Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Matthew is Right and Brad is wrong...

Matthew Yglesias, my favorite Lefty, agrees that "Neocons" have a noble goal while Prof Brad Delong claims Matthew just hasn't been around long enough to understand how things really are.

My money is on Matthew for understanding and honesty and PLEASE BRAD, why must you warp everything to make it fit your narrow-minded world view.

I realize that Matthew meant that having a noble goal is not justifucation for weilding power.... This is precisely my argument against lefties who, I admit, definitely have noble goals.

Is Brad so petty that he can't even admit that us Republicans can't even have noble goals? Brad, you should save...

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/matthew_is_righ.html

> Is Brad so petty that he can't even admit that us Republicans can't even have noble goals?

I don't think Brad was ruling out the possibility of neocons having noble goals. He was merely listing a set of instances in which they don't.

Adrian, "[...]Republicans can't even have noble goals[...]" doesn't seem to be what you meant...

DSW

Oops, a 'gaffe' - Adrian accidentally truthspoke.

Indeed, Antoni, an epidemy of freudian slips seem to be spreading among conservatives lately... :-D

Neocon statements having to be translated?
Inconceivable!

Never start a land war in Asia.

Shorter Yglesias:
"I still can't believe I once drank the neocon Kool-Aid".

Bob S,

Is that just a alias for Mandy Patinkin?

Just in case it wasn't already completely obvious how far to the right and how far from reality Adrian Spidle is, he offers up this new fresh piece of....evidence:

Matthew Yglesias, my favorite Lefty...

No one reading Matt for any length of time would describe him as a "Lefty," least of all himself. And he has himself made this very point any number of times. Matt is a centrist. He's a little left of center, true. But liberal or some other such word would do far better to describe him. That Adrian sees MY as emblematic and representative of Leftism shows just what a problem it is in this country at this time to even undertake any rational political discourse. Because any one even slightly to the left of MY, which probably includes the majority of those who are registered in the Democratic Party (I may well be wrong here) are considered by AS and his ilk to be foaming at the mouth socialists. And of course real socialists, such as they are these days, are not even on the map. Thus is our political discourse narrowed, truncated and dumbed down and we find ourselves debating heatedly such topics as is privatizing Social Security a good idea? Which becomes, what is the best way to privatize Social Security?

Cue Max Sawicky and Doug Henwood.

If you believe that the neocons share your basic values, then you might think their policies a failure.

If you think the neocons and their allies are authoritarians, who would never think of disclosing their actual goals and values, then you start to consider the possibility that their policies are, in fact, aimed at what they are accomplishing. Assume the policy is a success, then deduce the objective.

In economic policy, the Bush administration has achieved remarkable productivity growth combined with no wage growth, with the result that all economic growth flows into the hands of the wealthy few, who they are also trying to free from the burdens of taxation. Hmmmm....

Adrian is part of the right-wing whacko lunatic fringe. Yes, there's a lunatic fringe on the left, too. But we don't embrace them and let them run our political party. Only the Repubs do that.

"But we don't embrace them and let them run our political party. Only the Repubs do that."

So that wasn't the Democratic National Convention I was watching on C-span?

Isn't this type of alternate dictionary-code (don't call it lying!) a pillar of the theories of Leo Strauss, the neocons' intellectual godfather? My understanding is that the neocons aren't really high-minded, they just understand that the actions we must take to remain secure are sometimes politically impalatable, and must therefore be couched in high-minded alternative phrasings to retain widespread popular support. Anyone care to shed some more light on this?

My problem with MY is how he seems to think that there's no problem with the abstraction, given the lack of real results. But it's not just a bumbling Bush administration's implementation of said policy that's the problem, it's also the policy itself of thinking that the U.S. can somehow foist democracy on Iraq. Perhaps MY is thinking that democracy isn't the real end, but that a stable pro-US regime in Iraq is. That's attainable, perhaps. But democracy? No fucking way. There's so much distrust between factions in Iraq that I doubt a democracy is possible for that particular geographic entity, which was a British creation for their colonial convenience, just as Lebanon was France's creation.

kharris - S. Morgenstern actually:)

There was an article in Reason magazine on Creationism a few years ago. Turns out that some of our favorite neocons are opponents of evolution, although they are reluctant to identify as Biblical literalists. Kristol pere said there were different levels of "truth". Truths for children, for students, etc.

