Maybe Strauss was a structural Calvinist — new wine in old bottle.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 28 2005 9:29 utc | 3

Interesting how Billmon and I drug out those musty quotations of Yeats at around the same time. He’s also not kidding about the ironic part at the end. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest prophetic would be a more accurate term for the Neocons today closely resemble the very mindsets of those Israelites – particularly the Pharisees and Saducees – that had crucified Jesus. Those people were so caught up in their traditions, their culture, and their tight communities and often viewed themselves as constantly victimized and misunderstood but yet they couldn’t accurately describe why it is they felt they way they did to anyone they considered an “outsider” — to do so would reveal too much; would unearth too many skeltons in their closet. They were esentially too pius for their own good. Thus it’s no surpize that Jesus’ preaching sounded liberal as all hell to their ears and they viewed it as a threat. What people don’t understand, they fear, and what they fear, they ultimately destroy. Sadly, it’s not until the destruction begins when they wake up and realize the disaster they’ve sown for themselves.
Neocons today are Pharisees/Saducees redeux, in my opinion, for they share the same “we’re so misunderstood and victimized; woe is me” kind of mindset and — just like then — such things as gay rights, abortion, and freedom of/from religion etc. are threats to them for they preach a Gospel that could truly liberate “those whom have ears”. As we all know, truth results in freedom while a subverted and undermined truth results in bondage and it is within these grand subversions of truth that keep people under bondage and thus enslaved. The Pharisees & Saducees of yore depended on it in order to keep the status quo in their favor (much like their modern-day Neocon brethren), which wouldn’t happen lest the King of The Jews sort of “went away” somehow (I often sit here and wonder if one of the members of the San Hedrin had remarked to Peter at some point later, “Don’t you see? We had to kill him in order to save him from himself!” and ended up getting blasted right between the eyes for it)
The real irony? At least Jesus forgave the Pharisees and Saducees the first time around and – if those prophecy crackpots such as Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe are right (or Thomas Jefferson, for that matter) – the modern-day Pharisees and Saducees of yet-to-be-fulfilled endtimes prophecy don’t get forgiven at all by the returning Messiah for destroying the world as he know it. On the contrary, they end up getting sodomized by the Lord’s foot – the well-deserved punt in the ass that launches them into that Lake of Fire and I can’t help but picture Karl Rove snivelling, “But Lord, we had to destroy the world in order to save it from those dirty, abortion-lovin’, America-hatin’ Liberals,” moments before being bodily hurled into everlasting torment.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer chap, if you ask me. Too bad it couldn’t happen tomorrow! Without all that plagues and pestilences from “Revelation”, of course. Alas, this is all just mental masturbation on my part but at least I’m on record in saying that I can’t think of a more appropriate form of torment for the Straussians & the Rovians than to languish forever in the bowels of Hell with the knowledge of a returning Jesus possibly being Liberal afterall.
“Much weeping and gnashing of teeth”, indeed.
In the meantime, I say we should get a headstart in bringing a proverbial “Hell On Earth” style of torment for the GOP by starting a huge Democratic lovefest for the Sen. Barry Goldwater. I’m talking T-Shirts, hats, and tons of Democrats just gushing over him. Why? For one, the Religious Right loathed Barry Goldwater and I’m sure they danced with joy when he retired not just from politics and from drawing oxygen, too. Secondly, the visage of Barry Goldwater being paraded around by Democrats and Liberals would remind the voters of everthing that conservatism used to stand for (and the GOP of everything they have since forsaken). Sean Hannity would have a goddamned stroke, I guarantee it!

Posted by: Sizemore | Apr 28 2005 9:59 utc | 5

What I mean is that a trend that I first saw in Eastern Europe in the 90s has been spreading more and more to the Western world as well: the blurring of the left/right – labor/capital distinctions and their replacement by what I call the social-liberal vs national-populist distinctions, which can also be seen as centrism vs others.
It’s quite clear in the French vote on the referendum, the opposition is not between the parties, but within parties between the modernist wings and the more traditional or, dare I say it, reactionary wings. It creates strange alliances at times:
Social-liberalism is the combination of Eisenhower and Clinton (or in Europe: Kohl and Delors): it is broadly pro-market, but not hostile to taxes or a strong State (nor to Unions). It is generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal (with variations). It is open to the world, usually pro-free trade and mostly favorable to globalisation.
National-populism is the combination of Chirac and the communists (same thing, I know), or of Cheney and the NRA. It is focused on protecting, in often simplistic ways, “how things should be”, whether the role of the US on the world stage, of men and marriage in society, of blue-collar workers in industry, and religion throughout. It is nationalist, militarist, protectionist, not very open to the rest of the world (in trade or immigration or culture). It likes the State to spend for what it believes in (its jobs, its “values”, its pork) but not for other things.
I suppose that from this description, you’ll see where I put me in. Maybe I am wrong, or certainly too simplistic, especially about where the middle classes fit in (the above describes a typical bobo vs rednecks fracture, as seen by a bobo…), but I think it is how the neocons see the world – and they see that the “masses” that they like to lead and play with are in the new group, which is more associated with the right rather than the left, so they have turned from troskysts to neocons but are really targetting the same thing (power) by leveraging the same constituencies (traditional male workers).

Posted by: Jérôme | Apr 28 2005 10:26 utc | 7

The Straussians have always been Straussians – but at one time many of the most prominent were Democrats – and what seems to be a defining quality of many “Neocons” is their migration to the Republican party. This article makes me wonder – how was it that these people once felt that the Democratic party was a more comfortable home for their views than the Republican?

