I can venture a few guesses.

Certainly a worthy candidate.

It would be exactly like reading Saddam Hussein condemn human rights abuses or Dick Cheney condemn torture or George Bush condemn lawbreaking or Michael condemn mindless, government-serving stenography, etc.

Michael who?

It works for Kristol because he lies with authority.

One of the terms that gets bandied about by the right, especially when discussing the MSM and the progressives is 'elitist.' 'They have elitist leanings and so, can't be trusted to be honest with the American people.' But isn't this a textbook definition of elitism: the idea that the hoy peloi is incapable of handling 'the truth' so must be lied to by a noble cabal of right thinkers who are far superior and moral than the rest of us? Who's the elitist?

From Earl Shorris, Harper's Magazine, June 2004:

"For Strauss, as for Plato, the virtue of the lie depends on who is doing the lying. If a poor woman lies on her application for welfare benefits, the lie cannot be countenanced. The woman has committed fraud and must be punished. The woman is not noble, therefore the lie cannot be noble. When the leader of the free world says that "free nations do not have weapons of mass destruction," this is but a noble lie, a fable told by the aristocratic president of a country with enough nuclear weapons to leave the earth a desert less welcoming than the surface of the moon."

Now we have a justice system where leaders can freely break laws and even brag about the fact, as Bush did when the warrantless wiretapping program was discovered. But for the poor and minorities, justice is swift and harsh. We imprison more people than any other country in the world, in some of the most inhospitable and dangerous conditions.

...is complete without at least an off-hand reference to this:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

"Strauss thought that the superior few should shoulder the burden of truth and in so doing, protect humanity from the “terror and hopelessness of life" While this may have a modicum of truth. It is the assessment and bestowing of superiority by a corrupted and plutocratic method that results in the blatant failings of neocon principles. Arrogance, tyranny, selfishness, greed, exploitation, collusion and extortion are the hallmarks of neocon policy. Clearly inferior principles. What does Strauss think when the inferior few have usurped truth to attain their evil ends? How does humanity fair under such rule? Oh wait, we already know. Global wars, economic collapse, Enron style market manipulation, Corporate fascism... the list goes on. How is that not terror and hoplessness. Thanks for nothing neocons.

But reading Bill Kristol -- the living, breathing embodiment of deceitful propaganda -- condemn the use of lies for political ends is really too much to ignore.

His NYT pieces were so full of errors, one really wonders if he knows what he is doing. Perhaps the founder and even this current Kristol's father would claim that he has not reached the level where he can tell a good lie.

Love the excerpt of Shadia Drury's work.

I would add that Strauss's views on the need for elite manipulation of the public mind (through "noble lies" or other forms of propaganda) was shared by one of the 20th century's leading liberals, Walter Lippmann.

That's where Chomsky got his impetus for "Manufacturing Consent".

The concluding characterization of Cokie Roberts––Roberts criticizing "conventional-wisdom-spouting punditry"––made me laugh out loud. So true.

Juan Williams's comments on Gates's arrest were shameful. This "philosopher of race," as Scott Simon called Williams, would have us all learn that it's only right and proper that black men show special deference to the police and extract their wallets with the utmost caution.

As if there is no difference between a lamentable survival tactic and a civil right.

I think one of the most profound effects of the current crop of independent journalists is that they are unwilling to engage in the "noble lie". This is why we see an increasing disconnect between former pillars of American journalism like The Washington Post and the New York Times and the blogs and websites which now publish the best American journalism.

When you read David Broder, Judith Miller, Robert Novaks, or Bob Woodward you can be sure that they consider the noble lie to be part of their job. Politics and war are too important to simply report the truth. They engage in a form of theater, where they report not what has happened, but what they think the country needs to hear.

The reporting on the Iraq War can serve as a case study of how the noble lie distorts the role of the journalists from the fourth estate into propagandists and then apologists.

I don't believe "reality" or the "Truth" matters one iota to Kristol. No hyperbole. He'll spout whatever bullshit seems to suit his purposes at any given time. Occasionally some portion of it will be objectively verifiable. Doesn't matter to him,

The American revolution can be understood as a flowering (in political form) of the sentiments born during the Age of Enlightenment.

If the above is true, then Strauss and the neocon phylum can be viewed as a thread of the old "endarkenment"--philosophically opposed to the prevailing beliefs associated with the founders and founding statements. In other words, neoconservatism is fundamentally, philosophically, unamerican.

I really like GG's approach here, a direct, head-on analysis which goes to the root of the issue.

is the basis for conservative politics in America.

No limit is placed upon the effort to bend the minds of the electorate. The line bewtween lies and truth is blurred beyond recognition and this has led to a populace that accepts our system of government as a democracy, instead of recognizing it for what it is: A system of special interests and bankrupt ideology.

Does that mean we can finally get rid of the ONDCP?

Check their mission statement -- "noble lying" is what that agency is all about.

It's not their job to disseminate emotionally truthful and scientifically accurate information that will help addicts overcome addiction.

It's their job to propagandize against drug reform, which means the agency is designed to be a propagator of noble lies.

The Drug Czar just last week told a so-called noble lie -- he said there's no medical benefit to marijuana.

He didn't ask for opinions from the 7,000 licensed physicians who signed off on marijuana recommendations in 2008.

And then there was that scientific study that Bill Clinton ordered from the Institute of Medicine.

The IOM report was issued in 1999 and that body of experts concluded that there is a medical benefit to marijuana.

That was the report Clinton claimed would "settle" the issue for good.

Why is it that ten years later, in a supposedly pro-science administration, the ONDCP still acts like the IOM report never happened?

As long as the ONDCP is in operation with Obama's support, it's absolutely pointless to criticize the neocons for believing in the noble lie.

After all, it was Joe Biden who started the ONDCP.