Evolution isn't the subject of any public policy decision. But it illustrates the Straussian rejection of the Enlightenment notion of science as public truth.

Roger -

" There was an article in Reason magazine on Creationism a few years ago. Turns out that some of our favorite neocons are opponents of evolution, although they are reluctant to identify as Biblical literalists. Kristol pere said there were different levels of "truth". Truths for children, for students, etc.

" Evolution isn't the subject of any public policy decision. But it illustrates the Straussian rejection of the Enlightenment notion of science as public truth. "

Thank you for this important comment. The attitude toward the basis of biology is astonishing and fairly widespread.

are there rocks ahead?
If there are, we'll all be dead.

Anne, you need to understand that neocons do believe in evolution. They just believe that it isn't important for the populace to believe in it. And since they believe religion is needed for a docile populace, if beief in evolution could weaken religion then teaching evolution is a bad thing.

Rob

You are arging from the "Grand Inquisitor." The wonderful conversation between Ivan and Alyosha Karamozov. At all costs, we must have our beliefs. Or, must we. A wonderful reminder. Richard Niebuhr, my teacher, would always bring us back to the Grand Inquisitor.

Republicans have noble goals. Specifically they desire the creation of an American nobility which has hereditary powers and wealth.

Richard Niebuhr used to read aloud to us from the Grand Inquisitor. I will read the story through again. Democracy is tricky when there are influential aristocrats who know what we need to know and what we do not need to know.

Anne,
Interesting literary reference. Laura Bush, former librarian and promoter of reading, was recently asked about her reaction to the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter. She said something to the effect that it was cheery and uplifting for her, since it was about the return of the Savior. It isn't surprising when you think about it. Only a world class enabler could come up with that.

Anne,
Interesting literary reference. Laura Bush, former librarian and promoter of reading, was recently asked about her reaction to the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter. She said something to the effect that it was cheery and uplifting for her, since it was about the return of the Savior. It isn't surprising when you think about it. Only a world class enabler could come up with that.

I agree completely with the substance of what you say, and like you think MY is astonishingly naive about the neocons and about world politics in general -- but bringing his youth into it makes you come across as consdecending. His positions stand or fall on their own -- I will wager there are seventy-year-olds who think as Matt does. Since his ideas fall and don't stand, ad hominem (however humorously and sympathetically applied) is an unwelcome distraction, and makes you seem petty in an otherwise excellent deconstruction.

Anne,
Interesting literary reference. Laura Bush, former librarian and promoter of reading, was recently asked about her reaction to the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter. She said something to the effect that it was cheery and uplifting for her, since it was about the return of the Savior. It isn't surprising when you think about it. Only a world class enabler could come up with that.

Music suggestion: Download "Princess Bride" by excellent indie-pop artist Cloud Cult for what I believe to be the best (and probably only) use of samples from that movie in a pop song.

It seems the neocons are learning the hard way what "to the pain" means...

Cheery and uplifting, the Grand Inquisitor? Jesus is sent away by the Inquisitor. Still, Alyosha does kiss Ivan at the end of the story. Oh well.

On, if you thought what you heard at the Democratic National Convention was extremism, then you have not the slightest clue what America is, or what it once stood for, and might again. Please leave.

Adrian Spidel, by now the vast majority of people who know who you are think of you as an especially annoying, deluded idiot. That is what troll triumph is, and the reason why most trolls use pseudonyms.

For the rest of my life whenever I meet a Spidel, I'll have to ask myself -- "One of **those** Spidels?" And many on this thread are younger than me, so the next two generations will suffer. "The fathers have eaten sour grapes" etc., etc.

