Political Theology, Neoconservatism and the Religious Right

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

To achieve a better understanding of how the neoconservative movement has been so successful, you have to go back to the start of it all, to make any sense of it all.

It is such a foreign concept, especially in Canada, that the media and pundits are often scrambling for an angle.

Stephen Harper is authoritative. Stephen Harper is secretive. Stephen Harper is a bully. Stephen Harper is dishonest.

But the essence of Stephen Harper can be summed up in a single word: Neoconservative. That political entity requires all of those things.

And the essence of neoconservatism can be summed up in two words: Political Theology. That was the theory of Carl Schmitt who had an intellectual relationship with Leo Strauss, the man deemed to be the father of the neoconservative movement.

Strauss had written to Schmitt, critiquing his Concept of the Political, and his suggestions were included in future publications of the book.

Just as the Concept of the Political has an exceptional position among the works of Carl Schmitt, so are the "Notes" of Leo Strauss exceptional among the texts about Schmitt ... The Concept of the Political is the only text that Schmitt issued in three different editions.' It is the only text in which the changes are not limited to polishing style, introducing minor shifts in emphasis, and making opportunistic corrections, but reveal conceptual interventions and important clarifications of content.' And it is the only text in which, by means of significant deletions, elaborations, and reformulations, Schmitt reacts to a critique.

Only in the case of the Concept of the Political does Schmitt engage in a dialogue, both open and hidden, with an interpreter, a dialogue that follows the path of a careful revision of Schmitt's own text. The partner in the dialogue is the author of the "Notes," Leo Strauss. He is the only one among Schmitt's critics whose interpretation Schmitt would include, decades later, in a publication under Schmitt's name,' and Strauss is the only one Schmitt would publicly call an "important philosopher."' (1)

This is quite compelling seeing as how Carl Schmitt was a Nazi and Leo Strauss a Jew. In fact Schmitt was responsible for removing Jewish content from university holdings, and yet he included "Jewish content" in the revisions to his book. He remarked to a friend after reading Strauss's notes: "He saw through me and X-rayed me as nobody else can."

And the notion of Political Theology is probably the best explanation of the resulting movement. It is more than mere ideology. It is a dogma. The infallible belief in what they are doing. They let nothing in, that contradicts their acceptance of corporatism.

In that way it was a natural marriage with the Religious Right. They were betrothed at birth.

Becasue who better to bring in to the fold, than a group already enormously successful at turning myths into truths. That's not an attack on any one's religion, but let's face it. The Religious Right does not represent mainstream beliefs. They have distorted religion for financial gain.

Most evangelicals do not share in the hatred and greed that has come to define them. They have embraced corporatism as the route to salvation, and as a result, are able to bestow greatness on a political leader. Another confliction with true evangelism.

A good example of this is the case of Bob Sirico, once a gay rights activist, and now a Catholic Priest. According to the Heartland Institute:

One often hears priests, preachers, and rabbis endorse an activist government able to solve social, economic, and perhaps even moral problems. Fr. Sirico offers a powerful challenge to this conventional wisdom. Religious principles, he says, require that men and women be free to practice virtue or vice, and freedom in turn requires a limited government and vibrant free-market economy. (2)

Have you ever heard anything so twisted? I attended Catholic school and not once do I remember the nuns catechizing a free-market economy.

So if we accept that neoconservatism is not so much a poltiical philosophy as a political theology, everything else falls into line. We are dealing with a religion that has a fundamental set of beliefs and practices.

Their followers are referred to as Straussians.

But perhaps the biggest victim of neoconservatism, is Leo Strauss himself. He would never have promoted Imperialism and would no doubt have scoffed at the fanaticism now represented in the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the Reform-Alliance (Conservative Party of Canada).

As journalist Michael Lind once wrote in the Washington Weekly: "Whatever one thinks of Strauss as a philosopher, he cannot be blamed for the opportunism of his followers."

