Edith Efron's Psycho-analysis of Clinton

Straussians love Lincoln and they love him for a couple of reasons, one of which is that he was not reluctant to set the law aside when he felt it was necessary. But they also venerate Lincoln because he quite consciously set about the business of constructing a mythology about American identity, a patriotic mythology. Lincoln made the claim, in his Lyceum speech in 1838, that those who had had the experience of fighting for the establishment of the country in the Revolution were dying out as a generation and that future generations would have to revive this experience through myths and stories that they told about this founding generation. And that is what Straussians do in terms of American culture, primarily through the myth of the Founding Fathers, the notion of this aristocratic elite that established America and the way that it is established. So Lincoln is a very important figure for them because he resorted to tyrannical measures when he had to and because he sought to mythically restore heroic virtues.

One modern philosopher who is important in a complicated sort of way for Strauss is Martin Heidegger. Strauss says he encountered Heidegger for the first time in the early 1920s when Strauss "attended his lecture course from time to time without understanding a word, but sensed that [Heidegger] dealt with something of the utmost importance to man as man." But despite his disclaimer of limited understanding, Strauss says that where he broke with Heidegger was with what Strauss called Heidegger's moral teaching, which he describes in this way: There is a straight line that leads from Heidegger's resoluteness to his siding with the so-called Nazis in 1933. After that I ceased to take any interest in him for about two decades."[xiii]

So regime is one clear example of Straussian influence on the administration's rhetoric and the thinking behind it. And indeed, William Kristol and a coauthor, in an article entitled "What Was Strauss up To?" point to the notion of regime as an instance of Strauss's influence.[xi]

Another important element is the "good versus evil" trope. Here William Kristol and Robert Kagan can show us the way toward an understanding. They coauthored an article in Foreign Affairs in 1996, entitled "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." They argued for the importance for conservatives to put moral judgments back at the center of American foreign policy, as Reagan had with the notion of the "evil empire." Carnes Lord, to whom I referred above and who now teaches at the U.S. Naval College and who was a member of the Reagan administration and the Quayle staff as well as a translator of Aristotle, wrote an article in 1999, in which he argued that the crisis of liberalism as he understood it was a crisis of the political class, of the leadership in this country. He blamed the agenda of what he called "multiculturalism" in both domestic and foreign affairs for the fact, as he saw it, that we had lost our way in this country.

Perhaps a more sophisticated and less intrusive political culture might help save your country from making an international laughing stock of itself next time some president has rabid enemies, willing to pursue past the point of ridiculousness and human decency and compassion?

Actually Swolf, I don't think that is really fair to Monica. At the time she and the president were...um...sharing cigars, she really did dress well and had good hair and skin and beautiful eyes and a nice smile. She was a little on the chunky side by super model standards, but I think most people would say by ordinary standards, she was pretty. Whether she demonstrated good judgment and/or good characer is a legitimate debate, but I can see how Clinton could be attracted to her or at least not repulsed by her.

Every male member here who has a girlfriend or wife who looks like a supermodel, please post image here:

First, to my knowledge Effron has no credentials in psychology, or medicine in general. She uses the terminology of psychology to slander a public official.

Secondly, The Clinton presidency was very successful, the country was at peace, prosperous and was internationally preeminent. His successor can make none of those claims.

Third, Clinton is no longer president,...live with it.