Without kicking open too big a can of worms, consider this line from Andrew , brought to my attention by John :
McCain is a warrior; Ron Paul is a conservative of non-violence. At some deep philosophical level, this is the dividing line between Oakeshott and Strauss, as well.
I’m no follower of Schmitt, but I don’t imagine one has to be in order to ask: was Oakeshott too naive about our ability to domesticate or pacify politics? Call it what you want — cruelty, in Shklar’s terms; ‘the world’ or ‘the profane’ or ‘despair’ in more theological ones; simply ‘power’, in Foucauldian or pop-Thucydidean language. Isn’t the question the same?
Bonus question: to what extent does Oakeshott share this difficulty with Rorty? (Full disclosure: I’m planning to write at length on this matter.)