Sources:

1. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, Translated by J. Harvey Lomax, University of Chicago Press, 1995, ISBN: 978-0-226-51888-6, Pg. 6-8

2. "Religion and Freedom", by Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute. January 1, 2007

Chapter Twenty-Eight Continued: The State of Exception

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I had written in an earlier chapter about Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt, in their historical context, but I believe after studying the actions of the Bush administration, I think they were influenced more by Schmitt, than Strauss.

This wouldn't be unusual, given the relationship of the two men, but many Straussians argue that he would not have supported the war in Iraq or the torture. Schmitt on the other hand, had very finite views on these topics as well as dictatorial power.

And at the end of WWII, when he was captured by the Americans, he refused every attempt at de-nazification, even though it barred him from positions in academia.

Understanding Carl Schmitt

According to Eugene Sheppard, Strauss's devotion to Schmitt was "because Strauss perceived him as not only a senior ally en­gaged in the critique of liberalism, but as a fellow searcher on the quest to dis­cover an alternative political cosmos. At the same time, Schmitt is important as a thinker outside the German-Jewish subculture who conferred legitimacy on Strauss's abilities and scholarly project." (1)

He thought of them as being on an even keel. Elitists who saw something that others were incapable of seeing. And when Strauss's suggestions for revisions to Schmitt's most famous work; The Concept of the Political, were adopted and included in future versions, it truly was his legitimacy as a political philosopher, not a Jewish philosopher.

Schmitt's theories are also suggestive of a theocracy, because he relates a dictatorship as being "the fundamental godlike character of sovereignty."

Sovereignty is not defined by governing conventions and norms, but rather emerges in full clarity at the fateful moment when the suspension of legal and constitutional norms is authorized. Rather than view the imposition of martial law and the suspension of political procedural norms as an excep­tional case, applying only to emergency situations, Schmitt conceives this ex­traordinary moment of an emergency (Ernstfall) as defining the fundamental basis of rule. The state of exception in politics is analogous to the miracle in the­ology. God's majesty over the world used to be clearly determined by his decisive ability to suspend the ordinary laws of nature. (1)

Sheppard states that this was an awakening for Strauss, because it provided clarity. He also then felt he understood what was wrong with liberal political systems, and that they failed "because of their principled embrace of tolerance and pluralism."

It's easier to understand this in the time period before the Nazis took power. Many countries were in disarray, after WWI. Author Richard Bessel suggested that it was also a time when monarchies had crumbled and without a central figure to pin their hopes on, many people felt lost. (2)

Monarchs had ruled by 'divine right' and many citizens still accepted that they had been ordained by God, so Schmitt may have recognized that a godlike figure was needed to make them feel secure again. And power had to be centralized, so decisions could be made immediately, without the slow down of Parliament.

And if individual rights were taken away they were being pooled for the common good. And if the leader claimed that someone was the enemy of the state, they were your enemy and you trusted your leader to do what was necessary to keep you safe. "Ultimately, subjects must decide their political loyalties based upon the real possibility of killing and being killed. How could—and why would a citizen of a state stake everything on the basis of agnosticism?" (1)

One religion, one state, one leader, one God. What could be clearer?

Thomas Hobbes on Steroids

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) political theories were formulated during the Civil War in England, so he too was looking for a "strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war."

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace ... the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

His theories formed the basis of materialism.

But Strauss argued that liberals and socialists had forgotten that human beings are inherently evil and politics must take that into account.

The problem with these theories is that they were devised during a different time in history, when the need for a central authority was necessary. And I don't believe that all human beings are inherently evil. I prefer to think that all human beings are basically good, made evil by illness or circumstance.

But what is interesting, is how the Bush administration used the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Chicago school. Did they create a "different time"?

The Bush Administration and the "Evil Doers"

Just before 9/11 George Bush's approval rating was 55%, with a full 41% disapproval rating. Immediately after 9/11 he had a 92% approval rating with only 6% of Americans disapproving of his handling of the country. Why was that? He didn't do anything special. In fact he stayed in the classroom reading a book to children, instead of evacuating the school. He stood on the steps of the White House singing patriotic songs.

