The “father” of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Devil or Saint?

The “father” of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Devil or Saint?
by glaucon
http://politikonzoon.com/



Much has been made of the neocons and their mentor, Leo Strauss, of late. A disastrous foreign policy, as well as a Machiavellian scandal of smear tactics to cover up the lies that were used to justify the Iraq war, is congealing to hang about their necks like a dead, and appropriately stinking, albatross.

But who was Leo Strauss?

The giant lexicon of web articles on Strauss and the neocons is derivative, coming in the main from Shadia Drury and her articles and books on the Struassians. Drury’s drumbeat about Strauss’ esoteric, or hidden, teachings, comprise the most damning criticism of him and, by extension, the political operatives who claim lineage from him. I’ve read all of Strauss’ works, and been a student of several Straussians at St. John’s College in Annapolis. Drury’s criticisms are correct, but they must be understood in the context of Strauss’ intentions.

The salient question, the question which must be asked, is what exactly was Strauss’ teaching, and do the neoconservatives twist and pervert that teaching, or are they faithful followers whose interpretation of his thought is spot on?

This is important, because Strauss was, for all intents and purposes, a Nietzschean. That says little, since there is a lineage of “fascist” thought that can be traced to him, as well as “liberal” schools such as existentialism, deconstructionism and ordinary language analysis. But Strauss’ teaching encompasses both trends. And it leaves him open to the same use, and abuse, that Nietzsche faced from the neoconservatives of his time: the National Socialists.

What was Nietzsche’s political teaching? Nietzsche felt that the spiritual strength of the west was being dissipated by Platonism and Christianity. He set out to destroy both in order to “save” civilization. His voice was powerful and loud, like a megaphone in a closet. His argument that “God is dead” was a metaphor for his nihilism: the belief that there are no eternal truths, in religion or philosophy, and that man simply creates them. The act of creation itself is life-affirming. The stultifying effects of living under those “truths” eventually, however, becomes death-affirming and weakening, destroying the powerful human will to create. A continuous cycle of renewal and creation had to begin with the destruction of the status quo. And Nietzsche nominated himself to be just the man for the job.

The nihilism of the early 20th century was promulgated by the strength of Nietzsche’s rhetoric via his students. There are those, including myself, who see a direct link between that nihilism and the horrors of Nazism and Stalinism. Rather than a rebirth, Nietzsche’s clarion call for philosophers to become philosopher-kings, degenerated into a world war and a calamity of genocide and destruction.

Leo Struass fled Germany as a young man. That decision was not only a response to the vicious anti-Semitism of the Nazis, for Struass was a Jew, but also the insight of a political philosopher who saw the coming barbarism, and judged it harshly and correctly. He judged correctly that Hitler was a thug, and not the manifestation of the philosopher-king envisioned by Nietzsche. Struass had learned his lessons well. The sad spectacle of another great Nietzschean and 20th century German philosopher, and Struassian contemporary, Heidegger, however, was quite different. While Struass moved to England, and then America, Heidegger, also a student of Nietzsche’s, stayed. He gave speeches extolling the virtue and greatness of National Socialism to his students at the University of Freiberg, and praised Hitler as the savior of Germany’s destiny.

Two different responses to the rise of fascism by two different students of Nietzsche. To understand Struass, you have to understand why his response differed from Heidegger’s.

Struass’ criticism of Heidegger and, by extension Nietzsche, went something like this:

There is no place in Heidegger’s teaching for political philosophy. Sein und Zeit, or Being and Time, are legitimate subjects for the philosopher’s gaze, but so are the “human” things, the day to day, more pragmatic things that we all face. The philosopher, in studying the stars, must beware lest he fall into a hole. To forget the political and the “limited” is to invite disaster and fanaticism. Heidegger, and others who followed Nietzsche, fell into a deep and dark hole.

So if you believe that Nietzsche is right that there is no “truth” or “God,” but also believe that to teach it loudly is to invite the example of places like Auschwitz and the Gulag Archipelago, what is a philosopher to do?

Struass looked closer at the Ancient Greeks for an answer. The concept of the “noble lie” from Plato’s Republic encapsulates the conflict between the philosophers, who know the truth, and the demos, or people, who will only follow the philosophers if they are told a “lie” about why they should do as they are told. Strauss is famous for his insight that many ancient philosophers had an exoteric, or popular, teaching, and an esoteric, or hidden, teaching.

There are two reasons given for the necessity of the noble lie. First, to teach the unvarnished truth invites the fate of Socrates, who was put to death. It’s a measure of self preservation. The second, is to protect the vast majority of the population who enjoy the sovereign protection of laws, religious proscriptions and moral beliefs, from the wolves and potential tyrants who would use the ensuing anarchy and nihilism to seize ruthless power. If there is no solid basis for morality, then all is permitted and, human nature being what it is, all will be done.

