In a penetrating review1 of "Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy" by Leo Strauss, with an introduction by Thomas L. Pangle, M. F. Burnyeat concludes that Strauss' method of reading the ancients presupposes what Strauss sets out to prove, to wit, that "the considerate few have imperturbably conveyed to their readers an eloquence of articulate silence and pregnant indications."
This isn't merely an academic dispute because the Straussians have moved into positions of power. As Richard H. King noted2,
By the 1980s, Straussians began to shift their locus of operation from the halls of ivy to the corridors of power in Washington. ... The Reagan administration saw Straussians such as Nathan Tarcov, Carnes Lord and Paul Wolfowitz assume positions in these departments, while Lord and William Kristol were advisors to Vice President Dan Quayle in the first Bush administration (Xenos, 2004: 11). As of 1999, one source (Deutsch and Murley) identifies 24 Straussians who had held positions in agencies of the federal government as of 1998 – and the number has surely grown since then.
This infiltration of educated crazies into the Federal government can have disastrous consequences. For example, King also notes what another Straussian has written about war:
In addition, some Straussians, as Anne Norton notes, believe that war is ‘the activity which would restore seriousness to life’ (Norton, 2004: 153)3, a way of reviving and proving civic virtue in defense of the modern republic.
1"Sphinx Without a Secret", New York Review of Books, v. 32, number 9, May 30, 1985.
2"Intellectuals and the state: The case of the Straussians"
Richard H. King
Comparative American Studies 2006; 4; 395
3Norton, Anne (2004) Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. New
Haven, NJ and London: Yale University Press.
Posts
1 comment:
This is a pretty feeble effort. If you had read Ann Norton's book -- and I can understand if you didn't since it's truly awful -- then you would know that she claims the Straussians who supported the Iraq War were NOT, repeat, NOT, being true to Strauss's views (i.e., Strauss would have opposed such a venture). In other words, her book disagrees with your claim so to quote her in this way seems deceptive.
Working for Dan Quayle is hardly something to brag about. It didn't and doesn't suggest any great influence. Most of the 24 people listed by Deutsch are underlings in a vast bureaucracy -- they have no influence to speak of. Wolfowitz was easily the most highly placed person with any Strauss connection (he took two classes one on Plato and one on Montesquieu), but he has denied being a Straussian.
But what is the point of your reference to Burnyeat? You seem to be suggesting that Burnyeat's snarky review of one of Strauss's academic books somehow helps us understand ("This isn't merely an academic dispute ...") the influence of Straussians in government. Hard to see how.
Strauss had some genuine influence in academia particularly in political philosophy and to a lesser degree in the study of American politics. There are those who self-identify as "Straussians" and do form a loose school (not unlike feminists, postmoderns, Marxists, etc.). But there is just no connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the policies of the Bush administration or any other administration (and keep in mind a self-identified Straussian , William Glaston, was an advisor to Bill Clinton).
It's a conspiracy theory, a myth, and the only question worth pondering is why so many people want to believe such nonsense.
Post a Comment