13 December 2001
Weblog, Goldberg, Sullivan, Strauss, ABM (whew)
I have some pretty significant changes planned for the weblog. I'm not sure when I will find the time to implement them since I'm trying to focus on the dissertation, but I think it's going to be pretty neat when I get it done. Aren't teasers grand?
* * * *
Jonah Goldberg's critique of what he calls "cultural libertarianism" (which reminded me of that muddled essay by Peter Schwartz, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" but was thankfully much shorter) is going to get him blasted by many libertarians for its exoteric points. That's kind of funny, because I think there's a Straussian natural-right argument subtly informing Goldberg's comments, but everyone will be too busy blasting Goldberg to notice that. And Strauss isn't on very many libertarian reading lists anyway.
I've often wondered about Goldberg's background, since there are occasional references to Strauss in his writing. I think he's somewhat more knowledgeable of the discipline (emphasis on discipline) of political philosophy than his status as a political humorist always reveals. If he's a closet Straussian, what better cover than writing political humor!? Oh the irony.
I didn't realize Andrew Sullivan was a Mansfield (another Straussian) student, and it's interesting that Goldberg picked up on that. But he didn't go into much detail. Yep, very interesting.
* * * *
Speaking of Sullivan, I thought his most recent column (which Goldberg also addresses) was an oversimplification of American conservatism when I first read it, and have not changed my mind after rereading it. Yes, the various components of American conservatism (which are somewhat underrepresented in Sullivan's article) have their contradictions and quirks. But the more interesting story over time has been what unites the movement. And much as the Declaration appealed to men of reason (the laws of nature) and men of faith (and of nature's god), so too various conservatives have defended the classically liberal principles of the American founding on a number of grounds (tradition, reason, faith, to name the most prominent). That is fascinating to me.
* * * *
In reviewing everything above, I'm reminded of a snippet from Virginia Postrel's site. I would link to it, but there's not yet a nice permalink. At least not that I can find. Anyway, Postrel writes:
Ouch. I think Rand, Goldberg, and Schwartz would all agree. Now there's an unlikely group.
* * * *
I had on C-Span for a bit earlier, and heard Senator Byrd complaining that President Bush had not consulted the Senate before pulling out of the ABM Treaty. I should have seen that coming, but hadn't given it much thought. Of course the Senate is going to raise the question of treaty termination (the imperial Congress and all)! I've always thought Goldwater v. Carter was a fascinating instance of the Supreme Court deciding to sidestep an issue, although ultimately their sidestepping seemed to protect Presidential prerogative. I'm too lazy to do the research right now, but I seem to recall Reagan terminating a minor treaty/agreement or two without consulting Congress. I think it's largely a moot question, since the Rehnquist Court seems unlikely to inject itself into this sort of controversy (even if some Senator were legally to challenge the action).
Ultimately, of course, Congress can limit the President's ability effectively to scuttle the ABM Treaty by controlling appropriations towards missile defense. But I'm guessing Bush is going to get most of what he wants, even on the spending side.
[Posted @ 11:13 PM CST]
