89 of 114 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Joyfully dissecting the neocons, June 23, 2005
This review is from: Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (Hardcover)
I felt a certain guilty pleasure reading Anne Norton's "Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire." The book is just too much fun - especially the juicy little tidbits of gossip about some of the crazier Straussians.
And, yet, the book has several serious, important points to make.
I myself entitled a review of Strauss's "The City and Man" (posted here on amazon six months before Norton's book was published) as "Strauss vs. the 'Straussians'." My point was that Strauss's own published writings directly and dramatically contradicted the positions and policies espoused by his supposed followers, the "neoconservative" Straussians, who now control the foreign policy of the United States of America.
This is one of the central themes of Norton's book. She distinguishes between Struass's "students" and his "disciples." The "students" were interested in learning what Strauss and his colleagues had to teach and then moving on in their own direction. The "disciples" were part of a bizarre cult.
As a student herself at the University of Chicago, in effect the headquarters of the Straussian movement, Norton had a chance to get to know both "students" and "disciples."
One telling anecdote about the Straussian Allan Bloom, famed author of "The Closing of the American Mind," reveals the internal dynamics of a cult:
"Bloom himself liked to play little games with his puppies [his students]. 'He was tossing pennies down the hall, and his students were scurrying to pick them up off the floor,' my friend Peter Agree told me. `He was laughing.'"
Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind" became an instant manifesto for conservative, traditional values when it was published in 1987. And, yet, Norton explains:
"The defender of youthful innocence, family values, and traditional morality was a homosexual - and not just any homosexual, either. If Bloom's students were to be trusted, Bloom's antics gave new meaning to the term 'transgression.' The rumors of houseboys in sexual servitude, the evident flirtations with students, Bloom's flamboyantly queenly manner made 'The Closing of the American Mind' read as high hypocrisy..." Norton adds that all this was "readily acknowledged" (though not in print) by Bloom's "colleagues, friends, and students."
When I read Bloom's book back in 1988, although I agreed with much of Bloom's cultural criticism, I sensed something was wrong: there was too much enthusiasm for "eros" and too little for the norm of calm, disinterested truth. Indeed, if I understood the book correctly, the only real reason for human society was to produce more people just like... Allan Bloom.
Clearly, I didn't know the half of it.
But the psychological dynamics of cults provides only one piece of the explanation for the neoconservative Straussians who now control American foreign policy.
Perhaps a greater factor is revealed in an anecdote Norton tells of Zalmay Khalilzad, the new Bush Administration ambassador to Iraq:
"When I knew him, he was an Afghani graduate student and a radical. He boasted of the demonstrations he had organized in Beirut, of the fedayin he knew and had worked with, and of his friends who regularly visited Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi. He went to pro-Palestinian meetings. His room had a poster of Nasser..."
But, one happy day, Khalilzad and Norton were invited to a lavish party at the luxury apartment of a professor, Albert Wohlstetter, who had done very nicely for himself monetarily by working for the US defense establishment. The experience, Norton claims, altered Khalilzad's life: Khalilzad was "enthralled by Wohlstetter's party. In the elevator, in the apartment, he kept saying how much it all cost, how expensive it was, how much money Wohlstetter must have." In due course, Wohlstetter helped Khalilzad turn his back on his Third-World radicalism and find a cushy spot in the American establishment.
Anyone who has followed the financial success of the leading neocon Straussians knows that this story is hardly an isolated case: one conservative critic has renamed the famed neoconservative Richard Perle as "Richer Perle," in honor of the lucrative financial shenanigans that forced Perle to surrender his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
Perhaps the most important argument Norton offers is that the neocon "Straussians" (although not Strauss himself) are anti-Semitic bigots. This may seem an odd accusation since many of the Straussians are Jewish. However, Norton points out, not only Jews are Semites: Arabs also are Semites. As she declares:
"From the time I first came to Chicago to the present day, I have seen Arabs and Muslims made the targets of unrestrained persecution, especially among the Straussians. At school, Straussian students told me that Arabs were dirty, they were animals, they were vermin."
She adds that David Frum's and Richard Perle's recent book, "An End to Evil," "has a strange familiarity about it. Scholars familiar with the language of anti-Semitism will find it reminiscent of older, long-dishonored texts. The careful fabrication, the language of blood-libel, the calls for violence in the name of defense, all are present here."
Finally, Norton emphasizes that the evils of Straussian neoconsertvatism are not characteristics of true conservatism. Although she is not herself a conservative, in a chapter entitled "Conservatism Abandoned," she brilliantly and sympathetically explains that, while conservatives have differed among themselves on a host of issues, on one key point they stood together: "Conservatives united in the desire for smaller government and on the belief that taxes should - if they existed at all - be very low."
But, thanks to the neocons' exploitation of the 9/11 catastrophe, Norton adds, "All this changed as the twentieth century ended. American conservatism embraced big government with a vengeance." She cites chapter and verse: everything from the petty harassment to which Americans are now subject by the flunkies in the "Transportation Safety Administration" to the violation of basic civil liberties (such as habeas corpus), the huge federal deficit, and the ongoing campaign to conquer the world. The Straussian neocons, Norton concludes, "are not preservers; they are (as they will tell you) revolutionaries."