Is it coincidence that the PNAC opened camp at around the same time George Soros wrote "The Capitalist Threat", or is there a connection?

Please excuse my multiple postings.

Anne, there are similarities between Straussian thought and the "Grand Inquisitor" passage. Also with the last part of "1984" and the didactic parts of "Brave New World", which is to say, most of "Brave New World". Those authors suggest that ordinary people are happier when they don't have to think for themselves and that "social order" justfies telling some therapeutic lies. And they reject the suggestion. But for Strauss, there's a chasm between those fit to rule and those destined to take orders. The highest goal is the contemplation of noble truths, such as the ideas encoded in Plato's writings. He differs
in making the goal of society aesthetic, and something that the mass of humanity can't hope to understand, much less achieve.

Before this thread goes too far leftfield - remember the neo-cons started off leftie, MY is right in the way that people who say that true socialism was never tried are right - it's true but it doesn't matter. Unfortunately these guys are closer to the centre of power that the remaining socialist worker types trying to sell you newspapers!

" agree completely with the substance of what you say, and like you think MY is astonishingly naive about the neocons and about world politics in general -- but bringing his youth into it makes you come across as consdecending. His positions stand or fall on their own -- I will wager there are seventy-year-olds who think as Matt does. Since his ideas fall and don't stand, ad hominem (however humorously and sympathetically applied) is an unwelcome distraction, and makes you seem petty in an otherwise excellent deconstruction."

This qualifies as "level of abstraction" article. If we were abstractly governed by abstractions, never talking about personal qualities would be appropriate, However, since we are ruled by people, talking about experience as the source of a bad line of reasoning is both prudent and provident. Formal debate isn't the only kind of discussion, particularly when when it seems as if "to the man" is the only recognized fallacy.

when they say promote democracy in the Arab world, what they mean is on no account allow expressed Arab public opinion to become more anti-semitic

And what is Brad's complaint here? That neoconservatives are opposed to anti-semitism in the Arab world? Or is it some kind of free speech issue? A lot of 'expressed Arab public opinion' is funded or mandated by Arab governments, which are dictatorships by the way.

Thanks Roger,

Nicely written. Quite a crisp view of Strauss, and I will think carefully about these posts. Obviously, I lean to William James knowing truth by the consequences of actions and allowing truth to be changeable as we experiment.

"Translated" my ass.

Taking someone's argument, stripping it of it's actual premises, substituting one's own premises about the way the world works and then mocking the resulting non-sequitur isn't translation, it's intellectual dishonesty.

:jackson

This also ties into the David Brooks cultural divide ideas. Where there is a "real" America in the "heartland" and another America on the coasts. Ignoring whther that "real" America exists as protrayed, it is one that is held up as good and inspiring. But Brooks would never deem to live there. Again, the rulers can partake of the cosmopolitian lifestyle but if those of less mettle are allowed to choas insues. See also Bill Bennett moralizing. What we have here isn't really hypocracy, but rather classist thinking. Bill Bennet believes his vices aren't a problem for him, but would be for those of lesser station.

Agreed completely. What I once took for an anti-intellectual strain is really a class snobbery.

Well, yes, many of the neo bombthrowers on the right at one time tried to rise to real influence at the far reaches of the left with the same basic four-legs-bad, two-legs-better message.

They were shut out of any meaningful influence outside of political magazines no-one reads by the Democrats and they went on to take over the Republicans, the same way the "states rights" crowd did a few decades earlier.

So?

Whatever the neocons are, or think they are, and whatever anybody else thinks their true intentions are, they have definitely screwed up. RIP

As Homer Simpson is frequently alleged to have said (I don't watch the show), you can prove anything with facts. The Neocons are about to face their fact. As to MY, he is a bright young man with good training in modern philosophy. He has a future if he stays away from kool-aid (one never knows, do one?). Brad is right on target in his criticism. The great thing about being young is that compound interest is working for you; the bad thing is that you don't appreciate that mathematical truth until you're old. MY is still a young man. Let's hope he invests wisely and patiently.

