Talk:Neoconservatism

Hillary Clinton

Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.

Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)

Post-Neoconservative era

Political monitors throughout the early 21st century have been preparing for a post-Neoconservative American era.

in french

Not sure it's worth mentioning it but in French, neocon would mean "new cunt", so it is often used in a very pejorative way to describe political conservatives.

Leo Strauss and his Students

I am separating this dispute from the previous Talk. (The former dealt with the question of whether to include Leo Strauss himself on a list of neoconservatives. Having discussed it exhaustively, the sources do not support that.) Here we are discussing a different question:

I am asserting that a particular source is untrustworthy. The book is titled American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America--and Still Imperil Our Future. That does not sound as if it were an unbiased source.

Let us consider its reputation. It was not reviewed by any periodical of note, which is worth considering because the author's earlier books were. From the New York Times review of his House of Bush, House of Saud (2004): “conspiracymongering, which borders on self-parody at times”. From the New York Times review of his The Fall of the House of Bush (2007): “a sprawling hodgepodge of the persuasive and the speculative, the well researched and the hastily assembled, the original and the highly derivative . . . resorts at times to innuendo and speculation and hyperbolic language . . . occasionally hypes his material and extrapolates from the documented facts”. After that, the Times seems to have given up on our source, and not bothered to review the work I am disputing.

The other source, Thomas F. Farr's World of Faith and Freedom cites George Packer's The Assassin's Gate as the source for that quote. Regarding Packer, Farr writes: "Packer mounts a scathing attack on the neoconservative plans to employ U.S. military force against Iraq. He claims that the influence of Leo Strauss led to a "Strauss cult," a form of neoconservative Gnostic Puritanism that fed war fever." (p. 326) Whatever that may mean, it does not seem to be an unbiased source.

I invite my fellow editors discuss this very serious problem. Till my concern is allayed, I am sticking with my delete. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not have to be neutral and in fact rarely are. We should of course use academic sources but the publisher of this book (Sribner) is reputable. Bear in mind that facts and opinions are separate things. That Leo Strauss influenced neoconservatism is a fact, that that influence was for good or bad is an opinion. TFD (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD -- "unbiased" is a rare event dealing with highly controversial recent history. The statement in question is Strauss is often called the godfather/major influence/words-to-that-effect on some neocons. Both pro-Strauss and anti-Strauss authors make that point, so it's neutral. Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your contention. A book that no one took seriously enough to review is not a good source for anything. We have an obligation as editors to be more judicious than the letter of the law. We should examine every source and criticize it fairly. The "godfather" quote is baseless. It's also insulting. It should stay down. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the "godfather" metaphor is widespread: a) "Strauss is widely regarded today as a founding father, perhaps the Godfather, of neo-conservatism" says Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: politics, philosophy, Judaism (2006) p 3; B) "Of late, scholars have come to recognize that Leo Strauss was a good deal more than the godfather of American neo-conservatism," says David N. Myers, Resisting history: historicism and its discontents (2003) P. 115; c) "the intellectual godfather of many of the neocons, Leo Strauss" says Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated (2010) p 118; d) "philosopher Leo Strauss — a godfather of sorts to the neocon intellectuals" says Lloyd C. Gardner, The Long Road to Baghdad: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy (2010) p 99; e) "of Leo Strauss, Chicago godfather of the neo-cons" says Christopher Hitchens, Unacknowledged legislation: writers in the public sphere (2002) p 270; f) "The godfather of the latter [neocon] movement is allegedly Leo Strauss" says Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the open society (2009) p 34. g) "Leo Strauss, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, served as an intellectual godfather to the [neocon] new dissenters." says Donald T. Critchlow, The conservative ascendancy: how the GOP right made political history (2007) p 104; h) "Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservativism." says David Gabbard, Knowledge & power in the global economy (2008) p 80. etc etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to limit my response for now to addressing your first source, Steven Smith’s book, because I should be surprised if the others will fare better as evidence when given a closer look. I find that, once again, your quoting is selective and misleading. This must have been an oversight.

The paragraph you quote from ends: “The association of Strauss with neo-conservativism has been repeated so many times that it leaves the mistaken impression that there is a line of influence leading directly from Strauss’s readings of Plato and Maimonides to the most recent directives of the Defense Department. Nothing could be more inimical to Strauss’s teaching”. On the previous page, Smith wrote: “Others regard [Straussianism] as a political movement, often allied with “neo-conservatism,” with a range of prescribed positions and ties to conservative think tanks and policy centers. . . . None of these beliefs could be further from my own understanding.”

Friendly Editors, I myself am undecided about Strauss’s influence on neoconservatism. For now, it seems to me to be very close to nothing. The sources that argue for Straussian influence read like conspiracy theories in the bad sense of the term. If they are, we ought not to accord them any status in this entry--except perhaps to note that some “conspiracy theorists” believe this. But I am keeping an open mind, and I am sure you will too. Thus far, I have demonstrated that the godfather quote is baseless. Moreover, calling someone a criminal mastermind is at best a joke in poor taste and at worst defamation. We cannot indulge that in Wikipedia. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that the influence of Leo Strauss has been exaggerated, but it is real, sources say it is real and your objections are not persuasive. TFD (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Myers: footnote does not support “godfather”; it has to do with Strauss as a Jewish thinker, specifically a Weimar-era German Jewish thinker.

