Strauss and the Straussians have succeeded in doing the opposite of German historian Ernst Nolte and, before him, Marxists credited the fascists with having produced in interwar Europe: "a counterrevolutionary imitation of the Left." The Straussians have pulled of an equally enterprising feat by assuming a certain right-wing style without expressing a right-wing worldview.
Paul Gottfried, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.
While I was on holidays I had a chance to catch up with some reading and two books which I think are worth a mention are Paul Gottfried's, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, and Grant Havers's, Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique. Both are very good and I think it is safe to say that both try to be scrupulously fair to their subject.
For those of us trying to understand why the Right failed in the 20th Century, it's important to understand the various movements that were able to co-opt the Right and subvert it from the inside. In Europe, Fascism was an example of a superficially Right wing ideology that was built on a modernist ideology. However in America where because of cultural factors Fascism really couldn't get a grip, the pseudo Right ideology that subverted the native Right took the form of Neoconservatism.
One of the impressions I'm continually left with after reading Sam Francis and the other "Paleocons" is that while they recognised the malice of Neoconservatism, they really weren't able to pin down, philosophically, the source of its malignancy. These books help clarify the issue. Of the two, I was particularly fond of Havers' book, since I felt that Haver's approach to the subject more clearly raised the issue of what it means to be a conservative in the Anglo-American tradition.
In my opinion, it's important to know and understand Strauss since he was the main intellectual influence on the Neocon movement. As a consequence, the legacy of his ideas have also influenced the political Right in the U.S. and contemporary history through the application of U.S. economic and military power.
As both books attest, Strauss is unfairly blamed for a lot of things, and the slant that is given to his ideology more often than not reflects the intellectual weaknesses of his detractors rather than something Strauss is actually guilty of. In both books, the authors try to avoid this error and are scrupulously fair to Strauss, attributing to him only what he actually advocated. In their biographies, Strauss comes across as a highly intelligent man of conservative disposition, but both authors recognise that his conservatism ends there.
Both authors do a good job describing the development of his ideas and for the purposes of this blog it is the ideas that matter. Strauss's big idea's can be summarised as follows:
1. That there is an categorical incompatibility between reason and faith. Or as Strauss would say, "a conflict between Athens and Jerusalem" This incompatibility arises from the fact that faith is not determined or validated by reason and therefore is not "reasonable", but something different to reason. Unlike modern Positivists, he does not actually denigrate religion for not being a product of reason, rather he sees Religion as belonging to a separate category that is inspirational and socially utilitarian.
2. Classical civilisation understood the world in this schema, as do Judaism and Islam to a certain degree.
3. According to Strauss, Western Civilisation was the result of the tug of war between Athens (Reason) and Jerusalem(Faith).
4. Christianity limited philosophy by subordinating it to faith.
5. Modernism was a violent reaction to the Christian limitations of Reason--i.e. a reaction of reason being shackled to the faith.
6. The solution to the crisis of Modernism was to go back to pre-Christian time, to Athenian Philosophy. Unlike the modern revolt of Reason which denied religion outright, Athenian reason was more "reasonable" and took consideration of Religion in its judgements.
7. Philosophy helps us discern "timeless values" which while not being able to produce a perfect world may at least help us achieve the best possible one.
8. The timeless nature of the ideals of philosophy makes philosophical insights applicable to everyone.
9. The modern Anglo Liberal Democracy--particularly in its U.S. incarnation--is the best possible world. It is important to understand that best possible doesn't mean what Strauss would like or what would be a perfect world, it simply means the best possible given current contingencies.
Strauss's approach to the subject had enormous appeal, especially in Post WW2 America, where a disunited Right, fearful of Communism, found an ideology which crossed sectarian divisions. By grounding Conservatism with the tradition of classical political rationalism, Straussian conservatism was open to anyone who would buy into it. Strauss's conservatism was very inclusive being global in its scope. Furthermore, Strauss's vigorous defence of liberal democracy--something which the Right was never particularly fond of-- came at at time when the free world was terrified by by the specter of Soviet totalitarianism. Strauss was literally, in the right place, at the right time, with the right product.
