Customer Reviews

The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

As the author states in her original introduction, understanding Strauss for the lay reader is virtually impossible, because he purposely obscures his ideas. According to Straussians, devoted acolytes of Strauss, the truth, at least as they see it, is far too disturbing for mere mortals to accept. Only god-like, elite philosophers can deal with harsh reality. Strauss engages in what are termed esoteric and exoteric (safe) writings. The purpose of this book is to shed some light on the esoteric writing.

Basically Straussians are anti-democratic in the sense of recognizing natural equality among men. Instead they subscribe to the domination of the strong over the weak - the reality of the natural world. To them, a stable social order requires that elites endorse and feed a diet of religion, deceit, and shibboleths to the common man to hide their reality-based agendas.

In a new introduction, the author makes clear that the neo-conservatives of the Bush administration are dominated by Straussians. It is interesting that she recognizes that philosophical elites require simple-thinking, true-believers of societal platitudes to carry out their radical policies - the very epitome of which is George Bush. Constant, chauvanistic war mongering is essential to keep the population in a non-thinking fervor, while more calculating elements like multi-national corporations can proceed with their agendas relatively unimpeded. The current and non-ending war on terror is a perfect vehicle to suspend analysis of policies and actions. However, it is disturbing when the elected leaders of a nation actually believe their own propaganda and convince others of its veracity.

This book, while demystifying Strauss to some extent, is itself not an easy read. But before one plunges into Strauss, it is a good place to start.

Shadia Drury's book (hereafter called PILS) is a useful if overblown critical evaluation of Leo Strauss's work. PILS requires a lot of work. In order to really get something out of it, you must be have at hand several of Strauss's books (Natural Right and History, The City and Man, Thoughts on Machiavelli, On Tyranny and What is Political Philosophy are the minimum requirements) and you must be willing to constantly check what she is saying about Strauss against what is contained in those books.
Why would you do this? I came to the realization while reading PILS that even though it overstates its arguments which results in a straw man, that almost every argument that can be made for or against Drury can be made for or against Strauss. For example, I have argued that Strauss's interpretations of Locke, Machiavelli or Plato have to be taken seriously if for no other reason than it not easy to create a completely consistent, well-referenced version of these thinkers that is based on the entirety of their writings and on thin air. That same argument applies to what I see as the straw man Strauss that Drury has concocted. You cannot fault her for not having read enough of Strauss's writings or for coming up with textual evidence to support her view.
However, I believe that she is mistaken and that her mistakes begin on the first page of her book. First, she states in her Preface to the 1988 Edition that she is not going to regard Strauss as largely an historian of ideas but as a philosopher "with a unique and disturbing set of ideas that he is reluctant to state clearly" (p. lix). Prof. Drury has no intention of taking Struass's own self-understanding seriously. Instead of seeing him as having possibly uncovered a theme that runs throughout Western philosophical history, she sees him as using that history as an argument from authority writ large that he can use to seduce his readers. (The single most disturbing thing about PILS is the way Drury uses the word seduction throughout this book. Sometimes it is metaphoric, sometimes she implies that Strauss or his followers might be pederasts or gay. For an example, see p. 70.)
Strauss's theory of esoteric writing becomes, to Drury, only the means by which he practices his wiles upon his readers. Combine these two mistakes together and what you get is a Strauss who uses his commentaries on other thinkers as the means by which he states his own ideas. This is one of Strauss's own discoveries about estoeric writings. But Drury's use of it is crude in the extreme. She see Strauss as being a Nietzschean who (mis)reads Plato through the eyes of Farabi all while using Machiavelli as his main mouthpiece. Among other things, this means that she basically has to read Strauss so that he reads all other "great" philosophers as having the same message. Machiavelli is telling us the same thing as Farabi and Plato; Machiavelli just makes the mistake of being blatent about it and not hiding behind esoterica. Which is useful for Strauss because in talking about Machiavelli, Strauss can say all the Nietzschean things he wants and blah, blah, blah. All the nuance of Strauss's readings get lost in the Drury blender.
Sometimes, Drury contradicts herself when it is convenient to emphasize a point. For example, she talks about "the overwhelming unanimity readily observable among Straussian interpreters (p.11). Later (p.182), she talks about "the radical disagreement among Straussians regarding the true nature of Strauss's legacy". Apparently, overwhelming unanimity and radical disagreement go hand in hand. Also apparently, Strauss taught different things to different people depending on whether he saw them as worthy of being philosophers or gentlemen (p.187). I would love to have seen how he pulled that off in the classroom.
So why do I think, PILS is worth the time of those who have learned from Strauss? Because, she states quite clearly, certain themes and assumptions of Strauss. For example:
1. The assumption of the Eternal Whole. There "is a given whole to which man belongs, and ...man's place within the whole constitutes the permanent human situation" (p.51)
2. Humanity is three-fold in nature: the philosophers, "the lovers of honor and reputation, (the gentlemen and statesmen), and the lovers of pleasure (the vulgar)" (p.198)
3. Philosophy is the highest human activity. It is the preserve of a few. (p. 19)
4. This fact creates the "conflict between philosophy and the city [which} is irresolvable" (p. 12).
5. The truth is dangerous . (p.6). Which is why you hide that truth with esoterica.
I do think that Drury is right about the following. For the most part, these assumptions are not really argued for by Strauss. He seems to believe them because Plato or Farabi or Maimonides did. Strauss just takes it for granted that he does not have to argue for certain things. My own favorite example is the existence of the soul.
PILS brings these issues into clear focus. It is not, however, to be recommended as a good and fair-minded introduction to Strauss' thought. I would say go to Daniel Tanguay for that. If you do read Drury as an intro to Struass you need to balance that with a reading of Catherine and Michael Zuckert's The Truth About Leo Strauss. But what I really recommend you do is take your vorpal blade in hand and enter the tulgey wood of Strauss's writings. Read What is Political Philosophy or An Introduction to Political Philosophy. And then read something like Natural Right and History or Thoughts on Machiavelli. Expect to be challenged, to learn and to disagree. But, at least, you will be dealing directly with the real thing instead of some commentator's ideas. And that theory will lead you from Strauss back to Plato and Machiavelli and that is when the fun begins.
P.S. If you are inclined to the left side of politics (me!me!me!), read Drury's Introduction to the Updated Edition as an enjoyable example of how to wildly overstate something that really doesn't need to be overstated. If you are a Bushie, please read it immediately as your head will explode (metaphorically, of course).