Posted by: NickM | Apr 28 2005 11:59 utc | 9

i’m not so sure the centre will hold
a comrade from moon has sent me a ‘harpers’ with two very substatantial articles on the evangilical ministries in colorado & elsewhere
i know europeans do not completely undersstand the actual political power possessed & utilised by these ministries & the depth of their criminal & sinister theology which is in deep & utter accord with the strausses, schmitts & heideggers
i imagine europe regards these groups as isolated nutcases – not as the avantgarde of an even more horrific politics than we are living today
at he end of the day minor intellectual theorists in their domain are no threat rahter it reflects on the spiritual & philosophic poverty of the elites. strauss is a nincompoop, schmitt is an able but extremely perverse legal scholar & heidegger contrary to being the god of 20th century philosophy is the mediocre meanderings of a mendacious middle class autoritarian who while betraying husserl & stealing from him – thought he was the gods that nietzsche spoke of – but was instead – a mindless rector – of a comprimised german scholarship
the very real threat are the thugs for god & their ministries explosing all over the world with their evil works & their very real thoughtlessness which is quite capable of leading us into catastrophe
because the worst act of elite theorists is that they believe what they say & become the caricatures they really are & forge alliance with forces that posess the real weight that will destroy them also
wasn’t it christ who said when i left childhood i gave away childish things – it seems the american elites have stayed, worked & created staes & empires from that playpen

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 28 2005 12:27 utc | 11

Billmon knocks it out of the park with his latest piece. What I find particularly intriguing is his hypothesis that the current neocons have found a way to form a productive (or perhaps a better word would be destructive) alliance between religious/moralistic fascists that Huey Long and George Wallace sought.
In my mind, the current alliance between the neocons and the moneyed elite/unfettered capitalists of Republicans with the religious right is at the heart of their power. The objectives of each group–the religious right and the intellectual/capitalistic aristocracy of the Straussians— cannot succeed without each other. Moreover, both are about maintaining and expanding their spheres of influence and concentration of power. Each of these group’s goals are about power. The difference is that one group–the moneyed capitalist elite is dependent upon the moralistic crusaders of the religious right to distract the sheeple so both groups can profit. In many ways, this is no different than the Catholic Church’s collusion with the early and burgeoning aristocracy of medieval Europe. The aristocracy was dependent upon the gift of the “divine right of kings” from the Church while the Church was responsible for mollifying the fears of the sheeple and keeping them passive so they would not rebel against being economically raped by the royalty. Both groups profited handsomely for centuries from this convenient arrangement.
We are seeing the same situation play out here in America today. We have the attempts by the neocons and Republicans to shift more wealth to fewer people and manufacture faux crises, while the religious fundamentalists make hay out of social ills that have no affect on the believers if they chose to not participate in the “decadence” of others. But the goals of each group are the same–power.
The American Taliban of the religious right is colluding with the Republicans with the deal being that the American Taliban gives the political and monetary support of the “offended white man” of lower and middle class America so that moneyed elite and business interests can accumulate more wealth by the economic rape of the lower and middle classes of America. This is essentially a different twist on the collusion between the Catholic Church and the royals of Europe for much of its history. The Church takes the souls and money of the poor in order to distract the sheeple from the fact that the royalty was taking the fruits of their labor. In America today, the story is the same, but the economic elite aren’t viewed as royalty and there are more factions of the religious right splitting the economic spoils and power of control of their flocks (and let’s not forget the money that the modern day Elmer Gantry’s are raking in).
This religious collusion with political power has played out before in every one of the monotheistic religions. But this is nothing new here in America with the exceptions I touch on below. Robert Frank touches on it in his book “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Sinclair Lewis speaks to the issue in fictional terms based on public figures in “It Can’t Happen Here” and the horrid consequences that the political-religious alliance can have. Lewis’s “Elmer Gantry” encapsulates the modern cynicism of current religious leaders and their lust for power at the expense of their so-called faith.
The real key to the alliance between the neocons/Republicans and the religious right is, as Billmon briefly touches on, the attack on encroaching modernity by the religious right and the neocons recognition and exploitation of this conflict. Karen Armstrong illustrates the recurring clash of modernity with peoples of faith in the “Battle for God”. This clash of modernity with faith has happened in Christianity, Judaism and Islam with surprising regularity. What is unique and frightening now is the effectiveness in an established political system–and the party controlling that system, the Republicans–in harnessing the unfounded fears of religious fundamentalists with societal change.

Posted by: WyldPirate | Apr 28 2005 13:41 utc | 13

as a follow-up to my previous post, perhaps I should have used the term “sociopath” as per this article, “The Killers (and Liars) in Our Midst” and this statistic:
“While the percentage of true sociopaths is debated – Stout contends it is 4 percent of the population, or one person in 25, while others believe it is one in 100 or fewer – experts do agree on what characterizes them.”
Even at 1%, in a population of 300+ million, that’s 3,000,000 ‘muricans that qualify, and if we assume that being WASP is not a necessary and sufficient condition, then that means 60,000,000 worldwide!
Oh joy, oh joy.

Posted by: andrew in caledon | Apr 28 2005 14:02 utc | 15

One bit of a warning though, don’t let the Right claim God as their’s. Everything doesn’t have to be either or. Since the colonial period there has been a battle over the definition of God between the Fundamentalists and the Spark of God Religions. The Fundamentalists believing that a few chosen are saved and the rest of humanity are damned have used this as an excuse for elitist policies including genocide of the Native Americans, exploitation of land and labor, and of course slavery. But the Spark of God religions-like the Unitarians and Quakers, believing that the spark of God is found within each man therefore “none above none below”-have been the leaders of abolition, labor rights, and women’s rights. The progressive movement must remember its’ 19th century history, and reclaim it’s more positive definition of God.

Posted by: middleoftheroadnot | Apr 28 2005 14:32 utc | 17

Anti-liberalism definitely seems on the rise in this country. Generally, elite political debate since World War II has largely been between progressive liberal and conservative liberal visions. Both those seeking a larger government role and a smaller government role in one or another policy spheres disagreed on the application of liberal principles to policy, but largely agreed on the centrality of those principles in the political debate.
The exploitation of the fears created by 9/11, the rise in the power of religious absolutists, traditional anti-intellectualism and the prominence of political leaders who appear fundamentally anti-liberal at heart have all contributed to this trend.
Liberalism, the national secular religion in some sense, has also become a prop in the hands of anti-liberal forces. Ritualistic invocations of freedom and democracy used as “opium for the masses” by those who may in reality be highly skeptical of those values except as a means for manipulation.
In some ways, the most disturbing aspect of the Straussians is their apparent cult-like status and their unwillingness to intellectually engage on core principles with those outside their circle. This view seems to permeate the Bush Administration for one reason or another. Information and the rationale behind policy choices are held so closely that policy suffers as a result as ideological impulses are unchallenged by argument or reality.
My biggest fear is that any economic deterrioration in the US economy will result less in a repudiation of those forces currently in power than in the further strengthening of fundamentally anti-liberal forces. I am less certain than I was that the relatively successful history of liberalism in America will be enough of a bulwark against these forces, especially as they adopt a patina of liberalism as their rhetorical cover.

