         |
|
|
 |
Why Leo?
Okay, I read the Hersh piece. It’s bad! Not as bad as Atlas’s, but then Hersh didn’t devote enough space to Strauss to make as many errors. Hersh ropes Strauss into a run-of-the-mill article about interagency in-fighting. Why are people at the Defense Department suspicious of intelligence and analysis they get from other agencies? Because they’re Straussians, and as such believe that only those trained in the mysterious art of esoteric reading are capable if interpreting mysterious intelligence! This is a stretch to say the least. (Though I am reminded of the time that someone--I think it was Kojève--asserted that Strauss’s method, while like detective work, was unlikely to result in a conviction. Strauss responded that he would be satisfied if his arguments did no more than induce suspicion of a crime where before there had been only the assumption of perfect innocence.) Ultimately, what’s more interesting than Hersh’s view of why Strauss is influential is the question: Why is the media so obsessed with demonstrating that Strauss is influential? I have thought about this a little, and come up with several possible explanations. Not sure which I prefer, but here they are:
It’s News! Most Americans have not heard of Strauss. When a reporter first hears of Strauss and realizes that Strauss has all these followers whom the reporter has heard of, a little light bulb goes on. Aha! I now know something others don’t! I must tell the world! So That's What They’re All About! Reporters love to ascribe hidden, sinister motives to people they don’t like. This allows them to feel more justified in their dislike. (It’s not that I’m biased! These guys really are bad!) This belief is also what keeps the “news analysis” business alive and thriving. Just reporting what people say and do does not take too many column inches and is not much fun. Writing about what they really think and what they’re really up to: that’s fun! That’s how you get on TV! In Washington, of course, the reporters are liberal and the Straussians are conservative so, ispo facto, the reporters don't like the Straussians. But you can't get much milage out of simply calling someone a conservative. There are too many of them for that to be shocking. And (let's face it!) some are even valued sources whom it would be foolish to offend. But defining "Straussianism" in sinister terms and then calling someone a Straussian and can go a long way. It’s a Conspiracy! There is nothing reporters love so much as a conspiracy. A good conspiracy can make a reporter's career. Look what one did for Bob Woodward! Plus, conspiracies are rare. The ratio of actual conspiracies to conspiracy theories is impossible to calculate, but is no doubt quite low. That makes uncovering a real one that much more of a status symbol. Now, unlike most conspiracy theories, the Straussians-Run-the-World theory is slippery enough to be all but impervious to falsification. Nixon either did or did not try to cover up the Watergate break-in. Follow the money, and a hard answer is available. Woodward would have ruined himself if, after 18 months of dogged reporting, he was only able to nail Donald Segretti and Gordon Liddy. But journalists can write that Straussians-Run-the-World on the vapors of hearsay and innuendo and just dare people to prove them wrong. How Did He Do That? Reporters—especially Washington political reporters—love influence, partly because it’s the bread and butter of what they cover, partly because they wish they had some. The type of Washington figure that fascinates them the most is the “grey eminence,” the behind-the-scenes power broker who doesn’t need a high-profile job, shuns a high profile generally, but who everyone knows can nonetheless get the President on the phone at the drop of a hat. The idea of someone like Strauss—who never worked in government, never lived in Washington, and never lunched with Kay Graham—exerting so much influence (from beyond the grave, no less) both fascinates them and arouses tremendous envy. Can I Join? Now, I don’t believe that most journalists who become aware of Strauss want to become Straussians. Too many hard books to read! Plus, those people are geeks! And worse, conservatives! And yet . . . Modern journalists do like to think of themselves as intellectuals--actually, as a special breed of intellectual who has shunned the comforts of the ivory tower to use their gifts and their learning to benefit all mankind in the cause of justice in the rough-and-tumble real word. Many of them have read—or at least were assigned—the books in the Straussian canon. They feel in their bones that whatever status they have in some way depends on their having something intelligent to say about said books. When they realize that there are these other folks who seem to really know something about these books and who also work in the real world, they get intrigued. The fact that these folks seem to be part of a secret society is all the more intriguing. What’s the secret? Can I know? Not that the journalists want to join, necessarily. I’ll bet that relatively few of the thousands of journalists who went to Yale had any real desire to join Skull & Bones, for instance; in fact I have little doubt that they publicly scoffed at the idea. And yet. . . the mystery! The élan! Something about the notion of esotericism works the same magic on the journalistic mind. Secret teachings, you say? Dangerous thoughts accessible only to the worthy, eh? I could figure it all out if I wanted to. Or could I . . . ? That’s Not Fair! Pulling them in another direction, however, is the burning sensation that there is something terribly elitist and anti-democratic about the whole Straussian thing. Esotericism is by definition an exclusive doctrine. Seen from the outside, the Straussians seem awfully clannish. They don’t much respect the work of non-Straussians. They have their own schools, their own foundations, their own . . . wait, that’s taking us in a different direction. Anyway, journalists think of themselves as the arbiters of fairness and the guardians of democracy. Even if they don’t believe that Straussians have genuine insight into the mysteries of existence, they believe that the Straussians believe this of themselves. Since it is a short step from this to believing that genuine insight gives one a title to rule, even the possibility of said belief is unacceptable and must be exposed, ridiculed and—if necessary—punished. Knock That Smirk Off Your Face! To the extent that some Straussians really do believe that they have special insight into the mysteries, it can make them seem smug and insufferable—especially to a journalist gnawed by self-doubt. There’s nothing like a printing press or a TV camera to knock a pompous know-it-all off his high horse! That’s all I can think of. Anybody have any other ideas?