P.S. to Anne. Wow! You actually studied under Richard Niebuhr. He's one of my heroes, and (for those who don't know) provided some of the unsung intellectual support for the Civil Rights Movement. A nostalgic name. Good to see it again in print.

I don't understand what the disagreement is supposed to be here. There is no contradiction between Matt saying "The neocons are right at a certain level of abstraction" and Brad saying "The neocons don't mean what they say." Obviously, Matt's statement is referring to the neocons' *arguments*, not their secret hidden desires. I mean, WTF? Some of you are so eager to get on your high horses that you're evading Matt's actual point in order to debate the straw man you'd prefer to debate. (See, e.g., "My problem with MY is how he seems to think that there's no problem with the abstraction, given the lack of real results.") Perhaps some of you are mind readers, but barring that, it would be nice if you would debate Real Matt instead of Imaginary Matt Who Conveniently Conforms to All Your Anti-"Centrist" Prejudices.

If we're going to veer off into existential theologians, I might mention that my college German teacher corresponded monthly with Martin Buber. At least another student stold me that. I was way too ignorant to be impressed at the time.

Brad DeLong is a flip flopper

He radically reverses his views on semantics and, indeed, on the very nature of truth. This post argues directly against this post
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000818.html
. Both are critiques of Matthew Yglesias and discuss what the true meanings of words are. However, Brad's two posts argue opposite sides on the same issue.

I don't think Yglesias was taken in by the Neoconservatives and I am sure that "At the appropriate level of abstraction" means, among other things, "if we abstract from the fact that they are hypocrites". At least that is my reading (which is worth as much as Matt's if Brad is to be believed).

I am not criticizing Brad seriously (I am trying to tease him). I don't think Brad is Criticizing Yglesias. Both times he is more or less teasing. I believe neither of them thinks this philosophy stuff is really important, which is why they are doing what they are doing and not what they did as undergraduates.

That's because MY is essentially a neo-con: a left-leaning, hawkish, paranoid, Straussian snot.

MY once wrote, "Sometimes I worry about the possible nexus of rogue states, weapons of mass destruction, and international terrorism."

While I worry that my neighbor will, in a delusional rage fueled by undercooked curry chicken, steal a high-powered slingshot from the none-too-secure sporting goods store, and give it to this local teenager (as his proxy "forward army" without a return address) who's always had it in for me, and he'll PUT MY FRIGGIN EYE OUT! Something needs to be done, all reasonable people acknowlege that the status quo cannot stand. Cluster bombing the city block seems a prudent course of action. The inevitable loss of life will be more than offset by enhanced overall security, as the demonstration effect dominos throughout the neighborhood. Or not, either way, I feel pretty comfortable with it. At least I'll feel safer. Or are you not "serious" about the nexus of salmonella poisoning, rubber-band propelled projective related activities, and teenage rage?

Oh, give me a break. Straussians as a whole don't oppose evolution - to argue that is complete nonsense. It might surprise people that there are actual liberal Straussians (I suppose I could be one, potentially). In fact, in my interpretation, Strauss especially on economics is......well, it's hard to explain, but he's not exactly convinced that capitalism is the right way to go.

For the relationship between Straussian thought and opposition to evolution, see http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml.

AFAIK, Strauss took no position regarding the "truth value" of any scientific theory. He thought that deception in the service of a desirable social order was acceptable. As Kristol put it: "If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves." So what's the difference between that and a handful of sages starting a war and telling everybody it's to "promote democratic Western values", when they think democratic values are an illusion?

MY and Brad are discussing 2 distinct levels. MY is referring to the neocon IDEALS. Brad looks at their policy.

