m not aware of anything in On Tyranny which corresponds to what you describe. Strauss certainly never refers directly to either Marxism or Nazism in the text. Your whole characterization in post #21 seems way off base to me. I’m trying not be uncharitable, but I’ve just read over the introduction to the text (which I’ve read maybe half a dozen times before), and I can’t produce anything which corresponds in a tolerably inexact fashion to to your characterization. The German Nihilism lectures comes closer *on the surface*, but as Altman’s article referenced above shows, for someone schooled in Strauss’ way of writing (i.e., someone who had read On Tyranny seriously and learned from it), its clear that Strauss is actually not really condemning fascism, or even Nazism. Let me know if you come up with the quotation from On Tyranny though, and then we can consider it in more detail (with Strauss, that is the only way he can be read: characterizations from memory are always insufficient, because he writes so carefully that he must be appreciated line-by-line and word-for-word).

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
25. Jamie says:
    

    Since On Tyranny is written as a Platonic dialog on the concept of Tyranny as a form of government there is no direct reference to Nazism or Marxism – however given the history of the man, the history of the times in which he wrote, it is quite obvious that *beneath the surface* he would be referring to the two overwhelming examples of tyranny in his lifetime.

    Of course Strauss would never be one to advocate for reading beneath the surface.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
26. Julian says:
    

    My friend, your ad hominem attacks are unbecoming for a man who is attempting to defend a philosopher. You simply assert that I haven’t understood On Tyranny. But an assertion is not an argument. It might be good enough for Kristol on Fox News, but it’s not good enough for interpreting his philosophic fascist teacher. If you want to prove your point, you’re going to have quote something SPECIFIC (as you would write), so that we can give Strauss’s words the careful attention which they deserve, and which Strauss himself would insist that any great writer’s words demand (and, make no mistake, Strauss was a great writer). So: stop simply asserting, and start arguing. I did my best by reading over the On Tyranny intro to try and find a quote which would correspond to your characterization, but with no success, alas. But surely it can’t be difficult to produce something that SPECIFIC. Once you’ve done so, we’ll be able to see who is in fact “completely divorced from reality”, as you’ve so philosophically suggested.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
27. Jamie says:
    

    The burden of proof is on you my friend, since you are the one claiming Strauss was a fascist. I have yet to see you produce one quote regarding this.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
28. Julian says:
    

    In response to comment #25: even if Strauss were “beneath the surface” referring to Marxism and Nazism, that would still not provide substantiation for your characterizations (e.g., what is responsible for the “destruction of traditions”? Strauss certainly has answers to this question, but on his analysis, modern politics is a symptom, not a cause; the cause is Christianity – again, those who understand the connection between my pen name and Strauss will have already grasped this point). But beyond that, while I agree that Strauss’ analysis of tyranny was meant to have implications for present-day tyranny, it is not so simple as saying that the tyranny in question must have been Nazism or communism. Of course Strauss knew that was what the useful idiots who comprised his students would often conclude. But the tyranny Strauss had in mind was rather the tyranny of liberalism – liberalism in the broadest sense, i.e., America. Moreover, On Tyranny is actually a defense of a classical tyrant, not a criticism. It is simply naive to assume that Strauss must have had in mind by tyranny fascism and communism, and that he must also have been against all forms of tyranny as well. Again, see Altman and Gilbert if you want more detail.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
29. Jamie says:
    

    Okay thumbing through my copy:

    “liberal or constitutional democracy comes closer to what the classics demand than any alternative that is visible in our age.”

    Fascist indeed.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
30. Julian says:
    

    I disagree that the burden of proof is on me, because I did not SPECIFICALLY claim anything. I made a general claim, and therefore produced two general citations (Altman and Gilbert). This procedure was necessary because Strauss was a very careful writer, so that any specific statements in his writings he makes must be analyzed in painstaking detail. Altman and Gilbert have the space (and time) to make some of that analysis. But as for Strauss’s specific statements on fascism, you’re no doubt aware of what is revealed in some of his correspondence:

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/letter_16.html

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
31. Julian says:
    

    In response to #29: what you’ve produced from Strauss is an assertion, not an argument. That’s not your fault (though it is your fault for citing it as evidence): it is stated exactly that way. And, as Strauss taught, when a philosopher makes a patently absurd statement (i.e., when a philosopher places an bald assertion precisely where one would expect and desire to find an actual argument), then one must be doubtful of that sincerity of that statement, especially if it contradicts the explicit argument of the rest of the text (as the statement which you’ve cited does).

    This point is obvious enough that in the introduction to On Tyranny, written by one of Strauss’s best students, Victor Gourevtich, he (Gourevitch) specifically calls attention to the statement which you’ve quoted, notes that it is contradicted by the rest of Strauss’s analysis, and is unsupportable taken at a face value (xxi-xxii in my edition). Gourevitch sees this point precisely because he was trained to read by Strauss, i.e., Strauss’ methods have shown Gourevitch that Strauss’ exoteric statements of support for liberal constitutionalism are patently disingenuous. To prove this, look at the full sentence which you’ve quoted, which begins , “It would not be difficult to show that…” – well, actually, on Strauss’ terms, it would be impossible to show that, as fine student of Strauss such Gourevitch recognizes. But Gourevitch wasn’t the student with the ear of White House…

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
32. Julian says:
    

    I’ll put it more directly: if the modern age is confronted by the “nihilism” of Marxism and Nazism, but “it would not be difficult to show that… liberal or constitutional democracy comes closer to what the classics demand than any alternative that is visible in our age”, then it surely would have behooved Strauss to write a few words showing exactly that. But he didn’t. He asserted, he didn’t argue. But his book contains an actual argument, an argument which shows the incompatibility of what the classics demanded with liberalism.

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
33. Julian says:
    

    Also note that the text you quoted is not On Tyranny itself. Its his response to Kojeve’s response to the book. In Kojeve’s response Kojeve defended tyranny partly by citing the example of Salazar in Portugal. In Strauss’ response he explicitly agrees that the example of Salazar shows that tyranny can be alright, at least in principle (the question is: according to which principles? Kojeve is for modern tyranny, Strauss is for ancient tyranny; both are against liberalism and constitutional rule).

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
34. Julian says:
    

    Keep this in mind: Kojeve endorses a contemporary tyrant; Strauss endorses that endorsement; Strauss’s students go on to advise Cheney, appear on Fox News, publish The Weekly Standard, run AEI…

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
35. Julian says:
    

    Also note: Salazar’s Portugal was officially neutral during WW2. A problem for the guru of Kristol and Kristol? Obviously not. But I know, I know… he “fled” Nazi Germany! (Nope: as explained in #16 above).

    January 8th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
36. Jamie says:
    

    You made the flat assertion that Strauss was a Nazi – given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary the burden of proof is on you.

    Please provide evidence of his membership in the National Socialist Party or quotes that indicated his support for Nazism.

    Until you do that all this philosophical posturing is nothing but mental masturbation.

    January 8th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
37. nail tattoos says:
    

    Hi, i am searching for partners for our new nail site, are you interested?

    August 4th, 2010 at 4:14 am

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>