If the nation was under attack these actions seemed strange at best.

But the nation needed a strong central figure, and they turned to their leader for guidance, and even if they had doubts about his ability, they were willing to hand him their basic liberties in exchange for 'protection'.

And he was able to sell them on the need to invade a country based on what most people knew was flawed logic and the notion of "an enemy." And he kept them in a constant state of fear with colourful alerts.

And as more people turned to religion during that uncertain time, he was able to create the state of Carl Schmitt's vision.

We may never know what really happened on 9/11. But just as the time of Nazi Germany will always be viewed under the dark shadow of Hitler, the Bush Administration will be remembered under the dark shadow of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and other human atrocities.

Sources:

1. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile, the making of a Political Philosopher, By: Eugene R. Sheppard, Brandeis University Press, 2006, ISBN: 978-154865-600-5, Pg. 44-47

2. Germany After the First World War, By: Richard Bessel, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1993, ISBN: 0-19-821938-5

Chapter Twenty-Eight: Leo Strauss, The Best of Times, the Worst of Times

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Forty-four years old was Handsome Adolf Hitler last week and Germany went wild. Not even the Kaiser or Old Paul von Hindenburg ever had such a birthday. Despite his expressed desire to spend the day quietly in his little Alpine cottage near Berchtesgaden he could not avoid the attentions of his delirious followers. They roused him with flowers, they roused him with telegrams, bottles of wine, boxes of cigars (Chancellor Hitler does not smoke, drinks nothing stronger than beer), Easter eggs, Westphalian hams, lumps of sugar for his police dogs. Back in the Chancellery in Berlin the presents came in by the carload. Sofa cushions were the most popular, there were over 1,000 of them; also clocks, books, pictures, rugs, clothes, a birthday cake weighing 170 lb., dogs, canaries, parrots, and a saddle horse (Chancellor Hitler does not ride). Most appealing was a box of pretzel mice from the children of Hameln, labeled YOU ARE NOW OUR PIED PIPER.

In the city twelve Nazi standard bearers tramped with flags flying to the high altar of Berlin's Protestant Cathedral while the choir sang, "Thus Far God Has Guided Us." Nazi peddlers did a land-office business selling wooly imitation edelweiss, Hitler's favorite posy, for ten pfennigs each, the proceeds to go to charity so that, in the Chancellor's own words, "No one should go hungry on this day." Restaurants, beer gardens and Nazi headquarters who had promised to distribute free food ran out of supplies early, but it was a wonderful feast while it lasted. Soldiers, police, storm troopers and Stahlhelm members paraded all day long. Proudly officials at the Chancellery displayed a birthday message from the Reichspräsident, signed "In loyal comradeship, believe me, your devoted VON HINDENBURG." (1)

And on the day that the article appeared in Time magazine, though probably inspired by the actual event and not the reporting of it; two men who played an important role in the philosophies of Leo Strauss, would join the National Socialist German Worker's Party of Adolf Hitler: Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.

Strauss, however, was already living in Paris, after Schmitt, the infamous Nazi jurist, and Christian Catholic, arranged for Strauss, the Jew, to obtain a Rockefeller scholarship to study there. No doubt, Strauss would have preferred to join in the festivities in his homeland, and would later tell a girlfriend, Hannah Arendt, that "he wanted to join a party which would not have him because he was a Jew." (2)

Martin Heidegger and a Sense of Being

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was a professor at Marburg University, and Leo Strauss attended several of his classes. Other students included Hannah Arendt as mentioned above, and Strauss's good friend Jacob Klein or "Jasha", a renowned interpreter of Plato.

Strauss would often eagerly discuss "Heidegger's innovative interpretive prowess", (3) though he wasn't part of his circle.

