Philosophers can be directly quoted no matter what corner of "esotericism" they "dwell in." It's done all the time. In fact, by not quoting Strauss directly one could argue that DiLorenzo is guilty of the very offense he and others accuse Strauss of, i.e., not believing the masses can comprehend rarefied philosophical minutiae.
I think it's more likely, though, that the reason this author and a few others I've read lately haven't been quoting Strauss is because they've never read the guy.
I'm no expert myself, but I've read that Strauss' chief value to conservatism is his penetrating dissection of 20th century liberalism and its statist cousins on the European continent, believing as he did that they ineluctably lead to relativism, which in turn descends into nihilism. Any analysis of the man's work which omits this aspect is some kind of deliberate distortion, and therefore suspect.
You are missing the point of Strauss entirely. It is not a matter of quoting him but rather the fact that nobody is quite sure of exactly what he meant. When I said that he dwelled in esotericism, I was speaking literally and referencing a behavior of the most extreme form. He developed a significant ammount of what he wrote around the premise that the philosophical works of centuries past were filled with hidden meanings and did not shy away from loading his own stuff with the same to such a degree that even his own students are in rabid factional disagreement about what Straussianism is. If you desire to read something Strauss wrote, fine - some of it is online and most bookstores will have at least a couple things by him, so it is readily accessible. Now making sense of it and trying to figure out exactly what Strauss meant by it all...well that's another thing.
I think it's more likely, though, that the reason this author and a few others I've read lately haven't been quoting Strauss is because they've never read the guy.
I honestly couldn't tell you as I have not asked that question of any of them. I get the impression that DiLorenzo is familiar with at least some of Strauss and he's definately aware of perhaps the largest school of Straussians - the so-called "west coasters" - because he has been involved in an extensive academic debate with them for the last year or so. But if you desire to ask that question of him, by all means email him.
I'm no expert myself, but I've read that Strauss' chief value to conservatism is his penetrating dissection of 20th century liberalism and its statist cousins on the European continent, believing as he did that they ineluctably lead to relativism, which in turn descends into nihilism.
According to some of his advocates, yes. But even that is replete with esotericism.
Any analysis of the man's work which omits this aspect is some kind of deliberate distortion, and therefore suspect.
Again, I think you are missing the purpose of this article. It is admittedly not an esoteric deconstruction of Strauss' contribution to conservatism, but rather an editorial commentary on the adoration of Lincoln exercised by Strauss' largest contingent of students, advocates, and interpreters.
Good point, Beckett. Let's get some in here that have.
I'm just an working stiff and I can tell that this fellow had better stick to attempting to take the current helm of the anti-Lincoln splinter movement of american history.
As far as knowing anything about Strauss, Locke's shakey relationship with conservatism and natural law versus natural rights, he is writing a bunch of bile.
Next thing you know he will be doing a sequel to Arming America if his scholarship is this poor.
Business as usual. : )
Beckett, your critique is right on.
True. DiLorenzo shows no signs of having read Strauss. He offers no quotations from Strauss, and doesn't even mention the name of any of his books. He relies entirely on third hand journalistic accounts of Strauss and on articles relating to Lincoln by those he presumes to be Straussians. The fact that most students of Strauss had little to do with Abraham Lincoln and hold no strong opinions about him doesn't seem to be on DiLorenzo's radar screen. If he truly understood Strauss -- or even had some familiarity with his work -- DiLorenzo wouldn't speak so glibly about what "Straussians" believe.
DiLorenzo seems to be entirely unaware of the disagreements between the West Coast and East Coast Straussians. Jaffa and the West Coast school are very appreciative of Locke, the Declaration of Independence, and Lincoln. The East Coast school is highly critical of Locke and not particularly attached to Lincoln. More pessimistic and "European," the Eastern Straussians are more interested in the questions that Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche dealt with: the philosopher, truth, relativism, scepticism, nihilism. Consequently the statements DiLorenzo makes about Straussians are likely to be untrue of at least half of those who could be considered to belong to that group. He cuts and pastes the characteristics of the two schools together to produce his cartoon "Straussian", and isn't even aware that he's doing so.
I agree with you that this article neglects the Straussian anxiety about nihilism, relativism and positivism. DiLorenzo makes no mention of the European cultural, intellectual and political atmosphere that cast a shadow over Strauss's work. To take Strauss for a Machiavellian and ignore his reaction to the Machiavellian atmosphere of his day is to play the hanging judge, not the informed critic.
During Strauss's lifetime governments routinely overstrided constitutional limits in what were extraordinary situations. Strauss had to come to terms with this in his European days. To conclude that he advocated the violation of constitutions and arbitrary or absolutist governments would be a mistake. He certainly was grateful to arrive in a country where such usurpations were not the rule.
DiLorenzo belongs to the Rothbard-Rockwell circle, which comes close to being a cult. Rockwellites consider themselves to be bold iconoclasts, but they have a hard time with criticism of their views. Those who disagree with them must be wrong, dishonest and depraved and are to be attacked mercilessly.
I call your attention to Karen DeCoster and other Rockwellite hacks. They have been to Rockwell's Mises Institute and come away with ideological fervor and a conviction that all truth resides in Mises and his elucidators Rothbard and Rockwell, but very little knowledge of the subjects they write about. DiLorenzo fits into this pattern. He may know something about economics, but his ventures into history, and now philosophy have been -- to put it mercifully -- deeply flawed.