“If you don’t want to go without VFR … “

It’s not that I don’t *want* to go without it — I’d be delighted to. But I can’t. Who can go without nourishment, water, and oxygen? Bottom line: I have no choice in the matter.

THANK GOODNESS FOR THE ARCHIVES!

Has anyone here heard of “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom? I just picked up a copy of it, having seen its cover on Upstream. It is quite a book. At first I was a little frustrated that Bloom was expressing such amazing ideas while ignoring the undercurrents. Now that I am about a third of the way through, I get the feeling that he is doing it purposively. But I will have to read a little more to be sure. It is a tremendous book, and I really cannot wait to finish it.

(I, for one, am treating this topic as a free discussion thread.)

You should be aware of the context in which Bloom’s book appeared. It was the 1980s and, suddenly, many old line liberals in academe became aware that their junior colleagues, who had argued so loudly for free speech and diverse points of view while students, were now engaged in a totalitarian lockdown on university campuses. One time student radicals were just coming into their own, achieving full professorships, departmental chairmanships, committee chairmanships, and control of administrative posts. Too late, the older liberals found that the rules of bloody revolution applied to them, too, and they were being mau-maued, forced from their posts, and terrified into submission. And, therefore, now that the cultural rot that had exploded into the larger society in the sixties was actually affecting THEM, it was time to act. Too late, of course. Now, most of that old order are gone anyway—or spending their remaining years cowering in their offices. The effect of Bloom’s book: absolutely nothing.

“The effect of Bloom’s book: absolutely nothing.”

That’s overly pessimistic and in fact very wrong. It’s not given to every thinker to *singlehandedly* launch a successful revolution (or, in Bloom’s case, a counterrevolution) with the publication of *one* book. His work was a much needed, richly deserved shot across leftism’s bow by one of the country’s most serious scholars.

It had its effect and the ripples it helped create spread ever larger.

Bloom wanted to defend what was of cultural value pre-1960s against a more advanced liberalism. He didn’t challenge the central tenets of liberalism.

I expect his book did have some positive effects. I know that it was one of the books which helped to reinforce my own developing opposition to liberalism.

Also, I think he had the courage to state openly the truth about the effects of the sexual revolution on his students. I can’t help but think it of value to have the truth recorded in this way, even if it wasn’t sufficient to reform the situation.

I have done a little more digging and found that Bloom was a student of Leo Strauss who has some connection to the Neocons. I have stopped by the bookstore and picked up Strauss’ “What Is Political Philosophy: And Other Studies.”

Mr. Richardson, I remember when you mentioned on VFR that you had plans to launch a web-site in Australia with a conservative outlook. I just browsed it (by clicking on your name), and I congratulate you on its quality.

Bloom’s book is a fascinating read and very rewarding. One of the most interesting aspects of it to me was the amazing familiarity the author has with Plato—I have read about half of Plato in Greek and Bloom’s language and thought is absolutely suffused with the stuff.

That said, Bloom was fundamentally a liberal, with an unwarranted contempt for history and tradition and biology. (More on Bloom’s life can be found in Saul Bellow’s roman a clef “Ravelstein”). But he is the best of liberals, as is Strauss (I think), and a worthy opponent for real conservatives to test and refine their ideas against.

I agree with an earlier poster, who points out that Bloom’s book was part of a reaction against radicalized universities (Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals was another big book at the time, and Dinesh D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education) which had, in the end, no effect whatsoever. I speak from the belly of the beast (you don’t think I read Plato in Greek for fun, did you?)

Finally I note that the book came out when I was in college and by far the greatest reaction on campus came from his criticism of rock music as soul-destroying junk.

A leader and effort are essential to a victory for traditionalists. A leader focuses the efforts of his followers. Taught that America is a democracy, many in America (and in other genuinely Western countries such as Australia) expect that things will work out by virtue of this so-called democracy. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court’s dictates relentlessly void the efforts of traditionalists, which shows this expectation is built on shifting soil. Leaders however can override such obstacles. See, for example, Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar, William Wallace, Napolean, Cromwell, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. Machiavelli observed centuries ago that power is important and exists to be used; the timid prince does not win the fair maiden.

Until and unless a brilliant, charismatic, and ideological traditionalist leader comes forth, all of our talking is just that, talking. Not that the talking is useless; it is vital in that it is educational. There needs to be a class/group informed about the arguments and counterarguments of liberalism and traditionalism. When the opportunity arises and the leader emerges, he or she will need a cadre of supporters available to fight the battle against liberalism. Boris Yeltsin standing in front of a Soviet tank during a coup is a good example of an opportunity seized by educated supporters. He had thousands standing behind him. If he had had merely a dozen fanatics behind him, he would have been crushed under tank treads.

Effort wins the day. Waiting is lame. Seize the day, is the thought to think, not for the simple pleasure of the moment but for the power inherent in action. Now is the time to act. Not tomorrow. For example, compose a letter or e-mail to your elected representative. Join the gathering in Washington, D.C. sponsored by Congressman Tom Tancredo to honor our border guards killed by people our president invites. Use every nonviolent means at your disposal ad nauseum, now. Otherwise, we face what Unadorned has pointed out: we have no reason whatsoever to think we will not have to sacrifice in an unprecedented fashion merely to maintain the freedoms we now enjoy.