Heidegger's philosophy dealt with the concept of "being", and he worried that technology could become "dehumanizing". I know it was much more complicated than that, but he seemed to have opposed modernism and liberalism, as did Leo Strauss.

I try to avoid judging individuals simply because they joined the Nazi Party, as Strauss would warn viewing them "under the shadow of Hitler." However, Heidegger did remain with the party through to the end and according to a book written by Chilean Scholar Victor Farias, did not change his views as others have claimed.

Although scholars have long known about Heidegger's early flirtation with National Socialism, he was generally thought to have become disenchanted with Hitler well before the outbreak of World War II. With new documentation, Farias charges that Heidegger, who died in 1976, was a lifelong anti-Semite and a devoted, dues-paying party member until the end of the war. Farias also notes that Heidegger went out of his way to praise Hitler to his colleagues and failed even after the war to criticize Nazi atrocities and genocide. (4)

What's important is the role he played in Strauss's life and his influence on neoconservative theories. I do often wonder though how he justified it in his own mind.

Another philosopher who challenged Strauss, and whom he would often discuss Heidegger's theories, was Franz Rosenzweig (1887-1929), who was a Jewish theologian. He died of ALS before Hitler came to power. But up until the day he died, he continued his work, dictating one letter at a time to his wife, through the use of eye blinks or by touching the letter on an old typewriter. I love that story.

I'm going to continue with the relationship between Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt, but I wanted to share the opening story, that reveals the sentiment at the time. Adolf Hitler had become a god to the German people.

We have the luxury of knowing his evil history, but to the German people then, he was their saviour. The Weimar republic that replaced the Royal house of Hohenzollern, did not work. The German people had suffered more than a decade of civil unrest and I think they missed having a central figure they could count on to lead them. And the propaganda genius, Joseph Goebbels gave them the image of a strong leader in Adolf Hitler.

No one can really say with any certainty that they wouldn't have fallen prey to the hysteria. Unless of course you were Jewish. But in 1933 few could have predicted the horrific outcome. When the U.S. began sounding the alarm, based on stories of those who managed to escape, and nations began to boycott German goods, Hitler countered:

"America, which of all other lands has taken it upon itself to set up a movement against our methods of self-defense, has the least excuse for such action. The American people were the first to draw practical and political conclusions from differences among races and from the different value of different races.

"Through its immigration laws it has prevented the entry of those races which seemed unwelcome to the American people. And America today is by no means ready to open its doors to so-called refugee Jews from Germany, whereby we must emphasize that in reality not a hair of any Jewish head has been touched."

So last week spoke Adolf Hitler before a meeting of the German Medical Federation. Under his hand Germany proceeded openly to reduce her Jewish inhabitants to the social and political position occupied by Negroes in the southern U. S. and Orientals in the West. (5)

So I will continue with the story of Carl and Leo without "the shadow of Hitler".

Chapter Twenty-Eight Continued: The State of Exception

Sources:

1. GERMANY: Birthday, Time Magazine, May. 01, 1933

2. Enmity and Tyranny, By: Alan Gilbert, March 5, 2010

3. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile, the making of a Political Philosopher, By: Eugene R. Sheppard, Brandeis University Press, 2006, ISBN: 978-154865-600-5, Pg. 44

4. Nazis: Heil, Heidegger? Time Magazine, February 15, 1988

5. GERMANY: Co-ordination, Time Magazine, April 17, 1933

Chapter Twenty-Six: Joseph Goebbels and Manipulating the Masses

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"What do close advisers to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement." Donald Gutstein (1)

Those words are certainly true but I would also ask another question. What does Leo Strauss and the advisers to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing philosophy of Joseph Goebbels. And most of Joseph Goebbels brilliance as a propagandist came from reading Gustave Le Bon, and exploiting his study of mass mentality.

Gustave points out that individuals in a crowd may range in intellect, but when presented as a mass to a common cause they become homogenized: In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals, and in consequence their individuality, are weakened. The heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous, and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand ... This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence ... In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. (2)

Hence the notion of not just the "masses" but the "ignorant masses", reduced to ignorance by a common agitator.

