Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique

Introduction

Introduction It has been forty years since the death of Leo Strauss, yet there is little evidence that the debate over his legacy shows any sign of abatement. A prolific scholar who managed to inspire a whole new approach to political philosophy when he taught in the United States from the late 1930s until his death in 1973, he is in retrospect perhaps an unlikely choice for inspiring any political program. This quiet, gentlemanly figure, who delighted in detecting secret meanings in great philosophical texts, never ran for office, advised a politician, or joined a political party. Yet Strauss has provoked a wave of controversy that continues to wash over academe to this day and occasionally even spills over into the popular media. Foroveraquarterofacentury,mostcriticsofLeoStrausshaveportrayed this political philosopher as an enemy of liberal democracy who built a vast intellectual movement in the United States in order to foster an extreme right-wing agenda devoted to perpetual war and class hierarchy.1 These critiques echoed in loud, shrill tones throughout the mass media when the second Gulf War commenced in 2003. At this time, various leftists spied a sinister conspiracy of Straussians, working in the Bush administration, who cajoled the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq with a mix of subterfuge and exaggeration. Apparently Strauss, who died in 1973, was still haunting the minds of foreign policy experts in the United States. Worst of all, the influence of his thought was breeding a right-wing neo-fascist conspiracy that would undermine liberal democracy.2 4 LEO STRAUSS and ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY This leftist critique of Strauss has generally been countered by his numerous followers (often called “Straussians”) who insist that their teacher was a sincere defender of the democratic regime and the liberal ideals of freedom and equality. These acolytes have documented how Strauss saw in both Britain and the United States the last best hope to counter the dangers of tyranny in our time. In the words of Heinrich Meier, a prominent European admirer, Strauss actively encouraged his students to defend the very “foundations” of the modern American regime.3 William Kristol, a famous Straussian journalist who is the editor of the Weekly Standard, rather brazenly draws this connection between Strauss’s philosophy and the defense of Anglo-American democracy when he celebrates the West’s unique identity for building on liberalism as well as “the older traditions of Athens and Jerusalem,” praises Britain and the United States for preserving liberal civilization from secular totalitarianism during World War II, and calls on all free democratic nations today “that hold aloft and carry the torch” of the West to stand with Israel in the war against radical Islamic terrorists. Quoting fromStrauss’sdescriptionofIsraelasan“outpostoftheWestthatexistsinthe East,” Kristol looks to America to continue its mission as the chief defender of Western civilization.4 This heartfelt support for the Anglo-American tradition , Straussians insist, is consistent with Strauss’s deep sympathy for liberal democracy as a whole. Since this debate over Strauss’s philosophy has been mostly conducted by leftist critics and liberal supporters of this thinker, few voices from the conservative side of the political spectrum have succeeded in shifting the discussion beyond its traditional contours.5 It is the purpose of this study to critique Leo Strauss’s political philosophy and movement from the Right.6 In my judgment, Strauss’s leftist critics have not successfully made their case that the target of their scorn is a man of the Far Right. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that he shares some important assumptions with the Left. For this reason, I accept the positive portrayal of Strauss, mainly advanced by his followers, as a sincere defender of liberal democracy. As a conservative critic of Strauss, however, I intend to expose the defective reasoning that he and his students have marshaled in favor of this cause. Specifically, I evaluate the problematic nature of Strauss’s support of the most successful experiment in the democratic tradition—the Anglo-American tradition. Strauss’s portrayal of this tradition arguably does more harm than good, despite his best intentions, for two principal reasons. First, he interprets the principles or foundations of AngloAmerican democracy as philosophically eternal credos that have been known to humanity since the time of Plato and Aristotle. Second, he represents these Introduction 5 principles as politically universal ideals that must be cultivated by all peoples, regardless of time and place. In...