"My alma mater is a moral cesspool" (neo-cons at the U of Chicago)

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli "Neoconservative" Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so. Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda . But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-cons in the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss, who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in their Department of Political Science. The best expose of Strauss's pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor Shadia B. Drury: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protege, co-author, and literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago's Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process by Chicago's Straussian cabal.

Chicago routinely trained me and numerous other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities.

.....

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle08022003.html

It is a slur on him to imply that these Straussians are in
any way his disciples.

University of Chicago, OTOH, has issues going way back.

what was the deal behind all his "support" -- here it is:

Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its Bush Jr. Straussian cabal, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. '72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. '69, Abram Shulsky, A.M. '68, Ph.D. '72, Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. '79, together with faculty members Bellow, X '39 and Bloom, A.B. '49, A.M. '53, Ph.D. '55.

And the special bonus, Khalilzad!

Wow.

Eloriel

Greg Palast is also a University of Chicago alumni.

On second thought - maybe it isn't the other side of the spectrum. Maybe it is more like "It takes a thief". In other words, Palast's education background gave him an insight needed to see through the BS.

Where do you think the Laffer Curve and Supply Side were incubated?

The main problem is that it is not the panacea that Reagan and Bush claim it is. Certainly going into debt for its sake is beyond stupid and preposterous. Princeton economics concurs with what I say, at least, although maybe not what Chicago says...not informed enough to say for sure.

supply side theory is along the lines of "build it and they will come."

There's often some truth in crackpot theory, and supply side works, sort of, when there is a liquidity problem and there is little investment money around. It makes supply far more important than demand, though, and doensn't seem to fully understand that there needs to be a balance. Besides, we have rarely, if ever, seen a time when the money supply dried up an there was no investment cash around. Even after the stock market tanking, there's still billions in investment capital ready for a good idea.

Right now, demand is the problem. There's not that much stuff out there that people want to buy, or have the money to buy. We need new products and businesses, and better employment and personal income.

but its science and just about every other humanities course is top of the line.

It was one of the first schools to let kids entering High School also enter the College (later under the National Student Defense Act (1956) program to match the USSR in science).

A great school.

But I grant you Strauss was evil.

Where else can you learn Norwegian besides maybe St. Olaf College in my hometown in Minn.? Sure, AshKKKroft and Wolfie have connections, but they're just bad eggs. The alumni rag that was sent out a month or so ago actually ran a column about some of the University people who are prominent in politics (Wolfie is really the only one I remember, but there were a few others), and it was clear that they were trying to be kind while still acknowledging his skankiness. (Wolfie sure dresses well, though, except when he's wearing "casual.")

Ironically enough, one of the more hegemonic power proponents in recent publication, John Mearsheimer, is a Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago. What makes this particularly ironic is his consistent and loud disagreement with the Bush administration over its foreign policy.

As a current political science grad student in a quant-oriented department, I think that part of the problem will all these jokers is that they, like their theories, are all relics of the bad old days of political science, back before it was less a science and more a demagogue factory. Today we call these people political theorists, not political scientists.

Strauss was bad, Bloom was worse, and all these neocon political "scientists" bring shame on our profession.

One of the most liberal alternative thinkers in political science is also located at Chicago, Professor Alexander Wendt. That department has to have some hellacious Christmas parties!

His Chicago boys tested his economic theories in Chile after the 1973 military coup.

Thanks to them, it's practically suicide for any UC student or graduate to walk around South America wearing the school logos or the class ring.


:evilfrown:

in history at Chicago, there are certainly some right wing wackos that have passed throught this institution, but there are also some very liberal progressive scholars associated with the place, even in the poli-sci department

the history department is definitely on the left, as are most of the humanities, anthro too

i've taught a lot of undergraduates and find them to be for the most part on the left in a very sensible way

there is a 'secret' progressive tradition that begins with Chicago's creation in the late 19th century and continues today

unfortunately, it's fools like Strauss, Friedman, Wolfowitz et al who get all the press

Yeah, the Chicago progressive undercurrent goes all the way back to the great books, movement days.

relevant article in the weekly standard.
A challenge to your basic assumptions.




"..Despite its wild implausibility, the scenario is in one important respect true. And that has to do with the influence of Leo Strauss on a generation of neoconservative thinkers, some of whom are active in our politics (and some of whom can even be found writing in these pages)."



"Strauss also shared Churchill's famous praise of democracy as the worst regime except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Although he regarded modern democracy as flawed, it is, Strauss suggested, the form of government best suited to the protection and enjoyment of human liberty, and therefore should be defended wholeheartedly."

"Finally, Strauss was not a proponent of American empire--but he did teach the importance of American strength in defense of liberty. Writing in the midst of the Cold War, as a refugee from Nazi Germany and as a student of tyranny, Strauss insisted that totalitarians of the left and the right posed a profound threat to liberal democracy--a threat that liberal democrats tended to underestimate because of their habit of supposing that all individuals and nations are as open to reason and persuasion as liberal democrats consider themselves to be. Strauss encouraged liberal democracies to be strong in defending themselves and forceful in conducting a foreign policy in accord with their principles."

"He was the kind of friend who makes one better by constantly exhibiting, through example and argument, the look of excellence. Not always an easy sort of friend, but the sort of friend, you would think, whom true liberals in every time and place would appreciate."




http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/717acusr.asp

It's one of the country's great URBAN universities. Agreed, some departments are flatline conservative but it remains an important educational institution. (When you think of Yale do you think of Bush or the Clintons? Big schools are like cities with lots of different neighborhoods within them.) Chicago shouldn't be branded as far-RW so offhandedly; real people work there and teach there and learn there; it is respected worldwide among the constellation of top universities. It does not benefit the Left to concede this fine school to the sole clutches of the Right.