Leo Strauss would develop a philosophical argument which he called Reductio ad Hitlerum which included playing the Hitler card. But Strauss also contends that not everything Adolf Hitler did was bad, so it would be wrong to conclude that something is bad just because Hitler did it. Actions can become "darkened by the shadow of Hitler" he warned.

So when neoconservative philosophy is attributed to Strauss, it's OK. He taught at American universities, and no matter what he taught it is legitimized. But as soon as you compare neoconservative principles to Joesph Goebbels, they cry foul, despite the fact that much of what Strauss taught is pure Nazi propaganda, that has been "darkened by the shadow of Hitler". And of course also darkened by the shadow of the Holocaust.

I'm not going to deny that Leo Strauss was a brilliant man, but I believe that in many ways he was simply the conduit for Goebbels, which is why so many legitimate followers of Strauss will question much of what has been attributed to him, especially when it comes to the actions of the Bush administration.

In chapter twenty four I drew several comparisons to Goebbels and the Neocons, but in this chapter I'm going to remove the shadow of Hitler and the Holocaust and outline the techniques used by the ultimate propagandist, Joseph Paul Goebbels. The similarities between him and the advisers of most neoconservative politicians are simply too vast to ignore.

Phenomena of a Hypnotic Order

The difference between Leo Strauss and Joseph Goebbels, is that Strauss's theories were philosophic, while Goebbels were scientific. Strauss was inspired by other philosophers while Goebbels was inspired by a scientist, Gustave Le Bons.

As Le Bons himself states: I have endeavoured to examine the difficult problem presented by crowds in a purely scientific manner—that is, by making an effort to proceed with method, and without being influenced by opinions, theories, and doctrines. (2)

So scientifically speaking, when discussing crowd mentality,he suggests that individuals in the crowd are rendered unconscious, and it is this unconsciousness that becomes their collective strength. They are now devoid of reason and this is the best state for a skillful orator to do their work. Le Bons refers to this as the 'phenomena of hypnotic order'.

So ideally when trying to stir up the masses, you need to get them into an hypnotic state, and one way of doing this is with hand gestures. In the "mesmerizing trade" it's referred to as Covert Hypnotism. Goebbels mastered it. Look at his rhythmic hand gestures. Very unusual.

Of course Goebbels would say that the power comes from the "harmony of word, facial expressions and gestures", but at this particular rally he speaks of the mass as being in a state of "total spiritual mobilization". Aka: hypnotized.



Now watch Adolf Hitler, doing the same thing. He starts out in a humble stance and then builds up the momentum. But again watch his hands (Not too closely though. I wouldn't want you to start clucking like a chicken or anything)



The gravelly voice was the result of mustard gas during the war and Hitler's first handler, Dietrich Eckart taught him how to use it to his advantage. But every now and then he has to stop to cough. Eckart was a playwright and stage director, so gave him a flair for the dramatic.

Now just as kind of a funny aside, following is a video of Stephen Harper. I don't really know what his oratory style is because he rarely speaks to us, and certainly would not speak to us in this manner if he thought we were listening. This video was shot on the QT. But watch his hands and yes I am LMAO.



Chapter Twenty-Six Continued: Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment

Sources:

1. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy. The Tyee, Donald Gutstein, November 29, 2009

2. A Study of the Popular Mind, By: Gustave Le Bon, Book One: The Mind of Crowds

Chapter Nineteen Continued: Leo and Carl

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Carl Schmitt, was a German philosopher, law professor and devout anti-Semitic. On May 1, 1933; he joined Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP (name changed from simply German Worker's Party) and was quickly appointed to the position of Prussian State Counselor by Hermann Göring.

He was also made the president of the Union of National-Socialist Jurists and it is believed that many of his theories became the ideological foundation for a Nazi dictatorship, and the basis for it's extreme authoritarianism.