An amazingly comprehensive survey; hard to think you left anything out. One wonders if any good come of this. Despite all the errors, distortions, and some boder-line calumnies, is it possible that a few serious, smart people will start reading Strauss just out of curiousity? Glenn | May 07, 2003 | 04:37 PM
Somehow I doubt it. But we can hope! Antongiavanni | May 08, 2003 | 06:08 AM
Because they're a cult! Straussians need to be honest about this explanation. It may not apply to the conspiracy articles suggesting that the Straussians run the American executive, but it applies to other articles. Imagine you're a journalist who knows little about political theory. Wouldn't the debates among Straussians seem ludicrous? Even tempting to ridicule? If you don't understand why it's important to get straight on key texts and principles, the arguments over them seem as silly as the debates between the big- and little-enders in Lilliput. And the disputants seem as excessive in vanity and deficient in self-knowledge as the students in Socrates' think-tank in the Clouds. Eric Claeys | May 08, 2003 | 01:24 PM
Where is the essay Hersh references (Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)) available? A Google search did not locate it. Chris Buskirk | May 08, 2003 | 02:35 PM
Some debates among Straussians are indeed ludicrous. The two that bug me the most are: is _______ a closet nihilist?; look what a close reading reveals!; and endless blather on what it means to be a philosopher (Does the philosopher really want to rule? Must he go to the marketplace? What about subjective certainty?) by people who never seem to find time to debate any actual philosophic issues. The rest of what you say could well apply to any corner of academia, and to any number of other academic cults (deconstructionists, neo-feminists, anti-colonialists, &c.;). So the question remains: why do journalists single out Strauss? Antongiavanni | May 08, 2003 | 03:43 PM
Meant to add (should have added) that I for one think most intra-Straussian debates are more interesting than anything else in academia. More than others, Straussians tend to debate real, red meat issues. The best regime, republicanism v. imperialism, rights v. duties, rule of law v. rule of men (to stick just to the political issues)--these are big issues! One may not be interested in such issues, but they hardly compare to the niggling mindlessness of Lilliput. Antongiavanni | May 08, 2003 | 03:51 PM
I agree that *many* Straussian debates address the issues of common-sense politics, and at a high level. My point is narrower: Thoughtful political observers see the "issues that matter" more comprehensively than shallow ones. Because journalists operate on a day-to-day time horizon, they're not thoughtful political observers. So, granting everything you say on debates about issues like the rule of law, what is a journalist going to do with a political thinker who thinks that *the* most important issue of our day is, e.g., what Locke stands for, whether modern liberalism is compatible with Aristotle, or whether modern liberalism is connected to Southern slavery ideology? You & I may agree that these questions go to the root of our politics, but to a journalist they seem Lilliputian. And Straussians are different from normal academics in at least two ways. First, to outsiders, it must seem strange that all these people organize into strong cliques that don't follow the lines of organization in any university or any collection of colleagues in the same field from different universities. (Straussians have good reason for this; I'm just saying it's bound to strike non-Straussians as strange because they take the university for granted.) Also, when Straussians argue in public, the argument often gets as venomous and personal as the Communists did after Lenin died or the Freudians after Freudian died. It's one step more cultish than ordinary academic politics. Eric Claeys | May 09, 2003 | 09:04 AM
"First, to outsiders, it must seem strange that all these people organize into strong cliques that don't follow the lines of organization in any university or any collection of colleagues in the same field from different universities." Your statement begins to explain why the Office of Special Plans is located within Policy and not within the Department of Defense Intelligence Community. Should the Defense Intelligence Agency now mandate Policy? Blurring the lines of responsibility and function could set a dangerous precedent of anarchy within all governmental branches. Is this what the Straussians hope to accomplish--the entire dismantling of government thru chaos? | May 09, 2003 | 03:52 PM
I wish I knew how to roll my eyes using emoticons. Antongiavanni | May 09, 2003 | 05:48 PM
Why? Because it would be far easier than answering the question? | May 09, 2003 | 07:28 PM