Posted by: Ben Brackley | Apr 28 2005 14:56 utc | 19

I believe it is the blending of all the different influences that will dictate the outcome.
the Strausssian idealogues, the christian hungerites and the self loathers all spew thier points of view with an eye towards something else, only they don’t mesh and the result is going to anarchy or destruction.
The powers that be are so screwed up that the various interests that are competing for dominance will eat each other and attempt to take us all down and of course they all believe it is really what we need and want.

Posted by: jimmyjazz | Apr 28 2005 15:28 utc | 21

Although I probably shouldn’t say this, we here in the uber-Straussian community think we finally have these Straussian patsies playing their rolls perfectly.
If you have eyes to see and ears to see, watch this week’s Everybody Loves Raymond for your instructions!

Posted by: wetzel | Apr 28 2005 15:44 utc | 23

I can’t think of any other modern parallel in a modern democracy other than perhaps the Likud Party’s collusion/origin amongst Zionists in Israel

A more ominous parallel would the traditional conservative parties in Weimar Germany, who allowed Hitler to take power in the belief that they could control him.

Posted by: Billmon | Apr 28 2005 15:51 utc | 25

Thank you, Billmon, WyldPirate, et al.
I believe there is one factor–one other opiate, if you will–that the GOP has harnessed, and that is oil. Those groundlings who do not respond to the comforting allure of religious heirarchies are captive to the comforts that the oil economy has provided.
It has not been in the interests of the monied elites to disturb this addiction or to even discuss the dangers. And far from manufacturing faux crises, this nexus of lies propagated by powerful elites from the religious and economic spheres will prove disastrous to our now infantilized nation.

Posted by: SG | Apr 28 2005 16:09 utc | 27

he capitalist world order of the 19th century hasn’t really been recreated. It can’t be, because the world has changed too much in a 125 years.
I’m sort of glad you threw this in because you seemed to forget the central “ideology” justifying power is capitalism.
All of the sub rosa elitism of Straussianism might make more sense if the folly of capitalist development was included as a focus. I recently attended a lecture by Krauthammer (most deadly quadriplegic who has ever lived) who heroically defended neoconservatism by all means except a critique of capital. It is not so much by religious/cultural diversions the plebes are guided through history. More than anything, it is the ideology of capital as natural which assures the endurance of the de jure plutonic philosopher-king(s). For this reason alone, nothing intellectual separates straussians from the predictably ultiumate negotiation of economic crisis by fascism. There is no irony whatsoever the present fascism is inspired by an old European Jew.
So, only in the liberalism of Marx et al., is the problem of ideology confronted as actual material relations among persons, i.e., as the basis of domination solved only by socialism.
If only I had the time to kindly turn off krauthammer’s chair in order to restore the man’s faith in the charity of others…

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 28 2005 16:19 utc | 29

This isn’t a post about Leo Strauss, it’s a post about Shadia Drury! The Barkeep hasn’t mentioned a single piece by Strauss, and shows no sign of having read a single piece by Strauss. To write about Strauss without reading him–reading only someone else’s account of his work (whether good, bad or indifferent)–is like writing about Machiavelli on the “strength” of reading Strauss about Machiavelli without having read the actual writings of Machiavelli. It’s like confusing the words of various “Straussians” on the writings of “Strauss” with the words of Strauss himself. The only “grand delusion” at work here is the Barkeep’s irony-free conviction that you can read someone without also actually reading him (call it the “Cliff Notes Delusion,” if you will).

Posted by: alabama | Apr 28 2005 16:46 utc | 31

Nietzsche cannot be used, except only by the crudest dissimulation of his work
And that, according to Drury, is what Strauss did.
The only “grand delusion” at work here is the Barkeep’s irony-free conviction that you can read someone without also actually reading him
So sue me.

Posted by: Billmon | Apr 28 2005 17:01 utc | 33

I won’t sue you, Billmon, I’ll just cite you.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 28 2005 17:15 utc | 35

What a pleasure and a relif to see the real war addressed.
Five concerns.
1. Will the Anglo American tradition get this Conteniental infection? There never has been a European left in America, as marxism demonstrated. Has America lost its immunity? If so, why?
2. This is (my pet theme) a COMPETITIVE failure. The “perfect storm” may have arrived, but, it was UNOPPOSED. Who defends “modernity” or “liberalism” or even the “market” as a liberal institution? If someone is doing it, I am missing it. The “liberal” blog sites, for example, aren’t interested or up to the challenge faced here.
3. None of this would be possible without a culture of political correctness. Much of the modern American “conservative” is pure, proven, bullshit, that, is protected by “liberal” bullshit. Take Scalia’s “originalism” for example, which is a perfect illustration of Conteniental conservatism that has no legitimate place in American Constitutional law. He gets away with it. Its bullshit and he gets away with it. Tons of law journals and hundreds of well paid law professors, all dignifying “originalism” bullshit. If wichan is valid, so is originalism.
4. Strauss non sense lines up nicely with Opus Dei and a Pope who claims he prayed not to be voted in as Pope, which, somehow seems Straussian at some brain stem level of self deceipt.
5. The “irony” view of the Straussian mistake is too generous. Any educated person knows better than to believe Southern fundamentalist belligerence is going to toady to some eggheads. There is at the core some emotional failure common across the modern intellectual conservative spectrum that is caught in the phrase “autistic economics.” And how does one intellectually contest what is actually a crippled emotional need?

