Powerline praises Straussian prof whose arguments are so subtle they made no impact on … Powerline

On October 14 I sent the below e-mail to my favorite neocon champion (meaning, of course, my favorite champion of neocons, not my favorite neocon champion of myself), Scott of Powerline:

You approvingly quote at length Charles Kesler’s critical essay on Barack Obama, including this:

In his campaign speeches, Obama can’t afford to be so candid—he needs Hillary and Bill’s supporters, after all—but he subtly makes his point. For example, in his Acceptance Speech in Denver, the single biggest speech of the campaign, he laid at Bill Clinton’s feet the oldest backhanded compliment in the books, thanking the former president “who last night made the case for change as only he can make it….” That’s a disguised double insult: it reminds the discerning ear of Clinton’s characteristic bloviation, and then of his political failings (when you see Clinton, you’re reminded why the Democrats need Obama).[Emphasis added.]

I think only Kesler would have discerned this disguised double insult. At least it’s too subtle for me to pick up.

The overly refined analysis reminds me of Kesler’s one or two articles at the Claremont Review a few years ago criticizing Bush’s universal democracy ideology. Kesler thought Bush’s policy was wrong, but his arguments were so fine and complicated, aimed at some esoteric Straussian audience, not at the ordinary intelligent reader, that they could have no effect on the debate, and, indeed, they had no effect on the debate. They certainly failed to persuade you and your colleagues at Powerline, who went right on supporting Bush’s democratism.

Lawrence Auster

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

This is one of your best! Thanks for giving me a good laugh! Here you identify with your customary insight the entire problem with Claremont:

his arguments were so fine and complicated, aimed at some esoteric Straussian audience, not at the ordinary intelligent reader, that they could have no effect on the debate….

I am still laughing! Also at how you nail Powerline to the wall…

Your title for this post is also very funny.

Sam H. writes from the Netherlands:

By the way, I had the exact same thought that Mr Kesler had back when I heard Obama’s speech in Denver: that his comment about Clinton was intended in as criticism, albeit in such a way that he couldn’t be easily accused of it….

LA replies:

LOL. You’re a sharper reader than I!

But subtle messages by their nature are not intended to be picked up by most people. Which takes me back to Kesler’s articles in the Claremont Review criticizing Bush’s democracy project. His argument seemed to have been passed through so many filters that only the highly discerning could pick it out, and it would have very little impact on the general reading public. But if one is criticizing the dominant ideology that is being pursued by the U.S. president and that is tearing up the world, why make one’s argument only discernible to the cognoscenti? Does one want to have an effect on the thinking of one’s fellow citizens, or not? And if not, why write about the subject in the first place? That is my problem with Claremont, which, as I’ve said before, seems to inhabit some intellectual aerie removed from ordinary society. That would be fine if you’re pursuing esoteric or highly specialized subjects. But if you’re writing about the public policies and ideology of your government, it’s bizarre, and a bit questionable. It suggests a mentality that feels it would dirty its hands if it actually said anything.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 21, 2008 08:19 PM | Send