In defense of Leo Strauss

The late University of Chicago Political Philosopher has taken a goodly amount of heat lately as the "Godfather" of the Neo-Con take-over of the American Political scene.  Strauss has been seen as:

"The high priest of ultra conservatism"

"Disturbingly elitist and antidemocratic"

"Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons"

He is characterized as believing:

"Lying is not a sin, but a necessity"

The leader should "use the language of morality to mask [his] real interests, which are his own survival in power and his ability to continue to exert dominance over the populace"

"A strong and wise minority of humans have to rule over the weak majority through deception and fear, rather than persuasion or compromise"

In short Strauss is blamed for all the woes wrought on the USA by the Bush-Cheney Administration and its Neo-Con, Neo-Fascist Elites which ruled by deception, secrecy and outright lies and misrepresentations. Perhaps with a look to the possible Romney Administration, American politics has become a battle between the Neo-Liberal desire for government protection of the masses, and Neo-Conservative elevation of the moneyed elite. But to blame Strauss for the near Fascist predicament in which we find ourselves, is akin to blaming Richard Wagner or Nietzsche for Nazism, or Dostoevsky for Stalinism.   It hardly seems fair to blame a Jewish émigré  from the excesses and openness of the Weimar Republic,  the rise of National Socialism, and European turn to the right, for the new Fascism; he certainly cannot be blamed for the Fascism of the 1930's.  But the charges go on and often the people, who were Strauss's students, at one time or another, are cited as proof of the charges. 

"They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council, and the writers Robert Kagan and William Kristol.” One might also want to include among the above Allan Bloom, and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

Now it is not altogether clear exactly where the source of the current blame on Strauss for the Neo-Con movement and its entanglements with the Bush-Cheney Administration lies, but Shadia Drury a Canadian Political Scientist has surely been one of the main blamers with her book Leo Strauss and the American Right.  It is also not clear that Strauss deserves all the blame, if any, when Ayn Rand would appear to be a better candidate.  But then again, Ms. Rand was a Kerensky-ite and one can almost understand her intense individualism and The Virtue of Selfishness which plays so big a part in American culture today and the aftermath of the Bush-Cheney Administration in light of her Kerensky-ism.  Drury has been reported to claim that "the Straussian cabal in the [Bush] administration lied about the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq, which was reorganizing the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of Israel."

It is not, in any sense, clear how any one particular Political Philosophy or Philosopher can be saddled with the blame for all the failures of the Neo-Conservative Ideology and its application in the Bush-Cheney Administration.  Perhaps a combination of Strauss and his fellow University of Chicago professor Milton Friedman along with Ayn Rand would do it, but clearly a professor cannot be blamed for the excesses of his students, nor should he/she be blamed for their distortions.  Anyone who has lectured in a college classroom surely knows that the lecture notes of student A differ widely from the lecture notes of Student B and even more widely from the intent of the Professor and what that Professor actually said.  In fact I often have wondered if the student listened to the professor at all, considering the distortions from the student.

As for defenders of Leo Strauss, perhaps Yale Professor Steven Smith's book Reading Leo Strauss might present an adequate antidote to the Drury charges.  One anticipates his Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss which might prove farther reaching.  Stanley Rosen, Borden Parker Bowne professor at Boston University a student of Strauss may present one with a better understanding of Strauss than any of Strauss' Neo-Con students.  At the very least Rosen sees Strauss as a Philosopher and through a Philosopher's eyes rather than as a politician or demagogue.

