From the academy to the legislature

Second of a two-part look at the Straussian neo-conservatives who have commandeered the US government. (See Part 1)

by Shadia Drury

In the United States, Strauss's students have left the academy in quest of political power. They complain that they are persecuted in the academy because they are illiberal. But in truth, it is not because they are illiberal that they are held in contempt; it is because they are ill-equipped to handle philosophical debate.

Strauss's secretive or esoteric style of writing is inimical to philosophical dispute within the academy. He was convinced that there can be no disagreement among the wise. They instinctively recognize the truth. And those who deny it are unfit for the company of the wise. This explains why his students are a cultish clique, which is comfortable only when preaching to the converted and consorting with the like-minded.

All the while they fool themselves into thinking that they are the exclusive few who see the unadulterated truth, which is concealed from the eyes of the uninitiated. Not surprisingly, they are not well regarded within the academy. But it is not entirely their fault. They are poorly trained, because Strauss's philosophy is ill-suited for academic life. It aspires to action. Its goal is not to understand the world, but to change it. And now that they are closely allied with the powerful neoconservatives in Washington, they have a chance to make their vision a reality.

We can only hope that they will not wield their influence of the fledgling Conservative Party in Canada. That Party is desperately in search of an identity. Will it adopt the new or neoconservatism so powerful in the United Sates? If the ideology of the Reform/Alliance Party prevails, then the answer is yes.

So, what is neoconservatism anyway? 'Neo' comes from the Greek neos, which means new. And, what's neo about neoconservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on tradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the flow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism is intoxicated with nature ?. The new conservatism is not slow or cautious, but active, aggressive, and reactionary in the literal sense of the term. Inspired by Strauss's hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to turn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements.

Irving Kristol, the founder of neoconservatism demonized the freedom of the nineteen sixties. In his best-selling book, The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom also demonized the sixties - the age of civil rights for black Americans, and greater freedom and equality for women. And Francis Fukuyama, student of Allan Bloom, and vanguard of the neoconservative intellectuals, refers to the sixties as "The Great Disruption," the title of his recent book. Supposedly, all these Strauss-inspired writers believe that the new found freedoms of the sixties are the root of all evil, because freedom invites licentiousness, and licentiousness is a harbinger of social decay - divorce, delinquency, crime, and creature comforts. And there is a sense in which they are right - freedom is a treasure that is quickly lost if it is not wisely used. The trouble is that neoconservatives have zero tolerance for human vices or follies, and as a result, they are unwilling to give liberty a chance.

So, what is it that neoconservatives propose to do about the liberal societies in which they find themselves? Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative policies: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it.

In an essay entitled "Populism Not to Worry," Irving Kristol argued in favor of populism, or the rule of the majority-in other words, democracy without restraints. The same populism has been championed by Preston Manning and other Reform/Alliance leaders. These new conservatives seem to have no fear of the tyranny of the majority that liberal philosophers have warned against. They seem oblivious to the importance of institutional safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals and minorities. They seem ready to dismantle these very safeguards against majority rule. Kristol tells us not to worry. Why not? Apparently because Kristol believed that liberal elites have prevailed for too long. So, he is willing to gamble that the people might be less liberal than their elites. Inspired by the same ideology, the Reform/Alliance party in Canada is willing to take the same gamble. But, luckily for Canada, it is sagging badly in the polls. I hope that the reason is that we Canadians have a better idea what neoconservative rule would mean, now that we see it so grotesquely magnified below the border.

With the neoconservatives in power in the US, it is difficult to conceal the real nature of neoconservative policies. The "stealth campaigns" are not likely to be as effective. The policies are by now very clear: no gay rights, no liberated women, no uppity blacks, religion as the instrument of public policy, a return of the death penalty, and the criminalization of abortion. The latter is particularly important. Of course it will keep the women at home and out of the way so that world can be ruled by men in the proper manly fashion; but that's not all. More importantly, it will keep women busy having babies - lots of babies. In this way, women will become useful once again; they will return to their vocation as factories for soldiers--and we need lots of soldiers, for we will have plenty of wars to fight, if the neoconservatives have their way. And we Canadians want so desperately to be useful to our friends south of the border.

The neoconservative goal is reactionary in the classic sense of the term. It is nothing short of turning the clock back on the liberal revolution. And it will use democracy to accomplish its task. After all, Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a reactionary elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients, was able to shape, invent, or create the will of the people. In his interpretation of Plato's myth of the cave, Strauss maintained that the philosophers who return to the cave should not bring in truth; instead, the philosophers should seek to manipulate the images in the cave, so that the people will remain in the stupor to which they are supremely fit.

It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either. We Canadians must beware of the rising neoconservatism in our midst. For it threatens freedom in the name of the most debased conception of democracy.

****

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).