Any fool can articulate an ideal about "The Way Things Ought to Be".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067175145X/qid=1092103165/sr=8-3/ref=pd_ka_3/103-2685937-7544615?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This is because idealists can ignore inconvenient facts. After all, an ideal is a goal, not an objective. However, ideals that ignore inconvenient facts do not lead to good policy. Having friendly Argentine generals is a great ideal. However, the inconvenient facts of women tossed from helicopters into the ocean are not going to be ignored forever. The neocons can talk about the ideal of "peace and justice in the middle East" because they conveniently ignore the millions of Palestinians displaced from their homeland. (Oh, them.)

However, the implementation of policy requires addressing all the little inconvenient facts that if left unattended, are barriers to policy implementation. The neocons and the Bush administration pledge fealty to lofty ideals that have not been tested. The ideals are proposed by people too intellectually lazy to characterize the obstacles to those ideals, who ignore the inconvenient facts and fail to plan appropriately to address them. The history of the Bush administration is cheap talk of lofty ideals followed by denial of reality when all those inconvenient facts pop up as insurmountable barriers on the straight and narrow path.

Thus for the Bush administration, the budget deficit is not due to a host of inconvenient facts such as the political demands of government services that cannot be cut without penalty from the electorate, or the economic reality that trickle down economics does not produce jobs, or that tax cuts (supply side or otherwise) reduce revenue. To them, the budget deficit is a curse of the gods delivering "the trifecta". Too intellectually lazy to go beyond the ideal and discover the inconvenient facts, they are content to blindly blaze the shortest trail between 2 points straight over the cliff of their folly.

Bush is just not a practical guy. He is an idealist. There is nothing wrong with most (certainly not all) of his ideals as MY notes. However, these ideals do not exist in the practical world. The appropriate level of abstraction is "in their dreams". The rhetoric makes great campaign fodder but a poor blueprint for governance.

The failure of the Bush administration has been the disconnect between its idealism and formulation of a coherent and practical policy. The idealists are so possessive of their abstract dream world that they oppose all those who intrude with inconvenient facts. Thus the realists they need to make the truly hard decisions required for successful policy are on the outside looking in. The idealists plot the straight and narrow path but it leads over the cliff. The realists stand helpless as progress grinds to a halt. The idealists stubbornly cling to the correctness of their original path, refusing to hear the realists cry that a distance off the path is a bridge to the other side. The impasse leaves both idealists and realists stranded at the cliff far from the desired goal.

The mistake that the media make in reporting on the Bush administration is merely to parrot the lofty ideals without bothering to dig for themselves those inconvenient facts. Thus the media continue to write a narrative about the great destination where Bush is taking us.

But as long time Bush observer Molly Ivins puts it: "What you see is not what you get. What you hear is not what you get. What you get is all you get."

In other words, we are not going to get the lofty ideals and destination described by Bush rhetoric. "All we have got" is a trail that leads to the edge of a cliff and goes no further. That is the story of the Bush administration. That is the story the media need to write and the story the American people are beginning to understand. We need new leadership to back away from the cliff and find a new direction to the destination that was promised.

Actually, Brad, you should know better -- "promoting" or "spreading" democracy in the Middle East, Latin America or other places means "install and/or support regimes pliable to US corporate and political interests". The tools for achieving that include "Abu Ghraib" and "Death Squadrons".

Yglesias is sicilian?! That explains his rant about Kerry's acceptance speech not being wonky enough. Inconceivable!

As for Strauss, even Strauss was not a Straussian. The neocons appear to be Straussians who have lost their context: no Cold War to fight; no international Communist conspiracy to root out; no plus francais que les anti-trotskyite, anti-bolshevik party discipline to enforce. The "need" Strauss and his initiates felt for esoteric readings and polemical equivocation disappeared almost overnight, but the lying went right on unabated.

You might say what your basic neocon suffers from, is, really, in the final analysis, loss of essence.