Posted by: razor | Apr 28 2005 17:22 utc | 37

I have a problem with the ideas presented here. We haven’t had truly liberal leadership in America for at least the last half century. Maybe Eisenhower was the last true credible President that hated war and warned about the dangers of the military/industrial/congressional complex. Clinton set the stage for many problems going on today with policies such as NAFTA, Kosovo, etc. I would argue that he was part and parcel of these guys, only slightly more moderate and more clever at it. I could never bring myself to vote for him, and I pretty reliably vote Democratic.If Hilary runs, I am out of the Democratic Party.
I also argue with the premise that globalization is a good thing. I also think that history does repeat itself constantly with a few variations. Look at the period before WWI; the world was as highly globalized (maybe even more so than today) and things did fall apart. Britain and Germany were major trading partners and that didn’t stop WWI. No group of people in the world actually supports globalization unless they think that they can use it to run the world. USA in the 90’s, China today. The tensions caused by these disparte groups fighting over the resouces available, generallly leads to big trouble. Look at Latin America right now; great instability caused by neoliberal economics. After all, it is bad government and corruption that causes most economic problems, two problems often exacerbated by globalization.
All the powers that be in this country support a sort of statist/corporate state. Both parties care more about social issues than the economic well being of the people. Shame on them.

Posted by: la | Apr 28 2005 18:12 utc | 39

From transcript of “The Power of Nightmares”

Strauss believed that the liberal idea of individual freedom led
people to question everything—all values, all moral truths. Instead, people were led by their own selfish desires. And this threatened to tear apart the shared values which held society together. But there was a way to stop this, Strauss believed. It was for politicians to assert powerful and inspiring myths that everyone could believe in. They might not be true, but they were necessary illusions. One of these was religion; the other was the myth of the nation. And in America, that was the idea that the country had a unique destiny to battle the forces of evil throughout the world. This myth was epitomized, Strauss told his students, in his favorite television program: Gunsmoke.
Professor STANLEY ROSEN, Pupil of Leo Strauss 1949: Strauss was a great fan of American television. Gunsmoke was his great favorite, and he would hurry home from the seminar, which would end at, you know, 5:30 or so, and have a quick dinner so he could be at his seat before the television set when Gunsmoke came on. And he felt that this was good, this show. This had a salutary effect on the American public, because it showed the conflict between good and evil in a way that would be immediately intelligible to everyone.
Leo Strauss’ other favorite program was Perry Mason. And this, he told his students, epitomized the role that they, the élite, had to play. In public, they should promote the myths necessary to rescue America from decay. But in private, they didn’t have to believe in them.

Posted by: beq | Apr 28 2005 18:40 utc | 41

Billmon is more or less right about Strauss’ philosophy, although it is a bit more complex and thought out than Billmon suggests. Not that it’s any good, it’s not even when it’s explained more carefully.
But Billmon is right that the Straussians and the neocons have their most serious beef with Enlightenment thought. Strauss is completely wrong that the Enlightenment ideas are ultimately behind fascist and communist theory. However, this line of reasoning was also quite acceptable to the left as well. It is bogus. Modern liberalism is the heir to the Enlightenment traditions of Voltaire, Locke, Spinoza and many others. Neo-conservatism, fascism and the politics of the American christianist right devolves from the views of the opponents of Enlightenment thought.
This is all laid out in a fascinating book called “Reclaiming the Enlightenment” by Stephen Bronner. It can be found at this url:
Link
One more point. Billmon equates fundamentalism with pre-modern religious thought. Not quite. Fundamentalist movements are a reaction to modernist trends; they have little independent life outside modernism.

Posted by: tristero | Apr 28 2005 18:45 utc | 43

In a considerable number of countries which, for about a hundred years, have enjoyed a practically complete freedom of public discussion, that freedom is now suppressed and replaced by a compulsion to coordinate speech with such views as the government believes to be expedient, or holds in all seriousness. It may be worth our while to consider briefly the effect of that compulsion, or persecution, on thoughts as well as actions.
“Esoteric,” slothrop?

Posted by: alabama | Apr 28 2005 19:02 utc | 45

I think the most interesting part of this post to me is the genesis of the right-wing love affair with slippery slope arguments. Following the political philosohpy of Strauss, this same view can be found in Hayek’s economic philosophy. Is it any wonder that these were men of nearly the same era and the same place. My political economy prof. in undergrad believed that Hayek’s view was correct when contextualized within his circumstances i.e. the rise of social-totalitarianism in his native Austria, but inadequate if looked at the experience of other social democracies. However is not this the crux of the problem, for these folks believe to make such assertions is to subscribe to what Pope Benedict XVI referred to as a “dictatorship of relativism” during his homily when he was still know as Ratzo Rizzo, aka Cardinal Ratzinger. And should I also point out that Ratzo is also German?
Is it not absurd that these folks take anecdotal evidence, based on a single example (see Tierney’s NYT column on Chile’s SocSec system for more on this), draft a whole theory around it and apply it to all circumstances. Is it not more absurd but that to point this out makes one succeseptible to their own invented largest of all evils, relativism. It is a convenient circular and self-reinforcing argument that they have fashioned. Unfortunately, it is lost on logic, so bring in faith!

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Apr 28 2005 19:28 utc | 47

yes fauxreal my comrade in new york sends me work being publishe in your country which astounds me – in the case of that harpers frightens me – paranthetically there is a demolition job of the new ee cummings biography that reflects a real hollowness in our age & in scholarship
i have read strauss & the whole gang or prettyboy psychopaths & their hollow utterances are not worth the study that some would imply. even heidegger the smartest of this cruel crew is not worth a single book by husserl. they are the thinkers that late capitalism deserves. minor thinkers. what is however necessary to study is the conditions – the concrete conditions
the concrete conditions where you have a fusion between a semi fascist lynch mob pretending they are all on personal terms with the lord himself, an intellectual class that is so impoverished it turns round & round the same points – that machiavel spoke to us clearly about, an intellectual class that has been coddled by richly funded ‘think’ tanks who want an extension & elaboration of that privilege, a political class that are as dumb as they come & can be herded by a fool like rove – who is a nothing of nothing really – whatever his experience with atwater – he is an old numbers cruncher – like any high level nazi functionary, a political class so mindless they don’t miond being in the same movie that hjas been played out before, a judiciary that is close to its own moral collapse & a industry of communication that is so simply pornographic in its intent – i wonder why we take it seriouslly at all
those conditions, that fusion what some might loosely call this synthesis of elements is necessary to study until the end & as someone sd here that might come sooner than we think

