The Use of Language to Manipulate for the Better Good

"The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense." - Benjamin Franklin

The neoconservative movement has achieved most of it's success through the clever manipulation of language.

"Calculated ambiguity", "hidden dialogue" and "words that work", are all part of their arsenal.

Linguist George Lakoff believes that progressives can win if they start tapping into this skill (video below). We can't assume that everyone automatically can see the good in social programs, that not only strive to alleviate hunger and despair, but also help to eliminate social unrest.

The Neocons promote war based on the need to keep us safe. We have to frame our message in a similar fashion. Hunger is a great motivator and can lead the desperate to commit desperate acts. It is as fundamental as self preservation. How many revolutions took place for something as simple as the lack of bread? The French and Russian certainly come to mind.

We need to keep everyone fed to keep everyone safe.

It's clear to anyone paying attention that the increase in prisons by the Harperites, is not for "unreported crime", but for future crime, if they are allowed to succeed in their agenda to dismantle Canada's welfare state.

The elite need to have their "stuff" protected when a large sector of our population find themselves without the ability to buy "stuff" for themselves. The ability to buy bread. The police brutality at the G-20 was a test for martial law. I'm convinced of that.

And having so many of their MPs who are ex-cops, including the latest Julian Fantino, The Harper government will continue to have the police on their side. They will no longer be protecting the public, but their mandate will be protecting the government and the wealthy from the public.

Stephen Harper knew as early as 2005, that he would need a military presence in the streets of our major cities. He has since then created urban camouflage uniforms for our soldiers. According to the Ottawa Citizen:

Those designs are to be based on the "unique requirements" of the urban settings of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, according to an outline of the project co-ordinated by scientists at Defence Research and Development Canada in Suffield, Alta.

So social programs not only help to prevent social unrest, but also protect us from the necessity of having soldiers in the streets, unless there's been a natural disaster. I can't imagine too many Canadians who would want to live in that kind of country.

It is too reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Carl Schmitt in his Concept of the Political, the only modern doctrine that Leo Strauss followed, says that "strife itself is humanizing". A necessary element if we are to understand inhumanity, I suppose. But I think that attempting to end strife is a far greater test of humanity. Witnessing that is more humanizing.

So instead of using the term "welfare state", we stick to "social safety net", with an emphasis on "safety". We can even throw in "freedom" now and then. A powerful word. But we do need "freedom" from this authoritarian style of governance.

The "freedom" to live without fear of our government and it's agencies.

On Religion

Another area of daily life hijacked by the neoconservative movement is religion. They have laid claim to our mortal soul. But their faith is based on the religion of corporatism, and it has become a religion of hatred and greed.

More churches need to speak out publicly, and not just privately as they do now.

Religion should inspire not incite.

On Symbols

Another area that George Lakoff reminds us that the Neocons have hijacked, are national symbols. The Republican pollster Frank Lutz told Harper to tap into symbols like hockey, and now our prime minister is it's number one fan.

I can assure you that had Lutz suggested ballet, Harper would be wearing a tutu in the House. Whatever it takes.

But they also claim the flag, the national anthem and the notion of "democracy", despite the fact that the movement denounces all three. Many Reformers hated the new flag, calling it too "Liberal" and saw no need for a new anthem, when the Maple Leaf Forever served us so well. And neoconservatism itself is closer to fascism. They fight against too much democracy.

We need to have our flag representing not a symbol we fight under, but a symbol we live under. Make Canadian sovereignty the Holy Grail, not Canadian combat.

Framing and Unifying

Lakoff rightfully says that part of the problem progressives have is that they are divided. The NDP, Liberals and Bloc are constantly at each other's throats, which only helps to support the neoconservative movement.

They need to rally around the issues they have in common.

And in framing messages, words like "community", "prosperity" and "empathy" work best.

He also uses George Bush's "tax relief" as an example of helpful framing. The "relief" suggests that taxes are something we need to be relieved of. We have to make taxes a positive thing, since they buy us civilization.

So instead we speak of the need for "poverty relief", a "break from corporatism" or "freedom from war". Giving negative connotation to negative things.

