The “father” of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Devil or Saint? [View All]

[glaucon]

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