Carl Schmitt, the German philosopher who was a great admirer of Hitler and who was Leo Strauss’s inspiration, would view the two sides today as he viewed them before World War II when he was providing intellectual grounding for the Nazis. People who disagree with you and who you view as a threat to your way of life qualify as the enemy and anything is justified in dealing with the enemy. Compromise is viewed as weakness and the ideas of legitimacy and legality are mutually exclusive giving a ruler the right to do whatever he deemed necessary to eliminate the enemy.

This is the background of what we’ve been faced with the past thirty years. It’s interesting that Schmitt’s works weren’t available in English until MIT Press made them available in the mid-80s at the height of the Thatcher/Reagan “revolutions” in their respective countries.

Leo Strauss is the mentor of the neocons who believed that Schmitt didn’t go far enough in vilifying liberals. These are the intellectual icons who are worshipped by the lunatic right wing and its wholly-owned representatives in congress. The revelations coming out about Eric Prince and Blackwater/Xe fit in nicely with this philosophy.

Once again, our list of things we need to do to achieve a healthier democracy gets longer. But maybe some progress here will help us make progress with other items on the to-do list!

and as always, thank you Bev.

I think such a thing (or many smaller such things) would be of great value — especially to help scientists recognize the diversity of views and goals held by their own colleagues.

Of course, it could turn into the mother of all committee meetings!

Answering these questions is easier than the last ones from Janet!

Scientists would benefit because they wouldn’t have to be angry at the media and politicians all the time! They would benefit by the satisfaction that their knowledge is really being used, valued, and having the real world ramifications that it deserves.

Citizens would benefit from better public policy with respect to science. They would also be personally enriched, knowledge-wise, through a higher level of science engagement. Finally, some would make life turns towards science that they otherwise would not have, and who knows what could result from that?

It’s win-win, and then some.

If there are forces making a concerted effort to keep Americans alienated from science and scientifically illiterate, who will the losers be in the scientific America you see us working toward?

Given that the interests that benefit from a disengaged public will do what they can not to lose ground, what kind of challenges does this create for scientists and other members of Team Science trying to push the public in the direction of greater engagement?