As for Strauss himself, he was an Academic, a student of Ancient and Modern Political Philosophy, and scarcely a promoter of an Aristocracy of Money, Power and Inheritance.  There is an important sense in which he saw the populism of his day as eerily similar to the faults of Weimar.  A student of Plato he was wary of the populists who would deceive by sophistry the masses into an illusion of what might be best for them (the masses) through false egalitarian ideals.  Plato's myth of the cave where the masses are chained to their fears and prejudices, can see only shadows on the wall, and believe them to be reality is the point of departure for the Strauss view.  Strauss was not so arrogant to believe the myth to be prescriptive (what one ought to do) as opposed to descriptive (what politicians do in fact do).  Clearly the Myth of the Cave recalls the deceptive populism which gave rise to such tyrannies as Nazism for Strauss, as much as the actions of the tyrannoi of ancient Athens gave Plato concern for the welfare of the masses.  The Philosopher king is not the one who would act for the masses, grab power and by deception hold it in favor of his continuance in power.  Bush was no Philosopher King in any meaningful sense, and Romney’s secrecy precludes kingship.  They much more closely resemble the sophists and tyrannoi of Athens and the National Socialists of 1930's Germany.  What Strauss saw as a danger in liberalism was its egalitarianism, populism and openness to the possibilities of future tyrannies.  Plato like Strauss feared the rule of individuals and groups who would manipulate the masses for their own gain (both power and wealth) through deception, fear and prejudice.  In other words both Plato and Strauss would have been opposed to the Bush tactical agenda and not in favor of it.  Strauss's students learned their lessons in the positive not the negative, perhaps taking ’what is’ for ‘what ought to be’. How else can one explain how they duped the masses into voting against their (the masses') own interests. They learned how to govern through what Strauss feared.  They learned that deception worked, that secrecy was power and lies were virtue, not the fear that the populace might actually believe in the deceptions, secrecy or lies.  They wanted to be kings, without being philosophers.  They looked to their own power, their own virtue of selfishness, rather than the true needs of the masses. They maintained their power through the chains of fear and prejudice, of which they constantly remind the public, creating an Aristocracy of Secrecy and an Oligarchy of Wealth at the expense of the interests to whom they serve.  They saw Plato’s myth of the cave as virtue and forgot the one who escapes the chains and shadows on the wall their sophistry created.

As for the open society, it is clear from Karl Popper that Plato is chief among its enemies, and perhaps even Strauss should be on the list.  But is a society open, which is a society easily swayed by prejudice open in any sense at all. The only rational sense of 'open' here is 'open to tyranny'. Can a society which substitutes for reality video clips, distorts truth into sound-bytes and turns prejudice into values have any claim to openness?  The American experiment is an Aristocracy of Education, Talent and Work not an Aristocracy of inheritance (Bush, Romney) money, power and cronyism.  When a society becomes open to the degree that anyone, no matter how incapable, is open to membership in an elite group, that society is corruptible.  The new sophistry is nothing more than the notion that value is to be had in whom we are and with whom we network, not in what we can and have accomplished.  Bush, Romney and their team of Neo-Cons are the embodiment of what can go wrong with the open society, how open markets can be manipulated, how the masses of workers can be manipulated by fear, prejudice and a false religious ideology.

As for the use of the religious value, Strauss, we should be reminded, preferred Athens to Jerusalem.  It has been a long time since I read Liberalism Ancient and Modern, but I nowhere remember any inculcation of religious ideology over philosophic scrutiny.  Bush, Romney and the manipulation of the Religious Right would no more be countenanced by Strauss than by Plato or Aristotle.  In fact one might make a good case that Spinoza (admired by Strauss) would be the promulgator of Religious Liberalism, and that "the Gospels, when understood correctly, assert the need for freedom, toleration, and equality". The Bush-Cheney ideology would clearly keep the masses chained to religious mythology of intolerance and the inequity of "I found Jesus, so I'm better than you".  Can a society that is open support an Aristocracy of the "saved", or can a society that is open support any form of Aristocracy or Oligarchy of Wealth.  The question is rhetorical, but the answer is clearly Jeffersonian.  Only an educated society can be open, tolerant, free, and workable.  So far there is no evidence that Strauss or any Political Philosophy which questions the abilities of the masses is responsible for the Bush-Cheney Administration.  For, it is the uneducated and ill educated populace which put and sustained the Neo-Cons in power, and may bring them back to that power they so naturally crave.  Strauss advocated for a philosophy of the Great Books and the ideas therein, and not a technology of Economics, Accounting, and the art of profit taking.