Instead of viewing this country's neoconservatism through Straussians who have bastardized Leo Strauss, I went back to the concept that everyone seems to agree on, when discussing the man.
Language, and how if used properly, can mean different things to different people.
I'm calling it the "art of ambiguity".
Going back and looking at it through that lens, it all comes into focus.
This entire movement is a crock.
It is not a religious movement or a moral movement. It is a corporate movement.
And claiming to want to appoint judges who will overturn abortion laws, and same-sex marriage laws, only hides the real reason for stacking the judiciary. They want to remove all obstacles to corporate control of government.
This point was brought up during a discussion with a group of politically engaged individuals, and got me to googling until I'm seeing triple. But I didn't tie it all together until my epiphany.
Talking out loud, or typing out loud, I started posting on my theory, laying it out to see if it makes sense.
If you go back to a story in the U.S., where the Supreme Court redefined corporations as citizens, and ruled that corporate campaign spending limits violate the First Amendment, it makes sense.
As some wonder what the impact will be, one progressive PR firm, Murray Hill, actually ran a satirical political campaign, as the first corporate candidate for Congress. (video below) It might not be as far fetched as it sounds. Give it time.
I'm going to provide further evidence to support my theory, so be patient.
But for now I must take a nap.
Epiphanies are very tiring.
The Success of Neoconservatism is Based on Emotionally Fuelled Ambiguity