You ask "Is this what the Straussians hope to accomplish--the entire dismantling of government thru chaos?" This is preposterous on its face, but I like a challenge! Convincing you that it's all wrong will certainly be a challenge. You accept Hersh's premise that there is something implicitly "Straussian" about the DoD hawks' dissatisfaction with CIA. Why? Hersh identifies three Straussians in OSD—Shulsky, Cambone and Wolfowitz. Okey. To take your question seriously, one would have to believe either that these two guys run OSD, that there are many more Straussians there that Hersh can’t identify (if so, why not?), or that these three are Rasputins who control the minds of the entire Defense Department. And, really, for their sinister power to work, they would also have to control the minds of the big shots at the White House: at a minimum, Rice, Cheney and Bush. Believe it if you want to! It falls to me to point out that there is no evidence. The mere fact that these (three!) guys studied with Leo Strauss doesn’t cut it. Also—and I know you’ll have a hard time accepting this—real conspiracies of this kind are very rare. Please, by all means, tell us examples of instances when a tiny handful of men from secret societies hijacked the helm of a whole government. For the analogy to be really apt, it would have to be a large, successful, republican government. I can’t think of one. Can you? (I’m going to regret having asked that . . .) I shouldn’t have to add: you’ll need better evidence than that provided by Hersh. Moving on: neither Hersh nor you explains how it is that “Straussianism” informs the cabal’s efforts with regard to intelligence. He refers to an essay co-written by Shulsky. The one piece of advice quoted from the essay amounts to: pay careful attention to the details! Good advice for any intelligence professional. The strongest connection that Hersh (or you) can make to Strauss is to say that the cabal’s attention to detail is Strauss-inspired. Not much of a conspiracy. Your post leaps from one assertion to the other. How does the fact that Straussians at universities seem clannish explain why the cabal is located within OSD and not the IC? Remember, we’ve already established that there are only three Straussians at OSD! Not that it would make your case if there were 300 . . . You employ a reduction ad absurdum: if the policy shop is analyzing intelligence, then of course the DIA should set policy. This is not an argument. It’s a petulant “nyah, nyah” not particularly well dressed as an argument. In any case, since policy “outranks” intelligence, in the sense that intelligence exists to serve policy, not the other way around, I don’t see any problem with the policy people analyzing intelligence. It would be a major problem, however, if the intelligence people tried to make policy. We know this from experience. You raise the specter of the government crashing down because some people in OSD Policy are working intel. That’s all it will take! We survived a revolution, a civil war, two world wars and 9/11, not to mention innumerable domestic crises—but let Shulsky analyze intelligence from the wrong office, and it’s the end of the republic! Please. You seem to be saying that because the policy people at DoD are now analyzing intel, functions are so blurred across the government that before we know it the Labor department will be buying guided missile destroyers and patrolling Puget Sound. Again: please. You make no attempt to justify your final logical leap, a dizzying three-and-a-half-gainer. First one must accept your premise that Straussians run the Pentagon AND that they do so based on explicitly Straussian ideas. Then one must believe that having policy-types analyze intelligence is fundamentally dangerous—so dangerous that it will destroy America. Finally, one must accept that this in fact the conscious motive of the evil Straussians. You don’t even try to back up that last crazy assertion. A tacit admission of its futility? You are obviously a disgruntled intel type, possibly someone who works at DIA, who hates the cabal and is looking for a reason to demonize them. You can’t leave it at the fact that you disagree with their politics and methods, so you erect elaborate theories that they are evil conspirators trying to bring down the government. You have, in fact, helped prove the thesis of my original post (in particular, motives 2 & 3). By the way: were you one of Hersh’s anonymous sources? Just curious! Antongiavanni | May 10, 2003 | 05:00 AM
I have no problem with anyone using a "Straussian" method to analyze intelligence. In fact, I would recommend (in general terms) that anyone involved in analyzing data regularly employ alternative methods to avoid becoming "stale" with their approach. I do, however, have a problem with deconstructing the channels of intelligence gathering and analysis within the US government. There are 14 agencies who are mandated thru executive order to oversee this essential basic for our national security. The Policy branch is not included within these 14 agenices. I find that troubling. The message sent out is that the structure and hierarchy over our government is shifting. Long understood functions and responsibilities are no longer held with regard or respect. That leads me to the conclusion that there is an insidious dismantling of our democratic establishments. It began with this core group taking on responsibilities that legally were not theirs to begin with. You do realise that not only are they analyzing intelligence but they are also actively gathering it. If Abram Shulsky's group were working within the 14 Intelligence agenices, I would feel far more assured of their good intentions. But as they are operating outside, I can only come to one conclusion: they have no respect for the government of the United States. I find this very troubling and so I question: Is this what the Straussians hope to accomplish--the entire dismantling of government thru chaos? Perhaps I should have asked: are the group working with Abram Shulsky true Straussians? After all, one can ascribe to any philosophy one wants but that doesn't mean one has to follow it.
