I’m sure some bloggers have followed the controversy over whether the intellectual inspiration for the Iraq war was the German-Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss. This began with the contentions of New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that such figures as Paul Wolfowitz had been inspired by Strauss’s teachings about war, peace, and the role of deception in politics (the alleged deception here being the Weapons of Mass Destruction). I’ve just completed a paper, which I expect will be the core of a short book, where I try to disentangle Strauss’s own ideas from the political projects of his disciples, some of which include prominent neocons. I think this is the first time that anyone has gone back to Strauss’s own writings and evaluated them in this light–most other commentary has focused on the views of his students and disciples, with little sustained attention to Strauss’s books. My conclusion is that there is nothing in Strauss’s own views that supports the case for war made by the neocons or figures in the Adminstration such as Wolfowitz. But it remains to be analysed whether Strauss’s teaching lended itself to being distorted or misused by such people (just as, for example, Nietzsche’s lent itself to being misused by the Nazis). Still some bloggers may be interested in the question of what Strauss himself really has to do with all this. I would be happy to send you the paper if you email me at [email protected]. I’ll be presenting it at a conference on Leo Strauss next week in the UK.
Rob Howse
Posted by howse on March 24, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Comments
Is this a sustained attack against anti-conservative Canadians? Sorry for the political grouping, but it seems most of the anti-Strauss work comes from Canada.
Posted by: CanadaSucks | Mar 27, 2006 11:41:09 AM
Strauss did write more than one book. Is there any evidence that any neoconservatives in the present day were influenced by the Strauss that has been presented in the press, as opposed to the Strauss of “Natural Right and History”? My not-very-informed impression is that neoconservatives have been influenced by Strauss’s analysis of natural rights and natural law, not any of the other stuff that Strauss may have written.
Posted by: Niels Jackson | Mar 26, 2006 10:27:06 AM
You are right. I make this qualification right upfront in the introduction of my paper-even if I am right about the meaning of Strauss’s writings, that would not necessarily exonerate him, or excuse him from all responsibility for the distortion of his ideas. Consider what Strauss himself said about Nietzsche: ““[Nietzsche] used much of his unsurpassable and inexhaustible power of passionate and fascinating speech for making his readers loath, not only socialism and communism, but conservativism, nationalism and democracy as well. After having taken on himself this great political responsibility, he could not show his readers a way toward political responsibility. He left them no choice except that been irresponsible indifference to politics and irresponsible political options.”
Posted by: Rob Howse | Mar 25, 2006 5:47:46 PM
I think what you’re getting at is an interesting question of how accountable public intellectuals should be for the acts of their followers and for the lengthy tendrils of their philosophies. Nietzsche correctly acrues some taint from the Nazis, but what about Hegel? Read his ideas about people not existing apart from the state and you have to say, wow, that sounds proto-Nazi.
Presume on the one hand that Strauss didn’t endorse deception but has come to symbolize that principle. Then he is surely not responsible for that posthumourous appropriation. But he can’t be exonerated simply by reference to his “serious” works. If his students in the aggregate took away from his lectures and mentoring that deceiving the public is a necessary evil for higher purposes, I think he shouldn’t not be let out of the dock too easily. Imagine if Chomsky strictly segregated his linguistics and politics, the former being the subject of books and the latter simply riddling his lectures and discussions with students. If one of his highly placed former students then implemented a disasterous policy based on what he gleaned from Chomsky’s views, would it be plausible to rely on an analysis of Chomsky’s linguistics writings to exonerate him?
All that aside, I’m not sure its necessary to implicate Strauss to explain the worldview of the “neo-cons” or “Vulcans” or whatever we’ve decided that they are. They are/were very bright, supremely arrogant people with a closed off worldview who had an optimistic view of the nature of American power. Couple that to an easily manipulated President from Texas, a technocratic Sec. of Def., and a marginalized Sec. of State, and well, David Halberstam, take it away. Can the thrilling sequel to The Best and the Brightest be far off?
Posted by: Bart Motes | Mar 25, 2006 3:53:55 PM
Yes, and my essay is in part a response to her reading of Strauss, which I think is completely wrong. Even better known than Drury’s work is Anne Norton’s book, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. Norton is more on target concerning the Straussians than when she writes about Strauss himself; her piece is impassioned and personal and identifies many of the pathologies of Straussianism: secretiveness, snobbism, intolerance of dissenting views, and the cult of personality concerning Strauss himself and some of those who studied directly with Strauss, of which Allan Bloom is the most dramatic example. And at least Norton is open to the possibility that some of the worst traits of Straussianism are not really based in Strauss’s own writings and teachings.
Posted by: Rob Howse | Mar 25, 2006 2:08:59 PM
Shadia Drury at URegina has been all over this angle, of late.
Posted by: Joel Fleming | Mar 25, 2006 12:12:26 PM
And not only that. The notion that Strauss’s ideas are the operating philosophy of the US war machine has attracted considerable attention in the British newspapers. I recall a one-page (!) spread on Strauss in the Times of London about a year ago. I’m pretty sure there have been articles in the Guardian and the Independent as well. In fact, one of the papers at the conference will do nothing but track the coverage of Straussianism in the UK popular press,apparently.
Posted by: Rob Howse | Mar 25, 2006 5:38:24 AM
They have conferences on Strauss in the UK? Must be a new day for the British.
Posted by: micah | Mar 24, 2006 8:34:28 PM