Jahn's use of parenthesis, his contradictions, and use of words such as master to characterize Straus' relation to Bloom in his first few paragraphs give a clear indication of his bias. The bias continues throughout the piece but maybe you just didn't notice.
Using Jahn's assessment, esoteric Straussians believe philosophy should be confined to certain individuals, as opposed to the modernist view which proposes to make philosophy more digestable and acceptable to the masses. Jahn also indicates he believes, but gives no supporting information to make an assessment of the Straussians belief, that the Straussians consider themselves to be "better" than the average man. Philosophical thought is an ability like any other ability but according to Jahn the Straussians believe excelling in this makes them better than other men?
By telling me Keyes is an esoteric Straussian you expect me to think he believes in value-relativism or moral-relativism and considers the ultimate truth to be... there is no truth, or justice for that matter? You are way off base here.
If that was all there is to your claim maybe I could just dismiss it but you apparently also want me to think Keyes believes this:
The esoterics, then, basically agree with the libertarian and (pre-1960s) liberal understanding of American history: we are a "proposition nation," liberal to the core, and conservatism is un-American. The cult of the Founding Fathers is just a salutary myth. The truth is that the Founders, under the tutelage of Hobbes and Locke, deliberately created a squalid regime ruled by self-interest, sacrificing virtue to liberty and equality, and are ultimately responsible for the philistinism, mediocrity, and deracination of contemporary America.
If I read you wrong I'll be happy to discuss my mistakes but if I didn't then I think maybe there is a job for you at Strike The Root under the tutelage of Jeff Allen.