[MD] Neoconservatism

[david buchanan]

Saving America
Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives
By Shadia B. Drury

There is a growing awareness that a reclusive German émigré philosopher is 
the inspiration behind the reigning neoconservative ideology of the 
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 
article by James Atlas in The New York Times and the article 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.

The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it 
is not altogether their fault. 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 - 
specially 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 America. On 
the contrary, freedom and democracy can only be strengthened by 
intellectually confronting their critics. Strauss has no special antipathy 
for America. He is the enemy of liberty in general. It was for love of 
America that he wished to save her from her disastrous love affair with 
liberty, as I will explain.

Strauss's preoccupation with secrecy was no doubt connected to the fact that 
he did not feel at home in America. He realised 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 ostracised. 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 ostracised by the liberal academy, and 
the equally liberal media. But surely, these are crocodile tears.

The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organised, 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 neoconservatives? 
And what is neoconservatism 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 favourably disposed to the fact that they are 
intended for subordination.

But why should anyone object to the idea that in theory 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 is 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 neoconservatism, 
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 will 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 behoves 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 Fürer. 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.

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 recognise 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.

So, what is neoconservatism? And how does it propose to change the world in 
accordance with Straussian political philosophy? '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.

Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, Strauss's best 
known student, was a professor at the University of Toronto. His best 
selling book demonised the sixties - the age of civil rights for black 
Americans, and greater freedom and equality for women. Irving Kristol also 
demonised the sixties. 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 to be done? How can America be saved from her dangerous 
fascination with liberty? 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 that 
Americans should embrace populism, or the rule of the majority, despite the 
reservations of the Founding Fathers. The latter feared the tyranny of the 
majority, and institutionalised safeguards to protect the liberty of 
individuals and minorities. But Kristol and the neoconservatives want to 
dismantle these very safeguards against majority rule. Kristol tells us not 
to worry. Why not? Apparently because the neoconservatives believe that 
America has been ruled by an unwise liberal elite for over two hundred 
years, and they are willing to gamble that the people will be wiser, which 
is to say, more likely to endorse conservative policies. Inspired by the 
same ideology, the Alliance party in Canada is willing to take the same 
gamble. But, luckily for Canada, it is sagging badly in the polls.

With the neoconservatives in power in the US, it will be 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, lots of prayer in the 
schools, a strong commitment to the death penalty, and the 
re-criminalisation 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 it 
seems they have.

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 wise 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadia Drury is among the world's foremost scholars on the history, 
philosophy and politics of neoconservatism. She is the author of the 
acclaimed books Leo Strauss and the American Right (1998) and The Political 
Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988). Her forthcoming book is Terror and 
Civilization. Professor Drury holds the Canada Research Chair in Social 
Justice at the University of Regina, in Saskatchewan, Canada. For more 
information on her books and her work in general, see her website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/