Reading the interviews, I was reminded of something I read a few years ago:

"...this elaborate display of classical authors is deceptive. Often the learning behind it was superficial: often the citations appear to have been dragged in as 'window dressing with which to ornament a page or a speech and to increase the weight of an argument,' for classical quotation, as Dr. Johnson said, was 'the parole of literary men all over the world'. So Jonathan Mayhew casually lumped Plato with Demostehnes and Cicero as the ancients who in his youth had initiated him 'in the doctrines of civil liberty': Oxenbridge Thatcher too thought Plato had been a liberty-loving revolutionary, while Jefferson, who actually read the Dialogues, discovered in them only the 'sophisms, futilities, and incomprehensibilities' of a 'foggy mind' - an idea concurred in with relief by John Adams, who in 1774 had cited Plato as an advocate of equality and self-government but who was so shocked when he finally studied the philosophy that he concluded that the Republic must have been meant as a satire."

--From pages 24 - 25. Bernard Bailyn's "The Ideological Orgins of the American Revolution", 1967

I think this shows just how original the Founders were in their thinking, while also illustrating the tendency of people to not study philosophers, writers, thinkers, etc, but to decide just the same that they would support their position, and thus reference them for support. I think most are surprised when they actually go and read works they have always heard of, but never looked at themselves. That said, I agree that Plato was impractical in his outlook and ideas, but he should still be studied. After all, his philosophy has been of enormous influence on the intellectual evolution of the Western world. Its modified form of Neoplatonism was synthesized with Jewish and early Christian thought to produce medieval Christianity (indeed, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity without Neoplatonism to provide it with a philosophical structure). Until the re-discovery of Aristotle by the west (via the Islamic world that was deeply enamoured of him), Plato's philosophy and its children was the dominant philosophical strain in the west. After the rise of the Aristotelian synthesis in the later Middle ages, it was Platonism and Neoplatonism brought west by Byzantine scholars fleeing the Turkish invasion that led to the intellectual flowering that came to be the Renaissance.

Say what you will about Plato, but his work must be studied because our intellectual history, indeed, much of our history in general, doesn't make any sense without understanding it.

While I definitely see the point of comparing the relationship between Huey Long and OK Allen to that between Cheney and Bush, I must protest a bit. I have studied Huey a good bit, and I have to say that there is a great gulf between him and Cheney. Yes, Huey Long ran a terribly corrupt regime in Louisiana, and, yes, he had an insatiable lust for power. However, Huey really did a great deal of good in Louisiana. Corrupt and brutal as he was, he genuinely cared for the little guy, and worked to help give him a hand. He was also competent. What I am saying is that Huey had virtues to mitigate his clear vices. With Cheney, there is only vice - the man has literally done nothing worthy of praise in his time as VP while acting as a corrosive, caustic influence on American government. No matter what you think of Huey Long, he deserves far more than to ever be associated with Dick Cheney.

If anyone is looking for a bright side to Bush's packing of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts for that matter) it is this: One of the laws of motions holds that every action induces an equal and opposite reaction. There is a similar rule in effect in politics. The harder the courts slam the nation's jurisprudence to the right, the harder it will provoke a leftward reaction in the elected branches. This right-wing court has greatly restricted standing, meaning that regular folks will have an increasingly hard time to seek redress from the government in court. It has also made it clear that it is willing to reduce all manner of rights, to hamstring local governments seeking to redress social problems such as segregation, and even to undo economic regulations that have helped to maintain economic stability. It is going to hurt people, and hurt people seek ways to strike out. Do you think they are going to vote for Republicans willing to endorse everything this right-wing activist court does? The court is creating an atmosphere in which populism may flourish. All we need are populist leaders to channel it. Mark my words: by succeeding in stacking the judiciary, the right has sealed its death warrant. Perhaps it is for the best, for it out of things like this that national renaissances may be born. So may it be...

Believe me, I see your point. People are going to suffer because of this court's decisions. I don't think that is a good thing at all. I was pointing out what I hope to be a silver lining in the dark cloud that is the Roberts court. That we might be able to get a better country out of the revulsion it causes does not eliminate the tragedy of those who will suffer. I guess the truth of the matter is that we - all of us who care about these things, and who have compassion for our fellow citizens have to do our best to help those who will be hurt. The onus is then also on us to make sure that the progressive renaissance comes, and that those who will be hurt by the right will not have been hurt in vain.

It is cold comfort, but it is better than nothing, I hope...