According to the lawnmower man, everything you just wrote is jargon, Philosopher.
If I remember Leo Strauss best he believed in the "ultimate" limitation of power. Not only did he want the powers of state limited he wanted the powers of the individual limited. He did not think that democracy could be trusted. The reason for this is that democracy has no goal, no end, no common denomination to move to. When you say, "Why do you support freedom" you have no real unifying answer.
He also very much believed in an elite ruling class. When you look at the US system and, to a lesser extent, what has happened in Canada, the influence of his teachings is clear.
This school interested a lot of people because although Leo Strauss did not write it he was an old-fashioned kind of guy who did not take to those foreign interests (European free culture).
In his class was Flannigan, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Flannigan came to Canada to teach, Harper was one of his students. The major link is that Flannigan became a backer of the Reform Party and remains a supporter of the Conservatives.
Straussian theory is still taught today and has become a major force in some circles. Many poli-sci profs come from the Straussian school.
While Flannigan was a student of Strauss, he didn't land in the Reform Party by accident. In fact he was welcomed in by like-minded people, most significantly Stephen Harper, and has a lot of influence in radical-right politics in Canada.
Where the pillows gets dirty is when Flannigan wrote a book named "First Nations? Second Thoughts" with many suggestive themes about natives. None of it was truly offensive, but it stated positions that a lot of people tend to agree with but few want to say it outside of circles. One point is that we are a multicultural society so we should work that way and not differentiate between two status quos.
I found it truly offensive. It revealed Flannigan to be an unabashed racist who wanted to destroy international-level treaties. He was pandering to small-town bigotry.
Two problems, first it was written with full funding from the Liberals (either they didn't look far into the project or they simply did not care). Second is that when this book actually came out (around 2000), a lot of liberals when asked agreed with most of the points. The media showed a general unrepairable "falling out" with the natives who have always voted in droves for liberals.
I didn't see those as problems, I found them to be very revealing. It wasn't "a lot of Liberals", it was a very specific group of Liberals...the right wing of the party. The Martinites. Much of the continued native support for the Liberals stemmed from the Trudeau years, specifically Jean Chretien's time as Minister of Indian Affairs. The right side of the party didn't realize the importance of that support. Watching Martin's meetings with Native leaders this week, it is apparent that he has now recognized the importance of aboriginal support, especially in Quebec and on the prairies.
Leo Strauss was not a moron, and neither was Tom Flanigan. They know what people wanted and as Leo Strauss said, "you warp it so it fits to the goal."
Nope, and I never said they were. They are very frightening people and everybody should be aware of them, their associates, and their followers. People should also be aware that many of their ideas have crept from the radical right to the right side of the Liberals.