Brad is right. My take on Strauss comes from many years of study of Sufi and mystical Shi`ite hermeneutics. Strauss most closesly resembles that of the Isma`ilis. To wit, the text has 2 primary meanings or dimensions of meaning. An outward, exoteric, manifest meaning meant for the masses and an inward, esoteric, hidden meaning known only to the initiates of the true doctrine. But the text, the words of the text are one and the same for both cases. Matt is still reading their texts at the level of the non-initiate. Looking critically at the results of their policies (which are none other than the plans for implementation of their ideals) he is experiencing a measure of discomfort, of cognitive dissonance. Brad, who is on to the neo-con con game, is reading them as an initiate would, albeit he is an outsider and has wisely refused to drink their Kool-Aid.

bakho,

What exactly is the difference between a goal and an objective?

Knut and Roger

Few days pass, when I do not remember Richard Niebuhr. I was bold enough to mention this yesterday when the story of the Grand Inquisitor came to me. The comments you have posted taught me much, and they will be useful in continuing the conversation. Above all, Richard Niebuhr was kind. Niebuhr felt closest to a combination of William James and Kant in philosophy. So do I.

Goal- the final destination for a program. Goals are where you want to be, but the path may be vague.

An objective is a well defined benchmark that is a necessary point on the path to the goal. Objectives are shorter term than goals with well defined means of achieving them.

For instance, if you have a goal of climbing to the top of Pike's Peak, your first objective might be to drive from your current location to Colorado Springs. Subobjectives could be to use mapquest to plot a route. Make a list of items for the car, etc.

Objectives are a way to divide large daunting tasks into a series of of more easily attainable small steps.

Defining goals only requires a little thought. Defining objectives requires a lot more hard work and rigorous planning. The Bush administration is exceedingly poor at defining objectives. This is a consequence of ingnoring realities and insufficient contingency planning.

Goal- the final destination for a program. Goals are where you want to be, but the path may be vague.

An objective is a well defined benchmark that is a necessary point on the path to the goal. Objectives are shorter term than goals with well defined means of achieving them.

For instance, if you have a goal of climbing to the top of Pike's Peak, your first objective might be to drive from your current location to Colorado Springs. Subobjectives could be to use mapquest to plot a route. Make a list of items for the car, etc.

Objectives are a way to divide large daunting tasks into a series of of more easily attainable small steps.

Defining goals only requires a little thought. Defining objectives requires a lot more hard work and rigorous planning. The Bush administration is exceedingly poor at defining objectives. This is a consequence of ingnoring realities and insufficient contingency planning.

Roger,

Don't assume that because Kristol said it, that Strauss would have agreed. Kristol is hardly a Strauss scholar, or even much of a Straussian (yes, lots of Straussians hang out with him and vice versa, but that's hardly dispositive of his intellectual development, such as it is).

The Reason article is useful enough in describing current debates, but is pretty silly about Strauss himself.

It is not that science per se is dubious within Strauss. What is dubious is the political use of science within the modern state. The fact is is that very few people will ever actually BE scientists or understand science (including me, as I admit). Yet the modern state encourages fairly naive beliefs in the unadulterated goodness of science and its applications. Science essentially is one of the props in the belief structure of the modern state, just as religion was a prop in the belief structure of the medieval state. Foucault, Bourdieu and Derrida make somewhat similar criticisms as Strauss does. Since science (or rather, a belief in science) is now a constituent element in the belief structure of the modern polity, that makes the content of science much more important (and sometimes much more dangerous) than previously. It's not so much that Strauss would have disputed any scientific theory, but rather wondered whether all scientific theories are all equivalently healthy to be forced into this role by the modern state.

2fair is also correct: Strauss was not a Straussian. Strauss and most of the Straussians would have had severe discord over their economic views, for only one instance (almost all professed Straussians try to hide that Strauss was very dubious about capitalism).

In general, it could equally well be argued (as I do) that the modern state operates comparatively well (as Strauss believed) and that part of what constitutes the modern being belief in science makes science something worthwhile to protect. However, that doesn't mean that everything science does is equally healthy for the population or the science is completely un-criticizable.