Wolin: footnote does not support “godfather”; it is about which 20th century philosophers Strauss thought well of.

Gardner: “Khalilzad . . . held a PhD from the University of Chicago, where many of the neocons (including Wolfowitz) had studied with philosopher Leo Strauss -- a godfather of sorts to neocon intellectuals.” No citation given.

Hitchens: “Leo Strauss, Chicago godfather of the neocons’ that really imputes sinister mafia-qualities.” Again, no citation whatsoever. And yet he continues: “mentor of Bloom, Fukuyama, and many others”. Fukuyama studied with Samuel Huntington at Harvard.

Hayes: Again, no citation. And note the “allegedly”.

Critchlow: No citation given. And what’s more: “Strauss was . . . far removed from contemporary partisan politics. . .” That’s why we removed Strauss from the list of actual neoconservatives.

Gabbard: “Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. His political philosophy stressed . . . the aggressive use of political power in foreign affairs.” This is not ignorance: it is a lie. But then he writes on p. 275: “none other than the godfather of the neoconservative movement Irving Kristol”. So who really was the capo di tutti capi?

Let us not waste our time any more with a deluge of unverified sources. Let us respect our readers by checking our sources before we publish them. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

False: all the quotes are cited to book and page number. Anybody can read them on books.google.com in 15 seconds--but Dkoiia1154 wasted our time by failing to do his simple homework. The point is that the godfather theme is widely used. The problem here Dkoiia1154 rejects the idea that anyone can be am intellectual godfather because only officeholders count in his narrow view. The article is about (mostly) intellectuals and ideas do count. Weaver Ideas have Consequences is a book he needs to read. Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate a clear connection between Strauss and neoconservatism, please do so already. Otherwise, let us agree to delete the entire section--or else explain to the readers that several scholars and journalists are mistaken (and maybe some are conspiracy theorists). Regardless, I must insist that you maintain a decorous tone in our discussions. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

we rely ion the RS: "Leo Strauss, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, served as an intellectual godfather to the [neocon] new dissenters." says Donald T. Critchlow, The conservative ascendancy: how the GOP right made political history (2007) p 104; "Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservativism." says David Gabbard, Knowledge & power in the global economy (2008) p 80. "Two important visionary neonconservative theoreticians came from the University of Chicago; Leo Strauss" says John-Paul Trutnau. A One-Man Show?: The Construction and Decontruction of a Patriarchal Image (2005) p 24; "The main intellectual influence on the neoconservatives has been the philosopher Leo Strauss." says Alfred S. Regnery, Upstream: the ascendance of American conservatism (2008) p 260; "His [Strauss] work became inspirational to American neoconservatives after his death." says Naomi Zack, The Handy Philosophy Answer Book (2010) online Dkoiia1154 rejects all this because he insists ideas by themselves do not count--he seems unable to find any sources that support that peculiar view. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I rejected the earlier batch as sources because they are the opinion of authors who provide no evidence. Therefore, they are mere baseless assertions.

Your new batch:

Trutnau clearly has not read Strauss: "Strauss . . . noted for his . . . prescription that democratic leaders should tell "noble lies" . . ." No citation; no surprise.

Regnery, however, denies your point without qualification and with citation. Please read the rest of pp. 260-261 and footnotes 9 & 10. Thank you for vindicating me!

Zack: no-name press, no citations, factual errors: William Kristol did not study with Strauss. He went to Harvard not U. of C. or St. Johns.

Can you prove that Strauss was a neoconservative or that many neoconservatives were his close students or precisely what his influence was on which neoconsertives -- or can't you? Either prove these points with straightforward solid sources or agree to delete the section.

(Incidentally, there's a whole book called Straussophobia that documents all of this sloppy work and muddled thinking about Strauss's influence. But I do not have to prove that something is not the case: You have to prove that something is. So far, you have not done so.)

I ask again that you please find some reliable sources, read them responsibly, and discuss them with us. Please provide actual proof or else please agree to delete the references to Strauss. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dkoiia1154 is now merely disruptive -- He has no ideas about Strauss, knows no RS about Strauss, and he simply does not accept the Wiki rules about reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir: None of your accusations is true, but I have not the time currently to refute you at length. Therefore, if you consider yourself compelled to restore the “godfather” passage despite its dastardly insinuation of criminality, you may do so without argument for now. If you must, I suggest that you quote Packer as he seems to be the source used most often by the others (when they were responsible enough to cite anyone) and he asserts that contemptible opinion as his own, whereas Sheppard indicates in his footnotes that it is not his opinion but others’.

Strauss must not, however, be restored to the list of neoconservatives. He does not belong on it, because he was not one of the “public figures identified as personally a neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisors” -- as everyone else on the list indisputably is. His inclusion was mistaken and misleading. I purposely separated that disagreement from this Talk, because that was a grave distortion. I would consider myself obligated to object again if that change is reverted. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Give up all hope, ye who edit here

This article exemplifies the problems of editing on popular/vital topics. Improving and defending this article will make you a bitter, bitter person.

If you prize your emotional health, it is more prudent to edit articles on notable collections of navel lint.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC),