Read comments to previous post first

This is my response to the comments in the previous post. However, I think it starts to move in a different direction, so figured it would be good to make a new post.
Drury makes a good point that a totally "free" country will NOT be totally "virtuous" (i'm assuming that what I mean by these terms is understood - i put them in quotes only to acknowledge that i'm aware of their limitations), and a totally "virtuous" country will have to sacrifice its freedoms. the more virtue, the less freedom.
So, as is happening now, while people want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", the "right to life", and whatever other indoctrinated moral values are the flavor of the day, they are willing to submit to things like the Patriot Act and other invasion of privacy and losses of "freedoms".
I suppose what I'm getting at is, I see the above as preservation - in the case of the current administration, protection of virtue by limiting access to knowledge (thinking) and controlling "freedoms" (or abolishing them). Preservation of not only life itself (avoiding holocoust), but of a certain way glorified as tradition (i.e. what Jon was saying about the teaching of the Great Books, or a move to interpret original intent of the Constitution as a Christian intent).
In terms of protection, I think much is claimed in the name of protection that ends up being preservation instead. However, I don't know that I have a clear idea or understand of what would constitute protection. Any input?

It has begun...

I don't know where everyone else stands, but today I started reading Shadia Drury's Leo Strauss and the American Right, and all included quotes are from that book (Copyright 1997, St. Martin's Press, New York).
First, I can say that it is VERY accessible. I have had no trouble so far following the language or the ideas.

The first point I came across (and I've only made it seven pages in) is in regards to the dissemination of ideas.
From page 2:

The ridicule of the Straussians in the academy is connected to their unquestioning devotion to a set of ideas that they cannot or will not defend except to those who are already convinced. It is therefore not the case that they are simply being persecuted for thinking differently, it is for disseminating their views in a manner that is destructive of intellectual life itself. For they do not want their ideas discussed openly or even known to anyone outside the charmed circle of initiates.

In regards to the current "American Right", we've all seen examples of withholding information from the general public and of a sort of faith over logic approach. There has also been a lot of discussion (refer to Jon's Blog) of the Right not only discouraging thought, but also promoting a type of anti-intellectualism (ex: the Left is elitist and therefore not worth listening to)as well.

I also found it ironic that the very group that follows Strauss's ideas (the Right) are supporting (even CREATING) the very situation which Strauss feared in regards to democracy (as he believed it was a liberal democracy that allowed Hitler to take power in Germany (i.e. the Weimar Republic)).
From page 6-7:

I [Drury] am inclined to think that a democratic society is always vulnerable to the appearance of a demagogue who preys on the fears, prejudices, and insecurities of the people.

While Drury does not agree that America is the same as Weimar Republic era Germany, the point is made that some of the very dangers that allowed Hitler to take power are present. I would argue that the demagogue has appeared. Using fear, prejudice and insecurity (potential terrorist attacks and anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendments??) to control people?? It's been frighteningly effective.