Because if we don't start speaking up and speaking clearly, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak at all.

You Don't Have to Read Strauss to be a Straussian

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In Lawrence Martin's book, Harperland, he relates a conversation he had with Harper's chum John Weissenberger, about Leo Strauss. Weissenberger suggests that Harper never mentioned the man. (p. 124)

He's probably right.

Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, confirms this, saying instead that he was more of a follower of Friedrich Hayek.

But you don't have to read Leo Strauss to be a Straussian, anymore than you have to read the Bible to be a Christian.

Neoconservatism is a political theology, where the principles are already laid out in the dogma of the movement.

After reading everything I could find on the subject (and still looking for more), I've come to the realization that breaking down Stephen Harper and his movement, is really quite simple.

- It's a religion based on corporatism
- It uses hidden language in an attempt to become all things to all people (calculated ambiguity)
- It holds a strong belief in the necessity of war as a "Clash of Civilizations"

The idea originated with Nazi Carl Schmitt, though I don't believe he espoused corporatism. But what Schmitt did admire about Nazism, was that to him it embodied "inner truth and greatness."

It was political theology, rather than political philosophy, which might suggest something more organic. And he, like Harper, hated Liberalism.

Schmitt's own mortal enemy is liberalism, which he demonizes as the pacifistic, all-tolerating, rationalist-atheist antithesis of "the political" conceived as he defined it. Liberalism is thus complicitous with communism in standing for the withering away of the political. (1)

Too much democracy was a dangerous thing. Only an authoritarian movement with control of the masses could satisfy mankind. And peace was overrated, domestic or foreign.

Schmitt proposed an answer ... that was provocative to the point of appearing perverse. Whereas according to an understanding that could claim to be self-evident, political society exists to promote peace among men, Schmitt argued that the essence of the political is polemic ... he argued that the human beings are divided, and woe to them if they should ever cease to be divided, over the issues that go to the heart of humanity's existence. (1)

Hence divisive politics.

And in foreign policy:

The beasts fight and kill in order to satisfy the lowest craving, which is for preservation. It belongs only to human beings to make war, not only to kill but to die, for a high cause and ultimately for the highest cause, which is their faith. Schmitt can agree with those who have perceived the human record as a history of bloodshed, but far from interpreting the fact as a sign of God's neglect or punishment, he sees it as an evidence of God's providence. (1)

I believe that the neoconservative movement did not base it's theories on the teachings of Leo Strauss, but on those of Nazi Carl Schmitt. However, confessing to that would not have made their actions so acceptable.

Scmitt himself would probably not go along with many of the elements of the modern manifestations of this idea. It is a contrived theology, that has enjoyed enormous success financially for "the chosen", but at a devastating human cost.

There is another element (many actually) to this movement that may have been prophesied by one of Strauss's colleagues, Hannah Arendt in her book Totalitarianism.

After speaking of how "elites" while seduced to the Nazi movement, the never ending attack on intellectuals took it's toll.

The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the new mass leaders springs from more than their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand. Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable. Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty. (2)

We see the evidence of this with the Tea Party, who now claim that they did not join forces with the Republicans, but prefer to think of it as a hostile takeover. Sarah Palin is the perfect candidate for president, as "the best guarantee of loyalty." She will not falter from the political theology of neoconservatism. (And she's as thick as a brick).

They are already having an impact. As the benefits are running out for millions of unemployed Americans, they are calling for spending cuts on social services, while demanding that Obama goes ahead with further Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The religion of corporatism is creating a nation of loyal idiots, and our current government is in lock step, in both domestic and foreign policy.

Stephen Harper may not have read Leo Strauss, but he is a card carrying Straussian nonetheless.

Sources:

1. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, Translated by J. Harvey Lomax, University of Chicago Press, 1995, ISBN: 978-0-226-51888-6, Forward ix-xii

2. The Origins of Totalitarianism, By Hannah Arendt, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968, Pg. 37

Political Theology, Neoconservatism and the Religious Right

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

To achieve a better understanding of how the neoconservative movement has been so successful, you have to go back to the start of it all, to make any sense of it all.

