From the Author’s Foreword, 1987 During the course of the past nearly twenty years, I have become perhaps the most controversial among the influential international figures of this decade. Unlike all of the other leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945, I am an influential original thinker. This is not to suggest that such prospective candidates as Vice President George Bush and Senator Robert Dole are lacking in intelligence or executive abilities. For the past forty years, the successful candidates for the presidency have been persons who, in the customary manner of speaking, advanced their political career up to that point, by doing “the right thing at the right time,” saying and doing nothing which will make enemies among important factions of the “establishment.” Bush and Dole, for example have adapted to those rules for success under ordinary conditions. However, this is a crisis; in such crises, what is customarily successful becomes a failure. Our nation has once again entered into a time when only the unusual succeeds, and the usual fails. We have entered into a period of crisis in which only original thinkers are qualified to lead. On paper, our nation is a constitutional democratic republic. In reality, it has not been such a republic for approximately one hundred years, certainly not since the sweeping changes in our form of government introduced during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Most of the time, the policies of government, the selection of most leading candidates for federal office, and the majority of popular opinion, have been regulated by behind-the-scenes committees representing what is called “the establishment.” Under this arrangement, candidates for leading office present themselves, like job applicants for corporate executive appointments, to this “establishment.” The “establishment” either gives such candidates permission to campaign, or “not at this time.” If given such permission, the candidate so “authorized” seeks backing for his or her election by the “establishment,” by proving to the “establishment” that he or she can “sell” the policy which the establishment has decided to push at that time. ... I began to understand this in 1947. ... I wished General Dwight Eisenhower to campaign for the 1948 Democratic nomination. The general replied to me, stating agreement with my policy arguments in support of his candidacy, but informing me his candidacy was not appropriate at that time. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have won the 1948 nomination and election by a landslide, had the “establishment” permitted him to campaign. …

Author's Foreword, 1987 During the course of the past nearly twenty years, I have become perhaps the most controversial among the influential international figures of this decade. Unlike all of the other leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945, I am an influential original thinker. This is not to suggest that such prospective candidates as Vice President George Bush and Senator Robert Dole are lacking in intelligence or executive abilities. For the past forty years, the successful candidates for the presidency have been persons who, in the customary manner of speaking, advanced their political career up to that point, by doing "the right thing at the right time," saying and doing nothing which will make enemies among important factions of the "establishment." Bush and Dole, for example have adapted to those rules for success under ordinary conditions. However, this is a crisis; in such crises, what is customarily successful becomes a failure. Our nation has once again entered into a time when only the unusual succeeds, and the usual fails. We have entered into a period of crisis in which only original thinkers are qualified to lead. On paper, our nation is a constitutional democratic republic. In reality, it has not been such a republic for approximately one hundred years, certainly not since the sweeping changes in our form of government introduced during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Most of the time, the policies of government, the selection of most leading candidates for federal office, and the majority of popular opinion, have been regulated by behind-the-scenes committees representing what is called "the establishment." Under this arrangement, candidates for leading office present themselves, like job applicants for corporate executive appointments, to this "establishment." The "establishment" either gives such candidates permission to campaign, or "not at this time." If given such permission, the candidate so "authorized" seeks backing for his or her election by the "establishment," by proving to the "establishment" that he or she can "sell" the policy which the establishment has decided to push at that time. ... I began to understand this in 1947. ... I wished General Dwight Eisenhower to campaign for the 1948 Democratic nomination. The general replied to me, stating agreement with my policy arguments in support of his candidacy, but informing me his candidacy was not appropriate at that time. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have won the 1948 nomination and election by a landslide, had the "establishment" permitted him to campaign. ...

Bridges Western and non-Western political thought to address the problem of democracy and political decadance in contemporary Iran and, by implication, similar Islamic societies. Political decay in Islamic societies has for the most part been the subject of structural analyses while philosophical studies have been rare, often speculative and deterministic. Thoughtlessness and Decadence in Iran explores from a theoretical perspective the problem of democracy deficit—or, political decadence—in contemporary Iran and, by implication, in present-day Middle Eastern societies. This decadence, the book argues, is in part a religion-based decadence, and deliverance from it requires collective thoughtfulness about religion. Alireza Shomali conceptualizes the Iranian Reality in terms of a lack of not only good life but also thinking of good living. This thoughtlessness means dissolution of critical consciousness and, as such, it heralds escalating decadence. At this moment of rapid decay, the book argues, thought must become relevant to society: the communicative practice of thinking must emerge to examine the pathologies of a religiously administrated life. Opening a dialogue between Adorno, Strauss, Farabi and Razi, among others, Shomali underlines the critical points of similarity and difference between these thinkers and envisions a “local” emancipatory project that, noting the specifics of the Iranian case, takes lessons from the Western experience without blind imitation. Alireza Shomali is Associate Professor of Political Science at Wheaton College. He is the author of Politics and the Criteria of Truth.

This book sheds new light on the question of democratic politics by proposing a hermeneutic conception of citizenship and the public sphere. At the same time, it presents a critique of the postmodern arguments advanced by Richard Rorty, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Jean Baudrillard. Questioning a dominant interpretation that sees Gadamer's hermeneutics as the expression of a conservative project, Alejandro argues that it includes an important element of critique that could challenge dominant structures and practices.

In looking at the behavior of the "me-generation" the author acknowledges the occurence of selfless acts and argues that looking out for number one may require looking out for others too

No description available