Those who neither debated in high school or college nor suffered the subsequent tortures of a legal education may be left agog at the brazen audacity of Kristol's argument, falling as it does into the category of destroying the village to save it or begging the court's mercy for the fellow who, having murdered his parents, is now an orphan.
His opening gambit here is breathtaking in its audacity. Let's simply pay no attention, he asserts, to
So, what accomplishments do Kristol tout to support his claimed successful Bush presidency? Why, (1) the absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, (2) the strong economy and -- wait for it -- (3) the war in Iraq! Oh, and a couple of conservatives on the Supreme Court, an almost throw-away point for Kristol but probably the only thing I might agree was both Bush's doing and, on balance, a good thing.
Not that the absence of terrorist attacks here or a strong U.S. economy are bad things. Only there's precious little reason to believe that Bush can take much responsibility for the latter and little tangible evidence that he is responsible for the former. Tax cuts are presumptively good, though not nearly as good as tax cuts combined with cuts in government spending, and we all know the administration's record on that point. In any case, Kristol's blithe causal connection between tax cuts alone and the state of the economy over the past five years is tenuous at best. Then again, Kristol's claim that Bush's prescription drug benefit Medicare expansion has "gone ... smoothly ... under projected costs" studiously ignores the elephant in the living room that is the looming, long-term cost of my Baby Boomer generation as we only now start to reach Medicare eligibility age. I guess economics wasn't Leo Strauss's strong point.
Shrouded in greater
Finally, amazingly, Kristol touts the war and hangs his hopes on General Petraeus, this year's -- let's be candid -- Great White Hope for the remaining supporters of this absurd and tragic misadventure. Of course, had we not attacked Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, doing, um, well, we really don't know what. Neither does Kristol, but he assumes the worst because at this point it is only such counter-factual speculation that could possibly support the claim that America, never mind Iraq, is better off for having ousted Hussein in 2003.
Kristol concludes with a bit more wishful thinking about how the prospect of Democratic control of both the White House and Congress is so frightening that one of the lackluster or worse Republican presidential candidates may actually win next year, thus somehow vindicating Bush. Yeah, sure. His bottom line?
"If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president."
And if we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs for breakfast.
If we had some eggs.
4 comments:
I guess economics wasn't Leo Strauss's strong point.
Let's keep Strauss out of this.
It is clear to me that Strauss would have likely been from the start rather skeptical of our efforts in Iraq.
BTW, how much of Strauss' ouevre have you read?
Not that much and your point is well taken.
Tell me, though, do you believe the standard criticism of Strauss; namely, that he believed intellectuals should, in effect, lie to the masses, is a bad rap?
Anyway, disciples often give their mentors a bad reputation (Jesus, Freud and any number of philosophers come to mind here), so I shouldn't go about taking shots at Strauss without satisfying myself personally that his critics are correct.
...namely, that he believed intellectuals should, in effect, lie to the masses, is a bad rap?
Strauss believed that not everyone was equal and that the vast majority of any population would largely be hostile to philosophy and philosophers unless philosophers in general abided by the general precepts of a society (in other words, philosophers shouldn't in public as if they doubted the Gods, mores, etc. of the people). Strauss, in other words, was quite skeptical of the claims of the Enlightenment about the universal perfectability of man, etc. It is in part because of this skepticism that I think Strauss would have looked askance from the start at the war in Iraq.
Now I would say - based on what I have read of Strauss' work and those who have commented on it - that Strauss was what one might call a "Cold War Liberal," but he had no vision for creating a Hegelian or Kantian world of universal peace and I think he was fairly circumspect when looking at the prospect of the use of American power.
Of course I am talking about a man who has been dead since 1973, and there are of course Straussians (is that what I am?) who would disagree with me. I myself have not quite sorted out all the differences between the East and West Coast Straussians, but I am sure - at least for now - that I don't wholely agree with either camp, but I agree more with the East Coast school.
Oh, and I think that Strauss is well worth reading. Much of what he writes will trouble libertarians (can one be a libertarian Straussian?) but I think one has to take his arguments seriously.
Post a Comment