The Republican Party’s Hidden Assault on America.

Now that the Republican Party has taken control of the House of Representative, there should be jubilation among Americans.  However, there’s cautiousness in the atmosphere.  It’s as if Americans aren’t sure if the Republicans will actually stand on principle.  The Tea Party Movement (TPM) has been successful precisely because its goals are limited to the founding principles of America.  These include limited government, a capitalist economy and although not explicitly, the protection of individual rights.

One would think that the Republican Party would be in support of the efforts of the Tea Party Movement.  However, the GOP establishment is openly hostile to the movement and its field of candidates.  Why is this?  After all, isn’t the GOP supposed to be the party of limited government, freedom and capitalism?  Shouldn’t the Republicans be backing this important movement? 

A book recently released holds that not only does the GOP establishment not support the movement; they implicitly hold ideas counter to the TPM and to America’s founding principles in particular.   “>Called Neoconservatism: An Obituary For An Idea, C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook pull the mask off the real intellectual framework of the GOP.  The Republican party has been, and will always be, a major disappointment for me.  Getting to the root of neoconservatism—which is now the intellectual backbone of the GOP should be the primary focus of all Americans who care about the future of our country.  This is a battle for ideas that requires rational thinking and not tired slogans and vague pronouncements.

Since neoconservatism is now the framework for the GOP, what exactly is it?  As an undergrad, I took a course called Conservatism, but didn’t really give a clear definition of the conservatism movement.  I assumed they were pro individual freedom and pro capitalism.  Over time that proved to be not true.  A working definition according to the authors defines neoconservatism as:

an intellectual movement that is of, by and for the intellectual, cultural, and political elite—i.e. professors, opinion-makers, policy wonks and politicians.  The neoconservatives seek to guide America from the top down.(bold added)

Leo Strauss, a German expatriate is the philosophical teacher of the neoconservative movement.  I had never heard of Strauss.  His name was never mentioned in my Conservatism course.  Strauss was a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago.  His thought has had a profound impact on conservative thought.  For example, Strauss believed that society is separated by those who are wise, philosopher king type leaders more knowledgeable and educated; and can lead the average citizen in achieving government goals; and the unwise, the average citizen who is less educated and less knowledgeable and who needs to be guided by an all knowing leader who can steer the citizenry in the direction the government deems important. 

Philosophically this squares with Plato’s Republic.  Since those anointed to be leaders, it is their responsibility to teach average citizen the “correct” life.  To be virtuous, according to Strauss, requires that the average citizen must subordinate himself to the group.  Whoever the leader (or statesman) tells the citizen is good, he must sacrifice himself to the “common good”.  Forget about the average citizens own goals or ambitions.  They have no meaning for the good of the community as a whole.

Politically this can only lead to a type of autocratic rule or more precisely, a dictatorship.  More specifically, individuals must be obedient.  Instead, the group as such is given precedence over the individual.  As Thompson and Brook state:

the purpose of a government is to supervise the citizens’ virtue and to enforce their duties rather than protecting the individual’s natural rights.  The great statesman’s standard of success and honor is measured by the degree to which he can raise his fellow citizens toward human perfection or virtue.  

When put into practice, the ideas of Strauss and his heirs will always go against the founding principles of the United States.  As much lip service is given to liberty, when it comes to governance, Republicans follow pragmatism.   Pragmatism holds that there are no fundamental principles that guide ones actions.  That in a given situation action must be taken without regards to facts, the past or future.  What works now is what matters.  In this realm, the neoconservatives are pure pragmatists.  Since the statesman is responsible for guiding the citizens to perfection, he must not be tied down by standards.  Thompson and Brook note that Strauss believed the:

the statesman’s superior wisdom, knowledge, and vision should not therefore be constrained by rules and laws made by inferior men, but instead should be given the widest possible latitude.  Quoting Strauss “the man of the highest political wisdom is superior to any law, not only because he alone is the origin of excellent laws, but likewise because he has a flexibility which laws, however wise, necessarily lack.(bold added)

This is obscene on its face.  In practice, this means that Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Khomenini and all other despots are right no matter what because their respective societies elevated them to be leaders.  If a leader tells Americans to deal with being fondled, and having children be fondled in order to get on an airplane, so be it.  It’s all for the greater good because the statesman says so!    

When I think of individual Republicans who embody the Straussian view I think of Newt Gingrich, John McCain, both former Presidents Bush.  They embody Strauss’ statesman.  Each one is a philosophic pragmatist.  From Bush Sr, read my lips no new taxes, to Bush Jr, cutting taxes, but expanding the welfare state with Medicare prescription drugs for seniors to outlawing incandescent light bulbs.  Next we have John McCain and his disastrous presidential campaign.  He continually made statements about Americans willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.  And Newt Gingrich is the biggest opportunist out there.  He’s only for limited government when it suits him.  But he is more than willing to compromise on anything if it suits him at the moment.  Obviously, Sarah Palin is the complete antithesis of the Straussian statesman because she is not of the establishment whom, according to Strauss is of the unwise masses.  Please do not assume this is an endorsement of Palin.  I’m still not quite sure if she can be president.  But, she obviously throws a wrench into the Republican Party aspirations to continue their statist policies. 

The concluding chapter of the book is a favorite of mine because it shows the logical consequences of the neoconservative movement.  I share the same concerns as Thompson and Brook when they say that the conservative movement is preparing the nation for some kind of dictatorship, albeit in American form.  The Republican Party is not the party of individual rights.  They are the party of statism and collectivism.  I highly recommend this book because it lays bare the philosophical underpinnings that shape the Republican party.  This is a disturbing portrait, but I take satisfaction that once Americans read this book, they will have the intellectual ammunition to fight.  I guarantee the established GOP will compromise and acquiesce to any of the Democratic party’s statist plans.  

Bookish Babe

Tags: C. Bradley Thompson, collectivism, Hitler, Individual Rights, John McCain, Leo Strauss, neoconservatism, Plato, President Bush Jr, President Bush Sr, Republican party, sacrifice, Stalin, Statism, Tea Party Movement, The Republic, Yaron Brook | Posted in Philosophy