http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/left_right_center_the_112th_congress_and_you_20110107/
Jennifer Rubin in her seemingly casual aside, a maladroit put- down, of questioning Robert Scheer and what planet he is on, gives a revelatory view of the Political Theology at the center of Neo-Conservativism. To call it a Theology is not a misnomer but a naming of the core belief of the Neo-Conservative Phenomenology; as the re-definition of Public Reason, as inherent in centers of authority. And not located in the Enlightenment , the Kantian, concept of Public Reason, defined as the sum of the interactions of self-legislating beings, always subject to the ethical interactions of conflicting imperatives ;meeting in conversations – a continuing evolutionary process , mediated by a debate among political equals, and enlivened by constant intellectual interchange. Ms. Rubin, in her statement of challenge to Mr. Scheer, demonstrates her self-elect status , as arbiter and bearer of this new definition of Public Reason ; as residing in her as person: and as not subject to debate or question: an ideology with its center in belief .Her flinty rhetorical style, enmeshed in an a priori rightness, is , then, a product of her Political Romanticism, an American echo of Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and her American precursors Norman Podheretz and Irving Kristol: Plato’s Republic being the root of this ‘new’ form of nihilistic political paternalism.
Jennifer Rubin in her seemingly casual aside, a maladroit put- down, of questioning Robert Scheer and what planet he is on, gives a revelatory view of the Political Theology at the center of Neo-Conservativism. To call it a Theology is not a misnomer but a naming of the core belief of the Neo-Conservative Phenomenology; as the re-definition of Public Reason, as inherent in centers of authority. And not located in the Enlightenment , the Kantian, concept of Public Reason, defined as the sum of the interactions of self-legislating beings, always subject to the ethical interactions of conflicting imperatives ;meeting in conversations – a continuing evolutionary process , mediated by a debate among political equals, and enlivened by constant intellectual interchange. Ms. Rubin, in her statement of challenge to Mr. Scheer, demonstrates her self-elect status , as arbiter and bearer of this new definition of Public Reason ; as residing in her as person: and as not subject to debate or question: an ideology with its center in belief .Her flinty rhetorical style, enmeshed in an a priori rightness, is , then, a product of her Political Romanticism, an American echo of Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and her American precursors Norman Podheretz and Irving Kristol: Plato’s Republic being the root of this ‘new’ form of nihilistic political paternalism.
StephenKMackSD's Blog 