The problem with Strauss's approach, is that while it superficially appeared conservative, through the emphasis on the Greek Classics, Religion and Reason, anti-Communism, etc, it was anything but and a study of where Strauss goes wrong can serve as an important source of instruction or what it means to be Right and how to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Nevertheless, Strauss's unhappiness with the Left in the Cold War period is not tantamount to a categorical rejection of all leftist or modern thought per se. As I argue for the remainder of this chapter, Strauss and his students largely agree with the traditional leftist dismissal of Christianity as an irrational influence on the political philosophy of the West. This fundamental consensus between Strauss and the Left, which has been neglected in most of the literature on Strauss, gravely affects their understanding of Anglo-American political thought. For Strauss was compelled to read out of this tradition any signs of a serious indebtedness to Christianity. Unlike the anti-democratic Far Right which often faults Christianity for its universal morality (e.g. Charity) that made democracy possible, Strauss is ultimately critical of Christianity as a foundation of Anglo-American democracy because it is not sufficiently universalist. (that is, intelligible to all human beings): it is sheer historicism to hold up one faith as a principle foundation of the West. As a result of this hermeneutical rationale, that very tradition that Strauss and his students wish to preserve as a repository of rationally accessible "eternal principles" is reinvented as a secular liberal artifice whose main inspiration is Athens, not Jerusalem.
Grant Havers, Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique
You know, all this 7-dimensional chess is interesting. But it's just icing on the cake. The real cake, the meat, is and always has been the genetic material and the family structures that comes out of it. It's like England versus Ireland; one Celt, the other Germanic (like the US North & South). Or Germany versus Poland, or Japan versus Vietnam. All the family structures & moral beliefs come from the roots, not the details of any philosophical leader, no matter how widely they are read. Leaders just find a willing crowd and get in front of it. And those crowds? They are created in families built of genetic threads of Darwinian success; said families are not created by leaders or philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI agree the Straussian ideas at the leadership level can cause wars and leadership issues, but in the end it's the people that allow those wars or leadership to actually come to fruition.
To be fair though to the neos, doctor, I do think at least a few of them - e.g. Kristol pere - did see the importance of Christianity to democracy's success. Indeed, the older generation of that group: Podhoretz pere, James Q. Wilson, Pat Moynihan, Nathan Glazer, and others, were more realistic about life generally than their successors. In a letter to President Nixon, for instance, Moynihan wrote about the reality of IQ differences and implored the president to not discuss such findings openly, something I think Nixon wisely agreed with. Or consider Jeanne Kirpatrick, Reagan's tough UN ambassador, who argued that with the end of the Cold War the U.S. should now become a more normal country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder if most of the intellectual history of politics is just wishful thinking. I grant that Plato and Aristotle had real influence on politics, and Mill and Marx had at least a little. But am I wrong to suspect that 90% of 20th century political development is simply the evolution of mass political thinking that would have happened regardless of which tracts reached bestseller status or academic popularity?
I don't mind Gottfried overall but he assesses a caricature of Strauss and not the real Strauss. Strauss did not denigrate christianity. It was not the ultimate source of his beliefs but he took the arguments for revelation seriously and studied with care several devoutly religious men also who engaged in philosophy, i.e. Aquinas. Furthermore he was not a universalist. To the extent his philosophical positions on politics predominantly derive from a particular school, you could call him a classical political rationalist, a very far cry from a modern political rationalist. Classical political rationalism makes inequality of soul the predominant shaping force of political life and institutions; modern political rationalism makes a set of low and common needs the basis of it.
ReplyDeleteStraussian political philosophy (read correctly and with care of course) is politically (different from philosophically) compatible with both alt and dissident right thought. Strauss was an 'Athenian' and therefore held a different position on eros than christians/traditionalists - that's the most substantive difference.