The first reason is no longer valid, as Strauss admits. In most modern liberal democracies, you can pretty much say and write what you want without worrying that you’ll be given a dose of hemlock in your cappuccino.

The second reason, however, according to Struass, is coeval with the human condition.

Now that, I believe, is the essence of Strauss’ teaching about the noble lie.

I disagree with it. I think the dissemination of the nihilistic point of view has become endemic, and yet we have learned the lessons of Auschwitz. Of course, one can still believe, along with Nietzsche, that mankind is debasing itself in shallow and selfish pursuits, that the taut bow of the human spirit has become unstrung, and noble creativity on par with the great achievements of civilization is no longer possible. But giving food, shelter and a decent life to the least of our brethren may be noble in its own way, even if we do spend our waking hours watching Desperate Housewives, rather than carving a new Pietà to rival Michelangelo’s.

So back to the neocons.

Did Strauss teach that it is permissible to lie one’s way into an unjust war? No.

Did Struass teach it was OK to slime your political opponents and endanger national security? No.

Did Strauss teach a form of classical elitism? Yes.

Is Strauss a devil or a saint? Neither and both. But that’s always the case when dealing with reality, no?

He believed that, by nature, there are some who are better at doing certain things than others and that, by right, they should be allowed to do so. And he also believed in the wisdom of tempering the radical voices who trumpet the fact that there is nothing outside of us but a void.

I disagree that “they should” be rulers. I think Struass’ teaching is quasi-dangerous because it encourages second-rate hacks to take things into their own hands because they think “they should” be the rulers. But that’s not Strauss’ fault. There will always be idiots who think they can do a better job at ruling because they’re smarter and stronger and more daring. That teaching has been around as long as Plato.

Blame Struass. But blame the neocons first and foremost.

And when we’re done blaming them, let’s put them in jail.

-glaucon

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I thought that only applied when posting material written by others?

This is my work.

I'll truncate it if you like, however.

Very good article. Kudos.

He was not a nihilist, although he certainly was opposed to the current orthodoxies of his time. His sister muddied the water a good deal with the editing of his work to support German jingo tendencies.

I do tend to think of Strauss as a neo-Platonist.

It is essential (IMHO) in reading the greeks to remember that 90% of the people of that time were slaves treated like we would treat domesticated animals.

You are perfectly correct that the NeoCons have adapted Strauss to their own purposes, much as others have adapted Nietzsche, but he's more on the obscure side than deep, in any case.

Nietzsche was no nihilist. He thought his enemies were. They "killed" God (and mangled Nietzsche into critical condition).

"He was not a nihilist, although he certainly was opposed to the current orthodoxies of his time. His sister muddied the water a good deal with the editing of his work to support German jingo tendencies.

"I do tend to think of Strauss as a neo-Platonist.

"It is essential (IMHO) in reading the greeks to remember that 90% of the people of that time were slaves treated like we would treat domesticated animals.

"You are perfectly correct that the NeoCons have adapted Strauss to their own purposes, much as others have adapted Nietzsche, but he's more on the obscure side than deep, in any case."

-----------------------------------

If you are referring to a particular group connected in thought and action by the term "nihilism," then you're certainly correct, Nietzsche was not. If by nihilism you mean the belief that all is permitted, that there are no eternal truths or forms or gods outside of the immediately perceived world, which I intended by my comments, then I think a serious case can be made that Nietzsche was indeed a nihilist.

I agree about Strauss' Platonism, but I think it would be more accurate to say he was a Socratic. He spent his time in Plato only because of the dialogues, but also spent considerable time and energy on the secondary Socratic sources such as Xenophon.

The point Drury makes is that Strauss' exoteric teaching was "neo-Platonic" as you put it, but his esoteric teaching was Nitzschean. And if you examine Strauss' writings on Plato carefully, you will find he "outs" Plato as being a closet nihilist, properly understood. Of course, Strauss does so carefully and only between the lines, so to speak. Read Strauss' book Persecution and the Art of Writing to see how to read Strauss himself.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

I would say your generalization about Nietzsche is correct, except for calling it nihilism. He is in a rather long line of thinkers who concluded that "this world" is more fundamental that the world of ideas and abstract thought, which is a very "scientific" point of view, essentially a form of empiricism. This is opposite to the ideas of the Greek aristocrats, who made the "ideal" more important than "this world", and a long line of writers who followed in their footsteps.

I tend to the empiricist side, but do not intend to try to resolve the issue here. I just wanted to point out that to say that "this world" is fundamental and primary as the source of all meaning and value is not to say that there is nothing of value.

because Nietzsche struggled throughout his life against nihilism. His flirtation with positivism in The Gay Science led to disillusion later with its limitations in getting from the realm of the "is" to the realm of the "ought."