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 28 2005 20:27 utc | 49

Am presently reading Persecution and the art of writing by Strauss and can only say w/ weak confidence the esoteric meaning of great texts stressed by Strauss seems to point not to a kind of deconstruction or attack on myth/natural meaning/denotation, but a revelation of Truth for smart initaites.
But, I have to internalize this material before intelligently commenting.
The problem a number of folks have with Drury’s reading of Strauss is that she’s convinced that he’s a postmodernist in the more or less standard meaning of that term. Like Strauss (in certain ways), Drury, whose liberalism is rather old-fashioned (not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that), believes that relativism is the great political evil of our times. She sees Strauss as a secret relativist. By her own account, she was attracted to Strauss early in her studies precisely because he appears to celebrate a strong, moral foundation for political philosophy. But she came to believe that this was, in fact, just a false front.
It should be noted that some Straussians (using that term broadly) more or less agree with Drury on Strauss’s postmodernism (e.g. certainly Laurence Lampert who sees Strauss as a Nietzschean, and arguably Stanley Rosen). Most Straussians, however, disagree (or at least claim to do so). Drury herself admits that Harry Jaffa and the so-called West Coast Straussians don’t share Strauss’s purported relativism. Indeed, Jaffa (one of Strauss’s earliest important students), Thomas West, and others of their ilk bitterly attacked Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind as essentially nihilistic and un-American (with much gay bashing of Bloom along the way). Drury claims that Jaffa was simply never taught Strauss’s secret teaching. But although Jaffa is, by Drury’s own estimate, not a Straussian in the sense she (and Billmon) describe (though nearly everyone considers Jaffa a Straussian), he’s very much an activist on the right (he’s one of the leading lights of the Claremont Institute, and he authored Goldwater’s famous “moderation in the defense of liberty” line from the 1964 GOP convention).
At any rate, the reason I point all this out is that Straussians while playing an important and subtle role in the American right are not the principal force behind the rise of post-war conservatism, nor even the principal force behind neo-conservatism. I’d say that the more grandly conspiratorial views of their role on the right — The Power of Nightmares or Tim Robbins’ play Embedded — distract us from seeing their real role. And, like Lyndon LaRouche’s attacks on Strauss, they actually provide convenient strawmen for people on the right to dismiss all criticisms of Straussianism.
This thread has done a good job of identifying some important affinities between Straussians and others on the right, but it’s also worth remembering some tensions. One good example would be the statism of Straussians, which clashed pretty openly with the more Hayekian, libertarian strains on the right. This is covered well in George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America (Nash is a conservative, but he’s also a very serious historian, and this is still the standard history of conservative intellectuals in America. It’s a fine book and well worth reading.) In this regard, it’s worth noting that Willmoore Kendall was the only prominent conservative of his generation to embrace Straussianism. Like the the Straussians, and unlike most conservatives, Kendall did not have a Classical Liberal bone in his body.
Plenty of people on the right are still very suspicious of Strauss and Straussianism (though mostly they’re self-identified paleo-cons). See, for example, Claes Ryn’s America the Virtuous.
The reason that many — though by no means all — Straussians were once Democrats is itself an interesting and complicated question. Bear in mind that the division between the parties has never been entirely about ideology, and that, until quite recently, there were more liberal Republicans as well as more conservative Democrats.
Another interesting figure to add to the mix when we think about Straussianism is Alexander Kojeve. This Russian-emigre French Hegelian was a key figure in the development of 20th-century French philosophy, and may actually have been a KGB agent. He was a (very respectful) philosophic opponent of Strauss. Their correspondence is included in the more recent editions of Strauss’s On Tyranny. But despite their deep disagreements (Kojeve believed in the desireability and inevitability of a universal state; Strauss bitterly opposed the idea), Strauss sent a number of his students to Paris to study with Kojeve. And the ideas of one of the most politically influential Straussians — Francis Fukuyama — were at least as influenced by Kojeve as they were by Strauss.
I suppose the take home point for me is that American conservatism is a very complicated phenomenon, intellectually, socially, and politically. Straussianism, a part of this phenomenon, is similarly complicated. Exploring its various aspects is an interesting, and important, task for liberals and those on the left. But we should be careful not to reduce complex phenomena to single causes.

Posted by: BenA | Apr 28 2005 22:09 utc | 51

it is not as complicated as all that, bena – just a convergence of economic, ideological & political interests. the poverty of philsophy – of conservative philosophy has allowed for a small number of dominant voices – that too is not surprising
to be crude – these ‘philosophers’ & ‘thinkers’ have been bought & sold like any other form of chattel – even kojève or jean hyppolite the hegelian’s hegelians – as you infer also came with a price
the brothers bloom & the whole enterprise of american conservatism masks is essence an infantile intellectual enterprise defending implicity the political/financial interstes of tyranny. sadly, for me that is all the american empire has always been a tyranny with an odd moment here or there of self illumination & correction which has never in any substantial way, endured
as always it is the left who provides the most beautiful songs & the richest & more multiple & less absolutist strains in philosophy

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 28 2005 22:28 utc | 53

I agree that conservatives should not be reduced to any one cause. In fact, the conservative coalition is actually composed of a number of ideological bases that are both complimentary and contradictory. Which is why I referenced Hayek in my previous comment. Hayek, a former conservative hero and a name not spoken much anymore, would be highly suspicious of the grand planning of the present neo-cons, the royalist tendencies of Bushco economics and the religious rights institutions of control. Although Hayekian conservatives are dying in number, either from old age a la Bill Safire or from outright intellectual fraud a la George Will, some remain. And those that are true at heart with their conservative libertine values should be uneasy and probably have been for a while. It is a fragile caucus that the conservatives hold, one part corporatist, one part royalist, one part religious orthodox and one part liberal in the classic sense. The question is when these groups will decide that their divisions are greater than their common interest.

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Apr 28 2005 23:14 utc | 55

Speaking of the maximally irritating George Will, Werther (a byline I am always glad to read) is back at CP today with some commentary on Will’s attempts to rewrite the history of the Viet Nam war.

