Leo Strauss, Alan Bloom and American Democrocay (attn:Nitsuh)

alan bloom was criticised as being a closet case who preached temperence for the masses, but lived a life of a well monied faggot, i thot that at first this was hipocarsy , but if straussian philosophy claims that the best way to deal with a system is through an elite, then this would make sense, ie bloom was one of the elite.

the problem with western liberalism is that all people are not created equal, and the best workers on that system try to make them equal, that was what the american constituition says, strauss recontextualizes this, saying that it is impossible-and that many of the failures of this kind of thinking were not abberations but extensions. (ie Heidegger and his nazis)

growing up in Weimar Germany as an orthodox jew, he saw the destruction of a society that respected diversity and was almost at the edges of proletariat revolt- he also saw the rise of the nazis, and the academics often accepting or at least kowtowing-which lead to a question-how do we preserve this kind of democratic system when it can be destroyed so quickly by force ( a logical corelation can be made to the question i am struggling with-how do you deal with warriors and psychopaths as a pacifist-the army or armies at least contain them)

the solution strauss came with is that you cannot-his books are glosses on greek philosophy, and you are unsure what exactly where his philosophy starts and where he ends (bloom also worked on the same sources, he called plato an american democrat, which is absurd)-his choice of sources is telling- plato, Machiavelli.

what do we do with the white house who accepts this gentleman, and implicitly rejects americas jeffersonian foundations, (karl rove in last weeks new yorker big upped madison, who has similar thoughts)-and cloaks itself in language of internationalist democracy ?