The Philosopher of Neoconservatives

The Boston Globe ^ | 5/11/2003 | Jeet Heer

[A. Pole]

The late Leo Strauss has emerged as the thinker of the moment in Washington, but his ideas remain mysterious. Was he an ardent opponent of tyranny, or an apologist for the abuse of power?

ODD AS THIS MAY SOUND, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington. Eager to get the lowdown on White House thinking, editors at the New York Times and Le Monde have had journalists pore over Strauss's work and trace his disciples' affiliations. The New Yorker has even found a contingent of Straussians doing intelligence work for the Pentagon.

[Sci Fi Guy]

LaRouche, the fringe presidential candidate who believes that the world is being governed by Jewish bankers inspired by a Babylonian cult and that the Queen of England is a drug dealer, argue that Strauss is the evil genius behind the Republican Party. More sensible folk, like the New York Times writer Brent Staples, who earned a doctorate in psychology at Chicago in the 1980s, have also decried the ''sinister vogue'' of Strauss.

LOL, So this is what it looks like when the democratic party implodes.

[A. Pole]

FYI

[reformedliberal]

1st Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and now here in the Boston Globe are explications of Strauss aimed to hit at the present Administration.

This treatment is marginally more balanced (very marginally).

When will we see equal time given to Antonio Gramsci? I have yet to meet a committed Progressive who admits to ever hearing the name Gramsci.

[Seti 1]

This is a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[Reactionary]

Here we go again. The Boston Globe has decided to educate everyone about the "real" Leo Strauss by quoting dunderheads like Shadia Drury. Her book "Leo Strauss and the American Right" is widely regarded as a vulgar attempt to link Strauss to the extremist views of the Nazi philosopher Karl Schmidt. What is her rationale? She does so by showing that Strauss held correspondance with Schmidt and discussed his "Occasional Decisionism" throughout his life. She ignores the fact, however, that Strauss also held lifelong discussions with people like Alexandre Kojeve (an avowed communist). For people who've read and understood Strauss, Drury's book has nothing to do with scholarship; it's an attempt to discredit Strauss through character assassination alone.

Strauss has never said that "those who are fit rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior" (one of Drury's quotes). He never supported the idea of power politics or the mere usefulness of religion in civic life. He has never supported the idea of "perpetual war." He was never an enemy of liberal democracy.

Strauss was a political philosopher who focused on reviving the study of other political philsophers in a serious way. He was a friend of liberal democracy, although his support of it did not extend to flattery. His book "Natural Right and History" was a broadside attack on historicism and relativism. Granted, he had misgivings about the modern political project, especially concerning the non-teleological aspects of modern science. He thought that ancient political philosophy was superior to modern political philosophy. However this may be, Shadia Drury and the Boston Globe are completely out of their league in accurately describing anything he's written.

However, I will say that if the the editors at the Boston Globe are interested in people reading Strauss with "Straussian eyes," the first thing to do is to buy the books and read them. Let the author speak for himself. Don't focus on his life or what other people have said about him. In order to read Strauss with "Straussian eyes," let Strauss speak for himself.

[MEG33]

I read a good article by Horowitz about this if memory serves.

[Reactionary]

Yes, I think there's an article about Strauss on the FrontPage site, although I'm not sure if it was written by Horowitz.

As someone who's read Strauss for a very long time, I have to say that I'm pleased that he's finally getting some attention. Liberals, after endlessly repeating the "neo-con" label, have no decided to discredit the source, the father of neo-conservatism. They have identified the ideological enemy of liberalism and are using everything they've got to bring the Straussians to heel before more damage is done.

The good news is that if Shadia Drury and Seymour Hersh are the best they can dig up, it will take them three thousand years to undermine Leo Strauss and the Chicago School.

[Reactionary]

You'll notice that they never address anything Strauss has written. Everything centers around what other people think or have said about Strauss; everything focuses on motives. The implication seems to be that motives account for everything.

Strauss wouldn't have agreed with this approach. He actually believed in truth.

[A. Pole]

Her book "Leo Strauss and the American Right" is widely regarded as a vulgar attempt to link Strauss to the extremist views of the Nazi philosopher Karl Schmidt.

Karl Schmitt should not be flippantly dissmissed. Same way you could dismiss Heidegger and Jung for example.

Even if one can disagree with their ideas, still they provide an important alternative approaches and points of reference. They should not be reduced to the Nazism, same way as many left-leaning thinkers should not be reduced to Commies.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

One of Allan Bloom's students told me that Professor Bloom had taught them that Plato was just an American-style democrat. This is just absurd. Plato taught the rule of a tiny elite, which is what the Straussians actually believe.''

And the democrats arn't run by a small ruling class of power hungry rich, union boss thugs, and academic marxists? Who says they aren't? They sure as Hell don't stand for the individual.

[diotima]

Strauss is a very complex thinker. I doubt most people could sit down, page through a book and "get it." Impossible.

Stanley Rosen Bump!

[MEG33]

Motives do seem to count for everything for the left! Horowitz called them the ideology of good intentions.I don't know much but I know which road is paved with good intentions.(I thank you for sharing your understanding)

[William McKinley]

If I am catching the gist of this article, what the author is suggesting is:

1. Strauss said that ancient philosophers had learned to talk in code; give one front to the masses (aka the mob) and another front for the truth that only the elites could handle.
2. They learned to do this because philosophy could get them killed; Socrates being an example.
3. Strauss felt the ancient philosophers were superior to more modern philosophers.
4. Therefore, it is likely that Strauss was also talking in code, and was a closet atheist and quite Machiavellian.

The part that confuses me is who was going to kill Strauss if he didn't talk in code? If the author is going to say he followed the lead of the ancient philosophers, shouldn't he attempt to show that he faced the same threats that they did, which would cause him to adopt the same approach?

[bourbon]

You are certainly correct to describe Drury's book as nothing more than a purblind diatribe. A much better and more searching description of the correspondence between Schmitt and Struass is Heinrich Meier's book Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. It quickly disproves Drury's foolish theory that there was some sort of essential connection between the two philosophers. In fact, Strauss' letters to Schmitt contain very powerful criticisms of the "Nazi philosopher's" writings.

One other thing. The article posted here makes it seem that egalitarianism was some sort of bugbear for Strauss. From my readings of his work, I would say this is an unfair characterization. I would say he focuses most of his scorn on the ideas of historicism, relativism, and the modern destruction of the classical ideal of "nature."

[A. Pole]

The part that confuses me is who was going to kill Strauss if he didn't talk in code?

He would be denied tenure and black-listed by the publishers in the name of political correctness? This would be a form of death for a political thinker.

[William McKinley]

That does not follow. The people doing the blacklisting would supposedly be the same people, the 'elites', to whom he would have been talking in code.

[A. Pole]

That does not follow. The people doing the blacklisting would supposedly be the same people, the 'elites', to whom he would have been talking in code.

Not really. There are different types of "elites". Publishers and university administrators are not necesarily elites by Strauss definition. At least no more that Athenian judges who sentenced Socrates.

[William McKinley]

I find that to be extremely unlikely.