It is such a foreign concept, especially in Canada, that the media and pundits are often scrambling for an angle.

Stephen Harper is authoritative. Stephen Harper is secretive. Stephen Harper is a bully. Stephen Harper is dishonest.

But the essence of Stephen Harper can be summed up in a single word: Neoconservative. That political entity requires all of those things.

And the essence of neoconservatism can be summed up in two words: Political Theology. That was the theory of Carl Schmitt who had an intellectual relationship with Leo Strauss, the man deemed to be the father of the neoconservative movement.

Strauss had written to Schmitt, critiquing his Concept of the Political, and his suggestions were included in future publications of the book.

Just as the Concept of the Political has an exceptional position among the works of Carl Schmitt, so are the "Notes" of Leo Strauss exceptional among the texts about Schmitt ... The Concept of the Political is the only text that Schmitt issued in three different editions.' It is the only text in which the changes are not limited to polishing style, introducing minor shifts in emphasis, and making opportunistic corrections, but reveal conceptual interventions and important clarifications of content.' And it is the only text in which, by means of significant deletions, elaborations, and reformulations, Schmitt reacts to a critique.

Only in the case of the Concept of the Political does Schmitt engage in a dialogue, both open and hidden, with an interpreter, a dialogue that follows the path of a careful revision of Schmitt's own text. The partner in the dialogue is the author of the "Notes," Leo Strauss. He is the only one among Schmitt's critics whose interpretation Schmitt would include, decades later, in a publication under Schmitt's name,' and Strauss is the only one Schmitt would publicly call an "important philosopher."' (1)

This is quite compelling seeing as how Carl Schmitt was a Nazi and Leo Strauss a Jew. In fact Schmitt was responsible for removing Jewish content from university holdings, and yet he included "Jewish content" in the revisions to his book. He remarked to a friend after reading Strauss's notes: "He saw through me and X-rayed me as nobody else can."

And the notion of Political Theology is probably the best explanation of the resulting movement. It is more than mere ideology. It is a dogma. The infallible belief in what they are doing. They let nothing in, that contradicts their acceptance of corporatism.

In that way it was a natural marriage with the Religious Right. They were betrothed at birth.

Because who better to bring in to the fold, than a group already enormously successful at turning myths into truths. That's not an attack on any one's religion, but let's face it. The Religious Right does not represent mainstream beliefs. They have distorted religion for financial gain.

Most evangelicals do not share in the hatred and greed that has come to define them. They have embraced corporatism as the route to salvation, and as a result, are able to bestow greatness on a political leader. Another confliction with true evangelism.

A good example of this is the case of Bob Sirico, once a gay rights activist, and now a Catholic Priest. According to the Heartland Institute:

One often hears priests, preachers, and rabbis endorse an activist government able to solve social, economic, and perhaps even moral problems. Fr. Sirico offers a powerful challenge to this conventional wisdom. Religious principles, he says, require that men and women be free to practice virtue or vice, and freedom in turn requires a limited government and vibrant free-market economy. (2)

Have you ever heard anything so twisted? I attended Catholic school and not once do I remember the nuns catechizing a free-market economy.

So if we accept that neoconservatism is not so much a political philosophy as a political theology, everything else falls into line. We are dealing with a religion that has a fundamental set of beliefs and practices.

Their followers are referred to as Straussians.

But perhaps the biggest victim of neoconservatism, is Leo Strauss himself. He would never have promoted Imperialism and would no doubt have scoffed at the fanaticism now represented in the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the Reform-Alliance (Conservative Party of Canada).

As journalist Michael Lind once wrote in the Washington Weekly: "Whatever one thinks of Strauss as a philosopher, he cannot be blamed for the opportunism of his followers."

Continuation:

You Don't Have to Read Strauss to be a Straussian

Sources:

1. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, Translated by J. Harvey Lomax, University of Chicago Press, 1995, ISBN: 978-0-226-51888-6, Pg. 6-8

2. "Religion and Freedom", by Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute. January 1, 2007