As pointed out in an earlier essay, George F. Will is a columnist who specializes in misleading historical analogies. Part of this syndrome is a penchant among pseudo-erudite pseudo-conservatives to invest present events with the urgent, cataclysmic patina of the Second World War: Saddam is Hitler, the occupation of Iraq is like the occupation of Germany, an attempt to negotiate a compromise is always Munich, and so forth.
A variant on this syndrome is the sour, vindictive desire to ransack history and “make it come out right.” The bookshelves groan with adverse comment on the far-Left’s revisionist history. Much of this comment is deserved: this writer has yet to see persuasive evidence that Aristotle was a black African or that James Madison learned everything he knew about constitutions from the Iroquois Nation. As of yet, however, the revisionism of the pseudo-conservative wing of the American political spectrum has received surprisingly little attention.
In truth, the self-described intellectual arm of pseudo-conservatism has for decades fairly seethed with revisionist emotion. If only Ike hadn’t been a befuddled One-Worlder, we could have driven to Berlin and the cold war could have been avoided. If only we’d unleashed Chang Kai-shek, our boys would have been victorious in Korea. [2] No doubt some are still lamenting Pickett’s failed strategy near a small Pennsylvania town.

[and more]

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 28 2005 23:29 utc | 57

“la loi, par contre, qui fait faceà la loi du coeur est séparée du coeur et libre pour soi. l’humanité qui relève d’elle ne vit pas dans l’unité béatifiante de la loi avec le coeur, mais ou bien dans la séparation cruelle et la souffrance, ou au moins dans la privation de jouissance de soi-même à l’occassion de l’observation de la loi, et dans le manque de conscience de l’excelllence propre à l’occasion de la transgression de cette même loi”
gwf hegel phénoménologie de l’esprit trad: jarczyk & labarrière p 347

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 28 2005 23:42 utc | 59

frankly, i think that’s a lot of effort for minimal gain. my counsel is to read the old fella leo strauss by a breakwater in a black tutu while listening to ramstein on a battered cd player or even better for the mind the benjamin scholem correspondance coupled with a fast reread of old willy reich’s the mass psychology of fascism & character analysis while listening to system of down
of course if pain’s your thing – heidegger & eminem

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2005 0:07 utc | 61

of course, with leo it would do well to read the worst, persecution and the art of writing & on tyranny – as for a cd by ramstein their entire oeuvre is disponible

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2005 0:14 utc | 63

i thought it would have been goethe’s werther too dea & there is also allussions to mr bormann in the histories of the red orchestra & of the big chef, trepper & not only because of the battle of kursk but because the information was daily & of such detail that it implied someone on the inner inner circle – is that gnostic enough but then i think t e lawrence was attaturk without a suntan

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2005 0:42 utc | 65

ô jim s
lyndon larouche is as his name suggests an old showgirl & i think an old flame of bugsy siegel except she didn’t know he was jewish & i think the only book she has read was something gordon liddy picked up in a paris antiquarian bookshop – les decombres by lucian rebatet & i think she has sent to america on a regular basis for its economic analysis & op eds, paris turf which she reads after omar sharifs finished with it

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 29 2005 0:47 utc | 67

Since we seem to be discussing ways of getting at Straussianism without reading Strauss…..
For those interested in a very different negative portrayal of Strauss from Drury’s, it’s worth checking out the chapter on Strauss in Stephen Holmes’ Anatomy of Illiberalism.
John Gunnell, a very much non-Straussian political theorist who does a lot of work on the history of political theory in the US, puts Strauss in very interesting contexts in his general history of US political theory (The Descent of Political Theory), in his article on the 20th-century invention of the “great tradition” of political thought that Strauss and other European emigres like Arendt built their thought around, and in his article on Strauss’s early career in Germany.
If you want to read Straussians (as opposed to Strauss), you could look at what they sometimes call the “purple bible,” Strauss and Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy (a chronological series of essays on individual political philosophers by a variety of Straussians). The concluding, posthumous essay on Strauss himself is something of a locus classicus of post-Strauss Straussianism. This is, of course, very much in the realm of political philosophy. A good place to look for Straussians’ views on American politics (not something Strauss himself much addressed), is a collection edited by Kenneth Deutsch and John A. Murley entitled Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime (this book includes Gary Schmitt and Abram Shulsky’s often mentioned essay “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)”).

Posted by: BenA | Apr 29 2005 2:01 utc | 69

Thanks BenA, very helpful
alabama, afaik now, Persecution… essays extol what Strauss over and over again refers to “esoteric” meanings of the “separate class” of philosophers who must write “between the lines” in order to avoid persecution and transmit meanings to future philosophers. To be sure, these “meanings” are certain, and for philosophers, not so easily equivocated. That is to say, great philosophers often proclaim othodoxy in order to “surreptitiously” conceal core heterodoxies. Thus: Kant is a frickin’ antiprussian revolutionary, Hobbes and Hegel are atheists, Montesquieu a monarchist, and so on.
Well, no one knows for sure what is “between the lines.” Didn’t Charles Taylor find a transcendental turn in Hegel’s Phenomenology? Who knows? Strauss doesn’t intend proof of the real meaning, but only emphasizes reading between the lines can, when properly done, transmit true knowledge among elite philosophers. (the Kuzari essay I have not read).
Well, all this defense of the esoteric justifies secret knowledge intended to protect elites from the orthodox idiocies of the mob. Platonist elitism is preferred over a compulsorily educated ochlocracy.
Based on what I have read, Strauss defends the esoteric as a means to preserve elite power, and not so much defense of any Truth. Put another way, he seems to me to be a “relativist” as explained above.
But I’m not certain.
This ia all I know after reading most of the book recommended by you, alabama.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 29 2005 2:12 utc | 71

slothrop, we have the same edition of that book, and so I invite you–not to quote directly from Strauss in support of your claim that he presents a “defense of the esoteric” that “justifies secret knowledge intended to protect elites”, or that he “defends the esoteric as a means to defend elite power”–no, not to quote directly from Strauss (which you may find a somewhat tiresome exercise), but merely to point me to the pages that you have in mind. The page-numbers alone will do just fine.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 29 2005 2:42 utc | 73

You’re funnin’ me alabama, but ok…
This is what Strauss believes to be preferrable to modern philosophy:

[33]
What attitude people adopt toward freedom of public discussion, depends decisively on what they think about popular education and its limits. Generally speaking, premodern philosophers were more timid in this respect than modern philosophers. After about the middle of the seventeenth century an everincreasing number of heterodox philosophers who had suffered from persecution published their books not only to communicate their thoughts but also because they desired to contribute to the abolition of persecution as such. They believed that suppression of free inquiry, and of publication of the results of free inquiry, was accidental, an outcome of the faulty construction of the body politic, and that the kingdom of general darkness could be replaced by the republic of universal light. They looked forward to a time when, as a result of the progress of popular education, practically complete freedom of speech would be [34] possible, or-to exaggerate for purposes of clarification-to a time when no one would suffer any harm from hearing any truth.” They concealed their views only far enough to protect themselves as well as possible from persecution; had they been more subtle than that, they would have defeated their purpose, which was to enlighten an ever-increasing number of. people who were . not potential philosophers. It is therefore comparatively easy to read between the lines of their books.15 The attitude of an earlier type of writers was fundamentally different. They believed that the gulf separating “the wise” and “the vulgar” was a basic fact of human nature which could not be influenced by any progress of popular education: philosophy, or science, was essentially a privilege of “the few.” They were convinced that philosophy as such was suspect to, and hated by, the majority of men.”‘ Even if they had had nothing to fear from any particular political quarter, those who started from that assumption would have been driven to the conclusion that public communication of the philosophic or scientific truth was impossible or undesirable, not only for the time being but for all times. They must conceal their opinions from all but philosophers, either by limiting themselves to oral instruction of a carefully selected group [35] of pupils, or by writing about the most important subject by means of “brief indication. 1117
Writings are naturally accessible to all who can read. Therefore a philosopher who chose the second way could expound only such opinions as were suitable for the nonphilosophic majority: all of his writings would have to be, strictly speaking, exoteric. These opinions would not be in all respects consonant with truth. Being a philosopher, that is, hating “the lie in the soul” more than anything else, he would not deceive himself about the fact that such opinions are merely “likely tales,” or “noble lies,” or “probable opinions,” and would leave it to his philosophic readers to disentangle the truth from its poetic or dialectic presentation. But he would defeat his purpose if he indicated clearly which of his statements expressed a noble lie, and which the still more noble truth. For philosophic readers he would do almost more than enough by drawing their attention to the fact that he did not object to telling lies which were noble, or tales which were merely similar to truth. From the point of view of the literary historian at least, there is no more noteworthy difference between the typical premodern philosopher (who is hard to distinguish from the premodern poet) and the typical modern philosopher than that of their attitudes toward “noble (or just) lies,” “pious frauds,” the “ductus obliquus”18 or “economy of the truth.” Every decent modern reader is bound to be shocked by the mere suggestion that a great man might have deliberately deceived the large majority of his readers.18 And yet, as a liberal theologian once remarked, these imitators of the resourceful Odysseus were perhaps merely more sin [36]cere than we when they called “lying nobly” what we would call “considering one’s social responsibilities.”
An exoteric book contains then two teachings: a popular teaching of an edifying character, which is in the foreground; and a philosophic teaching concerning the most important subject, which is indicated only between the lines. This is not to deny that some great writers might have stated certain important truths quite openly by using as mouthpiece some disreputable character: they would thus show how much they disapproved of pronouncing the truths in question. There would then be good reason for our finding in the greatest literature of the past so many interesting devils, madmen, beggars, sophists, drunkards, epicureans and buffoons. Those to whom such books are truly addressed are, however, neither the unphilosophic majority nor the perfect philosopher as such, but the young men who might become philosophers: the potential philosophers are to be led step by step from the popular views which are indispensable for all practical and political purposes to the truth which is merely and purely theoretical, guided by certain obtrusively enigmatic features in the presentation of the popular teachingobscurity of the plan, contradictions, pseudonyms, inexact repetitions of earlier statements, strange expressions, etc. Such features do not disturb the slumber of those who cannot see the wood for the trees, but act as awakening stumbling blocks for those who can. All books of that kind owe their existence to the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies2° of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn: all exoteric books are “written speeches caused by love.”
Exoteric literature presupposes that there are basic truths which would not be pronounced in public by any decent man, because they would do harm to many people who, having been hurt, would naturally be inclined to hurt in turn him who pronounces the unpleasant truths. It presupposes, in other words, that freedom of inquiry, and of publication of all results of inquiry, is not guaranteed as a basic right. This literature is then essentially related to a society which is not liberal. Thus one may very well raise the question of what use it could be in a truly liberal society. The answer is simple. In Plato’s Banquet, [37] Alcibiades-that outspoken son of outspoken Athens-compares Socrates and his speeches to certain sculptures which are very ugly from the outside, but within have most beautiful images of things divine. The works of the great writers of the past are very beautiful even from without. And yet their visible beauty is sheer ugliness, compared with the beauty of those hidden treasures which disclose themselves only after very long, never easy, but always pleasant work. This always difficult but always pleasant work is, I believe, what the philosophers had in mind when they recommended education. Education, they felt, is the only answer to the always pressing question, to the political question par excellence, of how to reconcile order which is not oppression with freedom which is not license.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 29 2005 3:22 utc | 75

3. None of this would be possible without a culture of political correctness. Much of the modern American “conservative” is pure, proven, bullshit, that, is protected by “liberal” bullshit. Take Scalia’s “originalism” for example, which is a perfect illustration of Conteniental conservatism that has no legitimate place in American Constitutional law. He gets away with it. Its bullshit and he gets away with it. Tons of law journals and hundreds of well paid law professors, all dignifying “originalism” bullshit. If wichan is valid, so is originalism.
Posted by: razor | April 28, 2005 01:22 PM | #
[rant on]Bless you, razor. This is something that makes me go all Linda Blair-like from “The Exorcist” and starts my head spinning around and green gunk spewing out of my mouth.
I just don’t understand for the life of me how otherwise intelligent people let Fat Tony get away with this bullshit.
How in the hell can any Constitutional scholar–or anyone that had a civics or American Government class in junior high school for that matter–give this “strict constructionist” horse manure the time of day? If the framers of the Constitution had meant for the Constitution to “evolve” with changing attitudes of the governed over time, then why the fuck did they provide a mechanism to amend the damned thing in Article V?
James Madison kicked Hamilton’s butt on this very issue in James Madison, Federalist, no. 43, 296 when he wrote:

That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite therefore that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the Convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults.