The interpretation that some vulgar Straussians put upon that is much more determined by their own misreadingings of the current political situation than by anything actually to do with Leo Strauss himself.

If you start with abstractions like "the modern state" and "science" for which only you have the secret definitions, then your argument is above criticism. It's also to that extent gibberish.

Whatever the fine points about what Strauss personally would have approved of, it's obvious that the general movement, including the neocoons, has a radically different epistemology from normal science. The Straussian approach is that truth comes from texts, and texts that only can be grasped with the help of decoder rings available only to the initiates. The standard of science is typified by one of the publication rules. Any paper describing original work has to include enough detail about the experimental procedures that any interested person could replicate it. (With exceptions for unique items like fossils and Hubble telescopes, of course.) The price for the recognition that comes with priority of publication is that you have to make it possible for some clever and industrious person to build on the work, and potentially surpass it. In the Straussian cosmos, knowledge is finite, fixed and limited to the texts, so it has to be hoarded. Tis is a form of intellectual rent-seeking.

So these people are supposed to be in charge of the "modern state" and decide what scneitific theories will be extended "protection" as "healthy" for the "belief structires" of the populance. I'm relieved that no "vulgar Straussians" will be deciding the fate of parity violation in beta decay or alternative splicing. As long as the elite are properly rafinee Straussians, I'm sure it will be a great advance, and a savings on laboratory budgets, to discover answers in Plato and Machiavelli.

Roger,

I'm not using the words "science" or "modern state" in any way but the most commonly used definitions of these things. Strauss would not use esoteric interpretations unless something in the text itself indicated that that was the intention of the author.

"The Straussian approach is that truth comes from texts, and texts that only can be grasped with the help of decoder rings available only to the initiates"

No, the truth does not come only from texts. The only decoder ring necessary, IF any is necessary at all, are Leo Strauss' books and the source texts, all of which are readily available on Amazon.com. It's not much of a secret.

"In the Straussian cosmos, knowledge is finite, fixed and limited to the texts, so it has to be hoarded"

Huh? Can you provide some evidence that this is true?

"So these people are supposed to be in charge of the "modern state" and decide what scneitific theories will be extended "protection" as "healthy" for the "belief structires" of the populance. I'm relieved that no "vulgar Straussians" will be deciding the fate of parity violation in beta decay or alternative splicing. As long as the elite are properly rafinee Straussians, I'm sure it will be a great advance, and a savings on laboratory budgets, to discover answers in Plato and Machiavelli."

Many Straussians believe that the philosopher-king is impossible, so that the philosophers (if those Straussians consider themselves such) will never actually rule. What you fail to understand is that science is part of our political system (and was intentionally designed to be part of our political system - read Bacon, for one). Our political system already decides what areas of science to focus on, and which not, on a daily basis. We already decide which scientific theories are healthy for our body politic and which not. Your depiction of science as serenely floating above the fray is nonsense. Now, you may believe that our current methods of deciding which science is worthwhile pursuing are great. But, since you're not the only voice in the political system, other potential standards of judging also have the right to dispute these methods. Those who do find those methods more arguable than you're willing to admit include Leo Strauss, Derrida, Foucault, Bourdieu and Mirowski.

Our political system already decides what areas of science to focus on, and which not, on a daily basis.

In many important respects, we insulate the decision from politics. There's a set of institutions designed to provide disinterested scientific opinion.

We already decide which scientific theories are healthy for our body politic and which not.

Who desides? Where are the decisions published? What are the criteria for "healthy"? You've been talking about "health" a lot without mentioning a scientific theory it's unhealthy to allow people to believe. Do you have any examples of such theories.

Your depiction of science as serenely floating above the fray is nonsense. Now, you may believe that our current methods of deciding which science is worthwhile pursuing are great.

Science is a social activity. There's lots of material on the way human psychology interes into the process -- faddism, conformity, unconscious assumptions, etc. But the general idea is that there's something out there, sometimes called "nature" or "the physical universe", and you can't make it comform to political or ideological preferences.