@Anon1
ReplyDeleteThe real cake, the meat, is and always has been the genetic material and the family structures that comes out of it
You must be new to this blog. I'm not a material determinist. The self destruction of European civilisation is primarily being driven by white genetic material. We acknowledge the role of genetics but kulcha matters as well.
@Jason
I do think at least a few of them - e.g. Kristol pere - did see the importance of Christianity to democracy's success.
The Neocons are a broad Church some being harder than others. The other point here is that acknowledging the importance of Christianity in the past is not the same as recognising its importance now.
@Johnny Caustic
But am I wrong to suspect that 90% of 20th century political development is simply the evolution of mass political thinking that would have happened regardless of which tracts reached bestseller status or academic popularity?
I agree to a certain degree. A lot of the "philosophy" that justified the idiot mass man movements were post facto constructions. An attempt to put a patina of intellectual respectability on what were otherwise limbic impulses with little direction or intellectual cohesion.
The Right's current problem is how to stop losing. Looking at these movements is not an exercise in philosophy, rather an attempt at diagnosis. You've got to know what is healthy before you can tell what is diseased.
@Anon2
Strauss was an 'Athenian' and therefore held a different position on eros than christians/traditionalists - that's the most substantive difference.
Strauss "Athenianism" seemed to be objectively different from the Athenianism of Plato. Part of Havers' attack on Strauss consists in the illustrating the difference between the real Athens and the "romantic" Athens of Struassian interpretation.
Strauss said very little with regard to Christianity, which says a lot about a man who claims to speak on behalf of conservative values. The malice of Straussianism comes from its ontology. He specifically took issue with the relationship of Faith and Reason as espoused by Aquinas, his own understanding is fundamentally opposed to the Christian view.
BTW, There's not much difference between his classical political rationalism and the modern variant. Given his understanding of classicism's "latitude for Statesmanship" meant that the lines could be blurred quite easily.
I am open to the possibility of Strauss having mischaracterized Athens and Greek political philosophy but Gottfried and Havers are so far from having even approached successfully arguing this. Maybe I just misunderstand Strauss drastically. If not I have to agree to disagree with those who find Gottfried and Havers persuasive.
ReplyDeleteI think that's an unfair portrayal of Strauss on Christianity. I think it's safe to say he thought Christianity to be compatible with elevation of character. Or conducive to it in some respects.
There's a huge difference actually, namely who gets the latitude. The collection of vulgars occupying parliamentary bodies throughout the west, along with the people at large, or men equipped by nature and thoroughly trained and conditioned by family and society to serve the public good. Men with exceptional souls and the requisite circumstances for them to flower in other words.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteI am open to the possibility of Strauss having mischaracterized Athens and Greek political philosophy but Gottfried and Havers are so far from having even approached successfully arguing this.
Havers is very convincing. My own view is that there is always a danger of "idealizing" away the faults of our heroes.
I think it's safe to say he thought Christianity to be compatible with elevation of character.
I'm certain he did, but that's not the point. The point is, is Christianity true. For Strauss, that answer is that it is impossible to know, for Aquinas the answer was yes.
Men with exceptional souls and the requisite circumstances for them to flower in other words.
This is precisely the argument of the Fascists and Socialists with regard to their contempt of "restrictive" Christianity, their "New Man", with his "enlightend" ways, is always allowed the "latitude" to butcher the old. Strauss may not have intended that outcome but that's where his thinking leads.
SP, anon1 was me, MK. Sorry for the mess up.
ReplyDelete@The Social Pathologist
ReplyDeleteIf you think it has a Nietzschean basis then maybe you're justified in thinking that's where it leads. It doesn't have a Nietzschean basis however. The basis is nature in the classical sense. The well-souled, those who possess the highest virtues in the greatest degrees, are supposed to govern (by fiat under certain circumstances perhaps). The highest virtues are not creativity, assertion, CHARISMA, and the ability to mold one's surroundings to one's will; they are the statesman's intelligence, patriotism, practical wisdom/moderation and justice.