| May 10, 2003 | 11:01 PM
anyone bother to recall the main argument of Plato's Republic, about justice not being identical to the rule of the stronger? can anyone tell me how the Project for a New American century is not the simple assertion that justice is the rule of the stronger? that's tyranny, as Struass himself points out in the introduction to the Machiavelli book, which he contrasts to the US Constitution. The neo-cons are imperialists, seems to me, which moves close to tyranny. ironic that the neo-cons have fallen prey to what drove the athenians to destruction in sicily, all at the behest of alcibiades, who socrates tried to restrain for awhile, but eventually failed. seems the neo-cons have gone mad for power and thrown philsophy out the window. jim | May 11, 2003 | 03:44 PM
Dear Blank (you know who you are!): You seem to be attempting to draw a bright line between intelligence analysis done by analysts and whatever it is that policy makers do with intelligence. But I would argue that what they do is in fact analysis, and that there is not only nothing wrong with that, but that it could not be any other way. Intelligence is information. It is used to inform policy. Because we know (or think we know) a particular fact or set of facts, we devise a policy to deal with those facts. When policy makers do that, they are analyzing intelligence, in the sense that they are interpreting it, and acting on their interpretations. The logical conclusion of your argument seems to be that only professional analysts, working in offices and organizations set up for the purpose, should ever analyze intelligence. In your world, it is illegitimate for anyone but a certified analyst to analyze and interpret intelligence. But wouldn't this make analysts into policy makers? If they were the sole arbiters of truth, then policy makers would have no choice but to act on the interpretations of the analysts. In which case, there would be no need and no purpose for policy makers. Maybe an example will clarify what I mean. Newspaper reports in the long run-up to the Iraq war were full of accounts (sourced anonymously, of course) that intelligence analysts didn't think Saddam Hussein posed much of a threat. He was contained, his WMD programs were stalled, he would only attack if provoked, etc. They based this on open-source material and on intelligence. Policy makers, looking at the same information, came to a different conclusion than the analysts. They thought Saddam did pose a threat. Ultimately, the President agreed. And he made policy accordingly. Isn't that his right? Isn't that what the people elected him to do? No one elected the analysts. The analysts are hired to serve the President and his statutorily appointed aides. There is no legal, constitutional, moral or prudenatial rule which says that the analysts must be heeded. Often they are. Their work is appreciated even when they are not. But, in the final analysis, it falls to others to make the final analysis. All Hersh has described is a yet another unit in DoD that anaylizes intelligence. Super-hawks don't like the analysis that they are getting elsewhere. They are more suspicious of the world and more convinced of the omnipresence of threats. Isn't that their right? Aren't the allowed--no, obliged--to think through all the information before them and draw conclusions to the best of their abilities, even if the professional analysts disagree? Your bottom-line objection comes down to the flow chart. You don't like where this is taking place. To which I say: what's the difference? The super-hawks are going to disagree with softer-line analysis anyway. So they hire some extra people to help them examime intelligence and refine their thinking. Who cares where they sit? How is the republic in danger if they're in OSD? You have not, to say the least, made a compelling case that it is. You haven't made any case, in my view. The claim that the chain of command is somehow compromised is not convincing. The President still gives the orders, and SecDef still carries them out. There is no chain of command either inherent or implied in the analysis of intelligence. Thus I don't see how you get to the point where you can even ask the question: Are Straussians secretly trying to bring down the government? By the way: you err when you argue that these guys are collecting. Hersh doesn't claim that. So unless you know something the rest of us don't . . . Antongiavanni | May 12, 2003 | 05:37 AM
Its has been well reported outside of Hersh that Abram Shulsky's group has been collecting intelligence. Their primary source for Iraq intelligence has been Ahmad Chalabi's group the INC. The OSP gathering intelligence is what I specifically object to. I have no objection to the analysis aspect as you suggest. Analysis is to be expected of the Policy branch. Here is the description of International Security Affairs (from their own website) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense for formulating international security and political-military policy for Africa, Asia-Pacific, Near-East and South Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. He also provides policy oversight for security assistance and prisoner of war (POW)/missing in action (MIA) issues. It says nothing about the ISA (and subsequently the OSP) collecting intelligence. If you visit the "Members of the Intelligence Community" website, you will also find the ISA is not listed as functioning in an intelligence capacity.
