Being attentive to the realities ofnhuman existence as adumbrated byntraditional classical and Christian philosophynand theology, the FoundingnFathers were wise enough to moderatenthe recent political theories entanglednwith Hobbesian and Humean andnLockean ideas. The Greek philosophers,nthe Stoics, Hebrew thought, andnespecially Christian thought from thenApostles to Thomas Aquinas, contributednto the intellectual climate fromnwhich the founding of a new republicnemerged. It is Christian thought asnformatively important that is of specialninterest, since that is an “influence”naggressively rejected or decried bynmodernist thought. Concerning his recoverynof this intellectual dimension ofn”Americanism” (Jefferson’s term).nProfessor Sandoz describes his ownnintent: “The thrust of the inquiry isntheoretical rather than antiquarian ornsimply historical.” This is to say thatnthe thrust is philosophical, and such annaddress is so easily dismissed on thengrounds of being — with a pejorativentwist to the terms — merely theoreticalnor speculative. But against our increasinglynblind pursuit of the empiricallynpragmatic, we need to confront thatndismissive attitude, which is too commonlyndeterminate in academic attentionnto the founding.nThe presumption of political sciencenas a “science,” the belief thatnstatistical deposit is itself sufficientlyndescriptive of reality as to make abstractionsnthe basis of political action, needsnsevere questioning. We might begin bynobserving that A Government of Lawsncontributes to the recovery of the goodnname of political philosophy, followingnin the tradition of Professor Sandoz’snmentor Eric Voegelin, especially as it isnreflected in that seminal work. ThenNew Science of Politics. What isn”new” in Voegelin’s book is really old:na recovery of philosophical disciplinento the subject. For as Sandoz andnVoegelin recognize, any academic disciplinendivorced from its proper groundnin philosophy easily suffers the impositionnof agendas by popular pressuresnoccasioned by circumstance. At firstnUtopian in their enthusiasm, socialnconcerns since the founding have becomenmore and more desperate undernthe necessity of staying whatever socialnchaos springs from the pretense thatnreality itself is born of Utopian enthusi­nasm. Through statistical abstractionism,nfor instance, political “science” innits academic manifestation has attemptednto restructure political systems,ndeclaring by the fiat of “fact”ngathered by survey those false realitiesnthat now plague academic participationnin the restoration of our disintegratingnpolitical community. At thisnjuncture, typically, the “political system”nin one way or another fundsnthose political “scientists” in their increasinglynforlorn hope that some additionalnsystematization may prevent thencollapse of social order, or at least delaynthat collapse for as long as anothernterm of public office. Meanwhile family,ncommunity, and the larger polityndisintegrate from factionalism. Wenhave witnessed the effect of this disciplinenpretending to be a formal “science,”nits reductionism requiring anturning from the elementary grammarnof common sense through abstractionismnelevated over reality. Hence thenvacuum in the minds of our universitynstudents concerning the historical circumstancesnof our founding. At leastnonce a year, the media present sensationalnproofs of this failure by thenacademy, complete with examples ofnbotched multiple-choice tests for thenentertainment of the reading public.nAdisparity between language andnreality grows out of abstractionismnelevated as a scientific absolute, transcendingnphilosophy. This disparity betweennour symbols, which attempt tonbond social bodies to that reality, andnour experience as individuals in socialncommunities increases. Meanwhile, thenwould-be directors of this “science”nattempt to impose abstractionism itselfnas the operative principle in restructuringnthe order of society, and of beingnitself At least Karl Marx more fullynunderstood that this is a deliberate strategynnecessary to the gnostic empowermentnof the social engineer, throughnwhich he may make society itself anmachine to fit his limited dream. Hisnfollowers in this attempt, however, appearnnaive as never before, advancing anvaguely held humanitarianism — thenremnant dream — in justification ofntheir own mechanistic reductionism ofnhumanity.nMarx regarded the deconstruction ofncommunity signs as necessary in speakingnagainst the realities of human na­nnnture. That was the prelude to reconstitutingnsociety itself as the only realitynsuited to communal worship, throughnthat elevated sign, the emergent idol,nnamely the “State.” The modernistnversion, descended from the Moses ofnsecular religion, is the current sentimentalitynof a residual Marxism. Naivenas Marx himself was not, our secularnsocialists overlook an elementary andnself-evident truth that Marx saw cleadynand so labored to obscure. As ProfessornSandoz puts it, “Society has no existencenapart from the human beings whoncompose it.” The increasingly vaporousnutopianism that has followed fromnHobbes and Hume and Marx,nskimmed from the surface of theirnthought lest the depths prove too unsettlingnto Edenic desires, obscures withinncommunity thought itself, as opposed tonwhat ought properly be the searchingnacademic concern, a turning point innmodernist thought. Marx understoodnthe turning all too well: the first order innthe deconstruction of reality is to reducen”human beings” from their given naturesnin order to build with their emp-nL’ni:^’:^–:•:>'< :’^-nJSTTfTfnMenger, Mises, Hayek 692 pagesnand more – the besteverncompilation of „. ,..„,„.nfree marl