Yes, indeed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The esoteric truth is out, October 31, 2009
Anne Norton's book "Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire" isn't a scholarly book on the Straussian movement. Rather, it's a liberal (?), ideological criticism of the Straussians, coupled with a lot of gossip about both Strauss himself and his self-proclaimed disciples.
The book is an easy read, but it also feels disorganized. Still, the gossip is actually quite interesting. Norton's book can therefore be devoured as a kind of dessert after reading Shadia Drury's more scholarly criticisms of Strauss and the Straussians. However, I wouldn't expect to get any deep insights from Norton.
In contrast to Drury, Norton doesn't believe that Strauss had an esoteric message. If you read his books carefully, she argues, it's all in there. Norton seems to regard Strauss as a real conservative. At the same time, her description of both Strauss and the Straussians nevertheless give the impression of a weird and fanatical sect or cult. Apparently, the Straussians made themselves impossible in wide scholarly circles, so impossible that many universities still refuse to hire them!
The most sensational "revelation" in the book is, of course, that Alan Bloom was a hedonistic homosexual. Bloom, one of the leaders of East Coast Straussianism, wrote the bestselling "The Closing of the American Mind", a seemingly conservative attack on political correctness. But apparently, Bloom's personal life was something else again. (Incidentally, this lends credence to Drury's opinion that Bloom was indeed an esoteric nihilist.)
Norton further believes that the Straussians have deviated from the true ideas of Leo Strauss himself. However, she never really proves her point. Didn't Strauss support the Cold War? Wasn't he an anti-modernist and elitist? Couldn't this logically be squared with Neo-Con interventionism and calls for a more autocratic regime? Maybe, maybe not. Norton's book isn't very informative on this point. She does describe the contrast between the Neo-Cons and an older breed of conservatives, but she never explains why Strauss should be seen as one of the latter.
Norton ends by pointing out the irony that Strauss studied al-Farabi, a Muslim philosopher based in Baghdad. He also studied Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher who belonged to the court of Saladin, the Muslim leader who eventually defeated the crusaders. The Straussians are hysterically anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and pretty much organized the Iraqi war, while Strauss himself viewed Muslim and Jewish philosophy as part of the Western heritage he so cherished. That is indeed ironical. Socratic irony, perhaps?
To sum up, I'm not sure whether you can actually learn much from this collection of anecdotes, but as a light afternoon read after the more demanding works of Drury (or Strauss!), it nevertheless deserves a place on any anti-Straussian bookshelf.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
33 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Misleading title, no organization, and lacks the courage of her convictions, July 16, 2005
This review is from: Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (Hardcover)
The title of this book would have you believe that you are about to read a general book on Strauss' philosophy and how it relates to the current crop of neo-conservative imperialists currently occupying the government's main seats of power. It's no such thing.
What it really is, is an attempt to dissociate Strauss, as well as the author herself, from the neocons, and she does succeed, at least on an emotional level. In that, she borrows the Rovian tactics of selective and chaotic exposition of seemingly unrelated facts. One gets the sense that she is trying to paint a pointillistic picture of the Straussians, rather than rationally exposing them.
Don't get me wrong. It's a pleasant enough read, and for a book written by a political theorist, it's actually uncharacteristically unpretentious. Some reviewers have attacked this aspect of the book: its lack of academic value, because it lacks any formal references and end-notes. But I would argue that it's not the lack of endnotes which destroys the value of this book, but the fact that there's no clear exposition of her goal, and that the book shows no clear strategy to attain that goal.
It's also extremely light as an exposition of Strauss' own thoughts. For an apology, this is a deadly fault. I have not read Strauss in the text; all I knew about the man was second hand. I feel no better informed about him than when I started the book, and that is a shame.
What the book does, and does very well, is convey the lack of respect Norton feels for some of Strauss' followers. But she fails in showing how they interpreted (distorted) Strauss' ideas, which I have to conclude was her original idea (see point above). Her attacks on the neocons, although I personally agree with her on that point, left me wanting; I hoped for more solid argumentation.
She makes another point, and it's probably the most solidly argued of the whole book, in the chapter titled "Conservatism Abandoned"; unfortunately she simply did not have the courage to explicitely state her conclusion: that neo-conservatism owes more to Benito Mussolini than it does to Leo Strauss. She should have had the courage to use the correct term: Fascism. She alludes to it, making it very clear what she means, but never actually uses either the name of Mussolini or the name of his political theory.
In that same vein, I was disappointed to see her completely avoid the subject of "Useful Myths" which has (rightly or wrongly, remember that I admit never having read Strauss himself) been associated with Strauss and the Straussians, and which illustrates the influence of Goebbels on the neocons. This is an important subject, and still don't know how much of it is Stauss' own doing, and how much came from other source, including the Nazis.
A very mixed text, indeed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