Professor Alan Gilbert wrote recently of Schmitt:

There is a kind of darkness here that emanates from his writing and penetrates the reader. As a longstanding fighter against the pseudoscience of eugenics, ingredient to IQ testing, and Nazism, I thought myself pretty steeled (so far as one can be) against lethal anti-semitism. But Schmitt’s Catholic and medieval anti-semitism I found hard to absorb – it has a creepiness, an indiscriminate murderousness, and a demonism about “masks” which goes right to the gut. (1)

As chairman of a law teachers' Convention in Berlin in October 1936, Schmitt demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" and future publications by Jewish scientists be marked with a small symbol.

The Beginnings of a Strange Relationship:

In 1926, Schmitt had published one of his most famous works: The Concept of the Political, that very much impressed the budding Jewish philosopher, Leo Strauss.

Strauss would send Schmitt a list of comments and criticisms, that so inspired him that he would make changes in future editions based on Leo's notes. He just wouldn't acknowledge that they came from him.

The two men did engage in regular correspondence, and Carl Schmitt was instrumental in Strauss' receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship *, enabling him to leave Germany for Paris, thereby escaping the fate of many others. At that time, they broke off their relationship and Strauss wrote from Paris fuming that Schmitt would not acknowledge his contribution to the later editions. He obviously forgot that he was Jewish and how the other man felt about Jews. (1)

However, Strauss would later tell a girlfriend, Hannah Arendt, that "he wanted to join a party which would not have him because he was a Jew." This of course was the Nazi Party. Strauss says of Hitler, that his “political theology” was hostile toward “me and my kind,” but Gilbert suggests that Strauss was not put off by Schmitt’s anti-Semitism because Strauss, too, had quite a streak of it. (1)

Many have suggested that Neoconservatism, based on Leo Strauss's teachings, was deeply influenced by Carl Schmitt. This authoritarian nature has certainly been adopted by neocon leaders like George Bush and Stephen Harper**.

However, while Strauss is often blamed for the actions of the Bush administration, there are at least some who attribute them to Schmitt himself.

"... although some analysts have suggested that the Bush Administration has operated under the guidance of the ideas of German emigré Leo Strauss, it seems far more plausible to suggest that the true éminence grise of the administration, particularly with regard to issues surrounding the possible propriety of torture, is Schmitt."

In a similar vein, Scott Horton, chairman of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association and adjunct Professor at Columbia University published a note on "Balkanization" on Nov. 7, titled "The Return of Carl Schmitt." In discussing Justice Department lawyer John Yoo's advice that the Executive Branch was not bound by the Geneva Conventions and similar international instruments in its conduct of the war in Iraq, Horton writes, "Yoo's public arguments and statements suggest the strong influence of one thinker: Carl Schmitt." (2)

Schmitt died on April 22, 1985, and his obituary appeared in Time Magazine:

DIED. Carl Schmitt, 96, controversial German legal and political philosopher, sometimes called the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich, whose pro-authoritarian theories of government profoundly influenced the course of his country; in Plettenberg, West Germany. From 1929 to 1933, he provided legal and theoretical justifications for the Hindenburg government's dictatorial emergency decree system. Schmitt warned against a Nazi takeover, but his right-wing views became identified with the movement, and when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, Schmitt opportunistically switched with the tide, becoming Prussian state councilor under Hermann Goring. He avoided prosecution as a war criminal at Nuremberg and later largely kept his vow to retreat "into the security of silence." (3)

Chapter Twenty: Mixed Blessings

Footnotes:

*Heinrich Meier wrote a book on the shared philosophies of the two men: Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue

** According to Donald Gutstein in his piece Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: "What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement."

Sources:

1. Enmity and Tyranny, By: Alan Gilbert, March 5, 2010

2. Dick Cheney's Éminence Grise, by Barbara Boyd, Executive Intelligence Review, January 6, 2006

3. Milestones: Apr. 22, 1985, Time Magazine