Revenge of the neo-conservatives
The political philosophy that has gripped the White House has long festered on campuses in both the United States and Canada. (See Part 2)
by Shadia Drury
There is a growing awareness that a reclusive German émigré philosopher is the inspiration behind the reigning neo-conservative ideology of the US Republican Party. Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to conceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded-as the articles by James Atlas in The New York Times and by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker indicate. This picture of Strauss as the great American patriot, who was a lover of freedom and democracy, is pure fabrication. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Canadians we should be very concerned about the Straussian phenomenon. It is not solely an American phenomenon. On the contrary, Strauss and his disciples thrive within Canadian academe. Strauss's most famous disciple, Allan Bloom, taught at the University of Toronto most of his career, and was a shaping influence on Canadian professors in political theory, constitutional law, and the like.
The trouble with the Straussians is that they are never candid. They are secretive and manipulative. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society-especially a liberal society-because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
Strauss's disciples have inherited a superiority complex as well as a persecution complex. They are convinced that they are the superior few who know the truth and are entitled to rule. But they are afraid to speak the truth openly, lest they are persecuted by the vulgar many who do not wish to be ruled by them. This explains why they are eager to misrepresent the nature of Strauss's thought. They are afraid to reveal that Strauss was a critic of liberalism and democracy, lest he be regarded as an enemy of America. So, they wrap him in the American flag and pretend that he is a champion of liberal democracy for political reasons-their own quest for power. The result is that they run roughshod over truth as well as democracy.
It should however be pointed out that being a critic of liberalism or democracy or both does not make one automatically an enemy of either liberty or democracy. On the contrary, freedom and democracy can only be strengthened by intellectually confronting their critics. Rather, Strauss is the enemy of liberty because he thinks that ordinary people are not fit to be free. They need myths and illusions to sustain them and keep them in their place. But this is a truth that you can't state openly to people or they will rip you apart. So, the wise must be secretive.
Strauss's preoccupation with secrecy was no doubt connected to the fact that he did not feel at home in America. He realized how much his ideas were at odds with America's liberal modernity. He felt that in America, everything that does not fit the mould, everything that does not conform to public opinion, was ostracized. In a letter to a friend, Strauss complained that the academic atmosphere in America was oppressive, and that it was very difficult to publish. As a man forced to emigrate from his native Germany, learn a new language by watching television, and forced to conduct his scholarly life in this newly acquired language, Strauss must be the subject of our sympathy. But Strauss's American disciples continue to complain that they are oppressed, beleaguered, and ostracized by the liberal academy, and the equally liberal media. But surely, these are crocodile tears.
The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organized, and the best-funded scholars in Canada and the United States. They are the unequalled masters of right-wing think tanks, foundations, and corporate funding. And now they have the ear of the powerful in the White House. Nothing could have pleased Strauss more; for he believed that intellectuals have an important role to play in politics. It was not prudent for them to rule directly because the masses are inclined to distrust them; but they should certainly not pass up the opportunity to whisper in the ears of the powerful. So, what are they whispering? What did Strauss teach them? What is the impact of the Straussian philosophy on the powerful neo- conservatives? And what is neo-conservatism anyway?
Strauss is not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. There are certain incontestable themes in his work. The most fundamental theme is the distinction between the ancients and the moderns-a distinction that informs all his work. According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (such as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty; and giving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine. Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture "noble lies" for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy. Plato balked at the democratic idea that any Donald, Dick, or George was equally fit to rule.
In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent.
The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking that there is only one natural right-the right of the superior to rule over the inferior-the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. As to the pursuit of happiness-what could the vulgar do with happiness except drink, gamble, and fornicate?
Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss's most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature-not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe), but the natural order of domination and subordination.
In his book On Tyranny, Strauss referred to the right of the superior to rule as "the tyrannical teaching" of the ancients which must be kept secret. But what is the reason for secrecy? Strauss tells us that the tyrannical teaching must be kept secret for two reasons: to spare the people's feelings, and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. After all, the people are not likely to be favorably disposed to the fact that they are intended for subordination.
But why should anyone object to the idea that the good and wise should rule? The real answer lies in the nature of the rule of the wise as understood by Strauss.
It meant tyranny in the literal sense, which is to say, rule in the absence of law, or rule by those who were above the law. Of course, Strauss believed that the wise would not abuse their power. On the contrary, they would give the people just what was commensurate with their needs and capacities. But what exactly is that? Certainly, giving them freedom, happiness, and prosperity is not the point. In Strauss's estimation, that would turn them into animals. The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshipping, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses. Religion and war-perpetual war-would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation.
Irving Kristol, a devoted follower of Strauss and father of neo-conservatism, was delighted with the popularity of the film Rambo. He thought it was an indication that the people still love war; and that means that it would not be too difficult to lure them away from the animalistic pleasures that liberal society offers. There is a strong asceticism at the heart of the atheistic philosophy of Leo Strauss that explains why those with religious inclinations are attracted to it.
Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behooves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses-the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Führer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. Anyone who wants to avoid the horrors of the Nazi past is well advised not to accept Strauss's version of ancient wisdom uncritically. But this is exactly what Strauss encouraged his students to do.
****
Shadia Drury is Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina. Her most recent book is Terror and Civilization: Christianity, Politics, and the Western Psyche (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
|