If history is reliable, every tyranny will grow overconfident and stumble; and history is generally reliable. Our function then, in part, is to learn and to ready ourselves to seize the day as Boris Yeltsin and his followers did when faced with a seeming juggernaut. Learn and act.

An amusing story about Bloom’s book: a few years ago, a Dartmouth professor I know assigned his freshman English students to read excerpts. They were very unhappy about Bloom’s comments on how students arrive at college woefully unprepared. So the professor proposed a little test: “Who here can tell the class something about the Federalist Papers”? Prolonged silence. Finally, a student in rear raised his hand and explained what they were. Here is the kicker: the only student who could answer the question was Korean. The student was educated in Korea, and had just arrived in the US for the first time to attend college.

DR, I just picked up the new issue of Chronicles from the newsstand yesterday. It is a paean to the teaching of Greek in schools. There are some very good articles in there this month. Of course, there are good articles every month.

I actually thought that Bloom’s critique of music was fair. If there were some sort of pill that did to people what music can do, we would make it target number 1 in the drug war. I do not agree with replacing rock with classical music, but Bloom is still right about the influence that music has on the young.

Thanks Unadorned for your complimentary comments about Conservative Central. The website is growing steadily in visitors, the majority of whom are American and Australian. I do appreciate the support from America.

Unadorned writes: “His [Bloom’s] work was a much needed, richly deserved shot across leftism’s bow by one of the country’s most serious scholars.”
******

If Bloom fired a shot across the bow, the dreadnaught Academe tacked right, then left and fired a broadside that blew him out of the water. The state of education is as bad as it has ever been in this country, and the universities (as regards the humanities) are reaching towards a new Dark Age. Little more than departments of agitprop, the schools and departments of humanities, for the most part, are populated with culturally illiterate political commissars. Not even the old school liberals can survive in them any longer. And things will get worse.

Speaking of Strauss, does anyone know of a good introduction to his work and also a book by him that would be a good place to start?

“Speaking of Strauss, does anyone know of a good introduction to his work and also a book by him that would be a good place to start?”

Posted by: Steve Jackson on September 1, 2003 10:56 AM

start here:

http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=strauss&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com

A good place to start with Strauss himself is *The rebirth of classical culture: an introduction to the thought of Leo Strauss* (U Chicago, 1989), a collection of essays and lectures edited by Thomas L Pangle. You might also read the chapter by Strauss in William Buckley and Charles Kesler, *Keeping the tablets: modern American cultural thought* (1988) and the section on Strauss by John P. East in *The American Conservative movement: the philosophical founders* (Regnery 1986).

Strauss’s life work was to demonstrate the importance of ancient philosophy for understanding the modern condition. He was an American patriot and a conservative, even if he and especially his many students and followers are not exempt from criticism.

Trivia point: Alan Keyes, the sort-of candidate for president a few years back, was a student of Bloom’s, and his fiery anti-abortion speeches with their frequent reference to the Declaration are good representations of some modern Straussian thought.

I missed Thrasymachus’ comment on Chronicles—I couldn’t agree more with the excellence of some of this month’s articles. It came with a resubscription notice and, although I had fully planned to stop my subscription I wrote the check anyway. I know I’ll regret it the next time there’s an article by the execrable Justin Raimondo, but in some ways Chronicles is the only game in town.

“Trivia point: Alan Keyes, the sort-of candidate for president a few years back, was a student of Bloom’s, and his fiery anti-abortion speeches with their frequent reference to the Declaration are good representations of some modern Straussian thought.”
Posted by: DR on September 2, 2003 08:45 AM

this is a rather interesting point given that keyes used the doi to justify abortion in certain circumstances. although it should be pointed out that keyes is more of a theocon and disciple of jaffa than he is a disciple of strauss himself.

http://www.sandh.com/keyes/ABORTION.HTM

keyes has since amended his view, thanks to david quackenbush, but i find the fact that he ever held such a view to be more than a little disturbing.

but then again, what does one expect from those enticed by the various incarnations of gnosticism pushing out from the earth of our modern landscape, whether it be in keyes’ case, jaffa’s variation on strauss, or of strauss himself.

Abby: Keyes used the Declaration to justify abortion in only one circumstance (to save the life of the mother) in the link you posted. A couple of questions:

1) How has he amended this view since then

2) What on earth does such a view have to do with gnosticism?

“1) How has he amended this view since then

2) What on earth does such a view have to do with gnosticism?”
Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 2, 2003 02:03 PM

1) keyes no longer holds the pro-abortion position that the unborn baby can be an aggressor, but has amended his postion the catholic position of double effect.

2) the joining of strass, who was a gnostic, with keyes and abortion was provided by dr’s post: DR on September 2, 2003 08:45 AM. dr cited keyes’ reference of the doi as a “good representations of some modern Straussian thought,”

since straussians, as a whole, have a bad tendency to twist logic into horrible knots with their gnosticm, i thought his example was a rather fitting tie-in with keyes’ own horrible knot twisting on the abortion issue.

Aren’t neoconservatives really Cold War liberals who abandoned the Democratic party when the New Left took it over? Moderate Republicans welcomed them as close kin, and conservative Republicans welcomed new and articulate allies on important issues. This would have happened had Strauss never lived, though after the fact Strauss may appear a powerful exponent of Cold War liberalism.

our lawrence auster, with a link to the vfr, gets a mention on vdare.

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/pfaff.htm

just so you know