4. Jacobin ideologues have unquestioning faith in their own moral superiority. This explains why the Straussians so often behave in such a completely vulgar, mannerless, and uncivilized way whenever anyone questions any of their precepts. This is radically different from the normal state of affairs in academe where such criticism is viewed as the means of arriving at the truth through discussion and debate. It is also why the Straussians are so despised (and largely ignored) by the rest of academe.

The Straussian Jacobins are not necessarily interested in the pursuit of truth: they already know THE TRUTH. Harry Jaffa and other cult leaders have revealed it to them. That’s why they so often attempt to assassinate the character of anyone who dissents with the views of the cult leader. A case in point is the viscous and hysterical smear campaign against the late Professor Mel Bradford, a preeminent Lincoln critic, after President Reagan nominated him to head the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1981. He eventually withdrew his own nomination in disgust.

Several years later, in an article entitled “Against Lincoln: A Speech at Gettysburg,” Professor Bradford cynically recalled how “I have found that I ‘favor slavery,’ consider it to be a ‘tenuous multiracial experiment’ yet to receive the final verdict of history, and that I censure Lincoln because of ‘what he did for racial equality.’ My reservations [about Lincoln] are described as ‘insulting to Lincoln’s idea of liberty.’ And the very errors embodied in such wild charges, requiring as they do some rejoinder, ‘prove’ that there is something wrong with my character, regardless of their implausibility. . . . I have ‘overturned the Declaration of Independence,’ called Lincoln a ‘villain,’ and argued that ‘there is no right principle of action but self interest.’ None of which can be documented from anything I have written” (emphasis added). He was also falsely accused of being a “Hitler admirer.”

What we had here was one of the first shots in the Straussian/Jacobin/neocon takeover of the old conservative movement that really did believe in limited government. Thus, Jaffa can be thought of as a sort of Iranian Mullah light. He has no ability to issue a death warrant to any Salmon Rushdies who might question or mock his “civil religion” (a coin termed by Rousseau, the ideological godfather of the French Jacobins and one of Jaffa’s favorite phrases), but he can orchestrate smear campaigns against them such as the one that was directed at Professor Bradford.

This episode, and many others like it, prove the truthfulness of another of Professor Ryn’s characteristics of a Jacobin ideologue: 5. The desire to dominate and silence one’s ideological opponents rather than engage in civilized discourse with them. ~Thomas DiLorenzo

It is probably not entirely a coincidence that Prof. DiLorenzo’s article comes on the heels of an embarrassing string of attacks on Prof. Claes Ryn at Claremont’s blog, The Remedy. That last point in the quote pretty well reflects my experience with “debating” Straussians this week, which concluded with a warning against my Southern deviationism in a facile attempt to shut down debate or try to intimidate those who might have otherwise found the posts of Mr. Peterson less than compelling.

Prof. DiLorenzo’s references to Mel Bradford and the attacks against him are especially important for helping to distinguish conservatives, such as Dr. Bradford undoubtedly was and many of his enemies politically on “the right” were not, from the ideologues. This is not to make these distinctions a question of personalities, but to point to a gentleman and scholar who represented a venerable tradition of Southern conservatism on the one hand and the sort who would smear and insult such a man because he does not possess their unfortunate vision of American history.