Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique

1 - Saving Anglo-Americans from Themselves

1 Saving Anglo-Americans from Themselves “In defending modern civilisation against German nihilism, the English are defending the eternal principles of civilisation.”1 Leo Strauss delivered these stirring words in a lecture at the New School for Social Research in February 1941, when it was far from obvious that Britain, standing alone against Hitler, would win (or even survive) this deadly struggle. Yet the historic significance of Strauss’s words goes far beyond the context of World War II, since his clear support for the cause of England ultimately redefined what conservatives in the Anglo-American tradition would stand for well into the Cold War and post–Cold War periods: the defense of eternal principles that stand above the current of history. Strauss, who had fled from a Germany veering toward Nazi takeover in 1932, had good reason to resent the numerous appeasers of Hitler who claimed the Führer was a great leader who represented the next wave of unstoppable historical change. Perhaps for this reason, Strauss scorned those who were tempted to portray Hitler as anything more than a “tool of 14 LEO STRAUSS and ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY ‘History’” who did not even understand the “new epoch” he was ushering into existence. Instead, the rise and success of Hitler demonstrated, at least to Strauss, the absurdity of reading into “History” any ultimate meaning that could provide a foundation for prudent political judgment. Appeals to “History” were so ambiguous that they could justify the bad as well as the good. Without a “standard which is stable and not changeable,” a standard that is above History, any judgment based on the currents of historical change would have to lead to nihilism, the ultimate denial of the “rulership of reason” in favor of defending the most monstrous regime in history.2 This attack on the authority of History is not simply a rejection of the nineteenth-century idea of Progress, which had already been forcefully challenged by the carnage of World War I. Nor is Strauss, who was an avid reader of history, rejecting the study of historical fact. The study of history is not the same as appealing to the authority of History. In his American exile, Strauss is calling for nothing less than the abandonment of any standard of politics or morality that is merely relative to its historic period. For this reason, he privileges the “eternal principles” over the merely historical ones. Without these timeless standards, the West will sink into nihilism and, ultimately, death. The obvious question that arises here is “What are these eternal principles ?” The purpose of my study is twofold: to understand what Strauss meant by these trans-historical principles that he attributed to the best traits of Anglo-American civilization, and to evaluate the implications of his teaching on the Anglo-American tradition of democracy that he cherished . It was his fondest hope that his American students would continue to take up the defense of these ideals in the perilous days of the Cold War. Strauss’s attempt to identify the cause of the Anglo-American West with credos that stand above and against History is not only his most lasting contribution to postwar political philosophy. It is his most enduring contribution to the cause of Anglo-American democracy in our time. It is a major premise of this study that Strauss’s support for Anglo-American democracy is sincere. Unlike his numerous leftist critics who accuse him of secretly hiding a right-wing contempt for liberal democracy, I believe that Strauss should be taken at his word. In fact, I agree with his equally numerous defenders that his most important teaching is to find “new resources” for the liberal tradition he attributes to English and American civilization.3 However, I shall contend that Strauss’s reasons for defending Anglo-American democracy may actually do the cause more harm than Saving Anglo-Americans from Themselves 15 good. Strauss’s radical rejection of History in favor of Nature is ultimately a rejection of the conservative tradition that is at the heart of the civilization he is determined to protect. Before I embark on a full critique of Strauss’s concept of History, it is essential to explain why he and his students have been so successful in redefining what the West should uphold as principle. Much has been made of the connection between Strauss and “neoconservatism,” an ideology that first emerged in...