Nietzsche felt, probably more than anyone of his generation, the angst of truly facing the void. It is one thing to pronounce the death of god and to celebrate the freedom that it gives. It is quite another to face up to the responsibility of creating a new culture and set of laws that prescribe the boundaries of the political, social and human world.

One good example of his attempt to transcend nihilism is his doctrine of the eternal return. I won't go into it here, except to say that I think it's clear that it's a very fancy form of self-delusion.

So yes, Nietzsche was a nihilist in the sense that he believed in the non-existence of the eternal. And no, he was not a nihilist in the sense that he did not succumb to despair, but worked to transcend the knwoledge of man's profound loneliness by creating a new set of laws to govern the world by merging philosophy and poetry, as in Also Sprach Zarathustra.

I haven't read all of it, a lot of it bores me (e.g. Zarathustra). But there are other pieces that I love every time I read them (Twilight of the Idols, parts of the early aphoristic works). The aphoristic style has it's limits as a means of expression and as a means of thinking ones way through a problem.

The other fellow here says that N. called himself a "radical nihilist", which might be so, I am not in a position to dispute him, but I would disagree with Nietzsche then. It depends somewhat on what you think "nihilism" means I suppose. Nietzsche was very interested in meaning and values, but thought that it was up to us to create them, anew in each generation, as opposed to them being given by the deity or some such transcendent source. I consider that eminently sensible. It is true that that leads one to belief in "the non-existence of the eternal", but one need not become deranged over that, a static world is deader than a doornail, a mutable world offers interest and something to work at; and in any case it seems clear that the Universe does not rely on us to manage it's workings, so we need not fuss about it unless we choose to.

"The Gay Science" did not do much for me, and the pseudo-evolutionary stuff. I tend to tune out when he starts going on about the overman and all that, although I know my tastes are not the norm there.

I do agree very much with your comment about "truly facing the void", it is the thing I give him most credit for. He had the courage to step outside the box, and he did manage to say a good deal of interest about what he saw there.

Nice talking to you. :hi:

Nietzsche himself said that he was a nihilist, indeed a "radical nihilist."

Still, there are (and were then) a of people calling themselves nihilists for whom Nietzsche had (and would now have) nothing but scorn.

Therefore, while there are reasons for distinguishing Nietzsche from most nihilists, it simply does not wash to say that Nietzsche was NOT a nihilist.

I would be interested.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He attacked nihilism constantly. He diagnosed it in the culture. That doesn't mean he is a nihilist himself. He was a nihilist by proxy in a sense. He wanted to destroy false idols (assist them in their inevitable destruction) because they were sapping the life out of real values. Only in that sense was he a radical nihilist.

The God is Dead thing is more like "God is passe," no longer potent, hackneyed, distorted, dead. But it was hyperbole, not nihilism.

Nietzsche was a "philosopher with a hammer" in his own opinion, a great destroyer but also a great creator (just ask him), even a worshipper of values. The Overman is not a nihilistic concept. It is the opposite.

A lie is a lie regardless if it is nobel or not.

Leo Strauss avoids the “Selfishness of Man” which is easily summed up by the famous phrase from Lord Acton “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely” (note, their is NO tend in the second part of the phrase). He basically stated that political power is the most serious threat to liberty.

Of course we cannot survive without some sort of governing body. That would be self destructive but to give government too much power (as we see today) is absolutely dangerous.

Because the Absolute power of the White House there is Absolute corruption. To gain back the country the government must be changed. Once government has Absolute power it will not give it up.

Time for revolution.

Your analysis is, of course, correct, but two notes.

1. The observation that "Power by its, tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" may have been powerfully stated by Lord Acton, but it is not as if he were the first to make similar observations--indeed, if one reads, for instance the Federalist Papers there is awareness not only of the dilemma, but a good deal of thought about how to deal with it, which, indeed, is a primary roots of our systems of "checks and balances" that at the moment seems so badly out of check and out of balance.


2. John Kennedy was well aware of these dilemmas when he took office, and commented on them at his inauguration. And he stated that, "and I have asked Robert Frost to be here today to read us a poem, . . . because power by its nature corrupts, but poetry cleanses."


2a. I believe that Bill Clinton also had a poet (Maya Angelou?)speak at his inauguration, I am not aware of any other presidents having done so.

Strauss, for all his influence, was just a philosopher. As much as he talked about things, he didn't DO them.
Yes, Strauss is a elitist prick. But he had no power, and therefore, was not a criminal.

then you, and I, and Nietzsche (especially Nietzsche), are in the same boat with Winston Smith.


(But Nietzsche, of course, is safely dead, and Winston Smith fictional, and that leaves you, and I and anyone else who dares to (shudder) think, here under the sun and in a pickle--do you suppose we can think our way out of it?)

:kick:

Are you serious?

He fundamentally did not believe in Democracy.

He was an atheist but believed that religion should be encouraged because it is useful for controlling the public.