| May 12, 2003 | 10:43 AM
Taking intel from the INC is not collection. I guess in one sense it is, if you consider listening to walk-ins collection. But that's all the OSD guys do in terms of collection. The INC (or whomever) does all the work, and the super-hawks listen to what they have to say and analyze. They never leave their desks. They certainly don't run operations. The real gripe that I've seen reported is that most profssional US government intelligence analysts don't trust the information they get from the INC. They don't particularly like the INC, period. But some in government want to hear what they have to say. Since they don't hear it from the usual intel channels, they go to the source. In this case the source is a political interest/opposition group. Surely you don't object to policy people meeting with such groups, do you? But you object when they pass along intelligence. Why so? What are you afraid will happen? Don't you think this stuff should at least get a hearing? If your objection is that, because of all this unreliable intel, the US went to war, therefore had this intel stream beem choked off, there would have been no war, I would argue that you are deluding yourself: both that it would have been possible to choke off the stream, and that the stream itself was decisive in making the case to go to war. Had the INC never provided a scrap of intel, there was still a pile of evidence in the public record pointing to the threat from Iraq. Antongiavanni | May 12, 2003 | 11:09 AM
Gee, a lot can happen on a blog over the weekend. I agree with Antongiavanni that [Blank]'s conspiracy theories seem far-fetched. But since [Blank] got this discussion going with a quote from my post, let me say: I was certainly not referring to the CIA and the Defense Department when I talked about Straussians organizing into cliques that don't follow traditional academic lines. I was making a point more focused on Straussians in the university or think-tanks. E.g., why would a professor of classical languages -- I don't have anyone in particular in mind here -- define himself more in terms of the fight between Thomas Pangle & Harry Jaffa than in terms of the issues that preoccupy 99% of classics scholars? Eric Claeys | May 12, 2003 | 11:23 AM
Conspiracy theories of conspiracy theories are the most ill-intending debunkers of all. To discredit an idea, claims are made that the idea is a far-fetched conspiracy, and the idea is exaggerated from the median to the extremes, as if it only ever existed in the extreme. Of course there exist those who believe the government has been hijacked by Straussians who babble in esoteric prose to each other while in hooded robes, but that is hardly the dominant or median perspective from advocates of a Straussian "influence" in the current administration. Most simply see a trend in a particular style of political thought, which is similar to or rooted in Straussian theory, and has somehow embraced or been embraced by our current administration, or the dominant contingent of that administration. The arrival chicken or the egg is not important here. Pure Straussian? Of course not. Straussian influenced? Highly. But ultimately, like all things political (and therefore all things derived from human beings and all their myriad psychological devices, idiosyncrasies, persuasions, etc.) the thought that has ultimately emerged is its own beast, ala PNAC. It is hardly arguable that it is acceptable for an administration to pick and choose amongst intelligence sources until it finds what it "desires", in the process ignoring evidence that contradicted what it was hoping to find. To argue that the government has the "right" to do so is to legitimize propaganda. The government has no such right. In fact, it has an obligation to create policy based on the truth, whatever that truth is. Such is the gist of those who decry the "Selective Intelligence" gathering reported by Hersh. Charles Wilson | May 17, 2003 | 11:34 AM
|
|
Monthly Archives
April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
The Best of The Remedy
Contra Derbyshire Why Leo? Atlas Shirked Partisan Review is No More The Worst Movie Review of the Year: The Emancipation Proclamation and Constitutionalism Lincoln and the Law Alan Wolfe Defending America? The Constitution an Academic Exercise? The Constitution and the SOTU The State of Our Union
Powered by Movable Type 2.51
|
Home Projects Writings Events Become a Member About Help |