Shadia Drury's book originally was a cool and brilliant analysis of the Strauss dogmas, restrained in its criticism. This new edition is preceded by an even more brilliant 57-page preface which emphatically exposes the radicalism Strauss transmitted to his students. They now surround President Bush. His catastrophic policies show that Strauss' near-fascist teachings have infected their advice to him. Absolutely a must read for everyone who wants to know the political doctrines behind our present disaster in Iraq. Sartre88

Unlike the previous review by Mr. Landon, I will say some thing about the book and Leo Strauss (as opposed to the Bush Administration). Professor Drury has created a kind of cottage industry out of critiquing Leo Strauss--a strange enterprise when one considers her obvious antipathy towards Strauss and his followers. Nevertheless, someone needs to tweak the Straussians--it is just too bad that it is someone who has as strong of passions over Strauss as his followers. Thus, we don't get a balanced view of Strauss's work. What we do get is polemic. We learn that Strauss is an anti-democratic elitist and an uncompromising critic of modern liberalism. We learn that Strauss thought all modern philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau etc) to be fools, while ancient thinkers were breathtakingly wise. Of course there is a grain of truth to each of these contentions, but what is missing is the rest of the picture.
Drury rightly criticizes Strauss's conception of the esoteric and exoteric nature of texts. This is the strange contention that texts have two meanings: an esoteric or submerged meaning that only the truly adept will discover and that contains unpalatable truths, and an exoteric or surface meaning that will do less to offend authorities and common sensibilities. Strauss was too enamored of this practice in his reading of texts, though it does make more sense with a text like Plato's "Republic". In that text Thrasymachus challenges Socrates to prove that virtue would be valued simply for its own sake (even if it brought ruin onto the virtuous man). An adept reader will realize (as no doubt Plato did) that Thrasymachus's challenge wins the day (as Socrates's reply turns on several myths--a methodology that Socrates disavows earlier in the text).
Strauss has done much to advance the practice of political theory, both in terms of insights and in defending the very work of political theory. When normative work was highly out of favor in the fifties and sixties (the "behavioral revolution"), Strauss strongly criticized the imperical nature of the social sciences. Strauss reminded social scientists that politics is ultimately about the good, and not just voting trends and surveys. Theoretically, Strauss was also indispensible in pointing out how modern natural law theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau etc) attempted to incorporate reason of state theory alongside their natural law theory (a perilous enterprise...) Richard Tuck, the excellent Harvard professor, takes this as his point of departure in "The Rights of War and Peace" (highly recommended!). Thus, there is more to Strauss than Drury will give you, and I would suggest readers look elsewhere.

I'm inclined to believe Professor Drury is somewhat insane. In any case, a good counterpoint to many of her frightening claims (and selective editing) with respect to Strauss' work can be found, of course, in a good variety of places, but perhaps Harry Jaffa's article "Dear Professor Drury" is the best place to begin because of its precision and relatively short length.

I read this book and every book that Leo Strauss ever wrote; therefore I realized that this was a very poor and inaccurate book and that is the best that I can say. And I wish I could get my money and time back!!!

This book should be back in print, soon. Many of the puzzles of the current regime change (Washington, not Bhagdad) might be illuminated by a read of this text, since Leo Strauss seems to be the object of a neo-conservative fan club. Shocked?
Bush is a poor liar, but he has cripped enough notes on Machiavelli from Straussian staff, no doubt, to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Strauss' intellectual legacy is highly sophisticated,oulala stuff, but too eccentrically dangerous for governmental morons. In the hands of saddle tramps from the Texas bourgeoisie--uh oh!

The book might serve as an interesting springboard for truly substantial Strauss scholarship, but it is in large part an unfortunately simplistic portrayal of a man and a philosophy whose "true" message is hotly debated even by its students. Drury presents a layman's view of Strauss, Nietzsche and Plato that never manages to overcome itself or reveal the true subtlety and nuance Strauss possessed. Somewhat disingenuously, Drury relies on the very Strauss-mysticism she decries to cover up the fact that the book is really not terribly profound.