It infuriates me that a sorry-assed microbial physiologist such as myself sees through this “strict constructionist” tripe–and can find succinct refutations of this mindless drivel from idiots like Scalia and the religious whackjobs spouting his rhetoric in under five minutes–while highly paid talking heads with “research staffs” in the media let this blather pass unchallenged. [/rant off]
Sorry for the diversion from the thread topic and the profanity, but this crap makes me mad as hell.

Posted by: WyldPirate | Apr 29 2005 3:57 utc | 77

So sue me.
I might have to sue you for making me buy another book that’s going to keep me up at night.
🙂
Seriously, brilliant post. You distilled down to the reasons for the conclusions I’ve come to the past couple of years.
Unlike some commenters, I’m not at all shocked at what there ultimate goals are- but I wasn’t quite sure of how they got that way.
Though for the life of me I’m not sure what we can do about it.

Posted by: fourlegsgood | Apr 29 2005 4:44 utc | 79

wyldpirate
I assume you are being sarcastic, since Scalia disdains strict construction, and plays a different game, that won’t work, called originalism. I say serious people read John Hart Ely.
My fault for straying from Straus.

Posted by: razor | Apr 29 2005 5:33 utc | 81

On the difference and consequences of “originalism” (“constitution in exile”) vs. “constructionism” there was a good Jeffery Rosen piece in the NYT magazine some weeks ago.
The copyright loving freepers have a copy stored here.

Posted by: b | Apr 29 2005 6:49 utc | 83

Strauss’s . . . worldview was that of a chronic depressive.
Well then I guess he and I have something in common after all.

Posted by: Billmon | Apr 29 2005 7:24 utc | 85

Billmon:
What’s more, if the neocons did succeed in tearing up the liberal parchment regime, I seriously doubt they could control the forces they’ve helped unleash. The Bible fedayeen aren’t exactly yearning for a little recycled Plato from the philosophical elite. Their version of the city on the hill might not have room for a philosophical elite – not unless it’s a fundamentalist Protestant one, which is a contradiction in terms.
…………..
And in many ways, contradiction is the gasoline they’re playing with — within the tenderhouse culture of contradictions of red state Ulster/Scots tradition. Bush’s ever increasing high stakes press conference shows roll the dice same as ever, blind arrogance in the face of humiliation — up the bet, throw more money on the table, such is both the hallmark of vice and the” opium of the masses” — or an illustration of solidary with the red state culture of contradiction. Its not lost on his handlers, that the audience here is in love not just with religion, but also with the pornographic trash pop culture that lurks everywhere else. Reverence for the uniform, a good fight, if anti- authoritorian is acceptable. But come anything that reaks of aristocracy, a privlidged elite setting the agenda, and all bets are off. I think the neo-con dip-shits have failed to take into account, as in Iraq, is even the most remote understanding of the culture they have such great plans for.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 29 2005 8:50 utc | 87

Is this not, exactly, what the neocons and radical christians have long said about liberals? That despite all claims of ethics, the “liberal elite” does not believe the ethics it propounds? And was it not, exactly, true of Stalinism, too–for the masses, propaganda based on Marxism; for the elite, raw power. Motes and timbers, motes and timbers.
Citing a lie as a proof is a sorry ass type of argument. “Is this not what Nazis have long said about Jews” and other applications of the same method spring to mind. “Liberal elite” is in itself a term containing such deep dishonesty as to poison all following conversation. The smug self-regard and gimcrack illuminatism for third rate academics shines so garishly from the polyester fabric of Strausses writings as to make appeals to the footnotes laughable. For what it’s worth, Stalinism used appeals to Marxism to the intellectual elite, raw power for the governing elite and the cops, and patriotism and order for the masses. That recipe is merely a variant on the time honored method of governance that is advocated by Plato and practiced by Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 29 2005 12:34 utc | 89

I can agree with the part about Spengler being a crank, but as far as knowing something…well, his work is more along the lines of Moore’s revelation about Noddy.
(and the religious right would go ballistic if Noddy were widely available in the U.S. with his “paganism”) off topic on a serious thread, but when I watched Noddy with my kids when living overseas, I always had to do a doubletake when Noddy talked about losing his rubber for school–those oversexed Brits…)
Thanks much for the interesting discussion on this thread, all.
It seems that, no matter how one approaches Strauss, the devotees who are now weilding power have developed their own “esoteric” meanings that all who have eyes can see…by their actions and their casual relationship with truth.
And as far as “any religion” goes, I think that Strauss makes it clear that the religion has to be one that holds “absolute truths” that, of course, are not absolute for the elite, but must be presented as such for the masses in order to have religion as a form of social control and justification for might making right when power is the ultimate end for the powerful.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 29 2005 12:37 utc | 91

Hmmmm. Point 1 disappered. Must be the gods.

Posted by: diogenes | Apr 29 2005 12:49 utc | 93

Dear Alabama: If “philological exactitude” is something you value, what possible excuse can you have for using “liberal elite” in an argument? And, if I may, lists of philosophers one has read is less interesting than evidence of some insight.

Posted by: citizen k | Apr 29 2005 15:17 utc | 95

Had I been a German-born political philosopher writing in English, and in 1952, citizen k, I might have supposed that the term “liberal elite” meant something to the readers of an essay being published in a learned English-language journal at that time. This is a guess, and I’d have to check it out to make sure. I do know that such attention to context is an elementary philological precaution, and I offer this point, in all good faith, as evidence of some sort of “insight” on my part–supposing, perhaps naively, that you posted your question, and your point about “lists,” in a kindred spirit of good faith.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 29 2005 15:31 utc | 97

I’m inherently suspicious of any philosophical system who tries to do what Marx, Strauss and others have done, and the Noddy anecdote illustrates why.
Marx analysis of capital is not mysticism, it’s science.
Marx’s Hegelianism (proletarians not bourgeoisie are world historical class) is not scientific.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 29 2005 15:47 utc | 99