Robert Kagan is a foreign policy expert who wrote a very nice little book a few years ago in the run-up to the Iraq War called Of Paradise and Power, which I read and which I thought explained a lot about the disconnect between Europe and America and about the state of thinking in the European ecclesiastical hierarchy when it comes to going to war.
It’s worth your while to read as a exploration of the two mindsets.
Also worth your while to read is his article, "I am not a Straussian," which is one of the funniest things I’ve read in some time.
I meant to blog it when it came out a month ago, but I forgot and a chance encounter with the word "Straussian" yesterday brought it to mind.
I re-read it, and it hasn’t changed in a month: It’s still hilarous.
I found the article funny, and I don’t have any idea what Straussianism is.
I don’t know if I am a Straussian or not…
Richard, or Johann?
Tim J.
You seem to be able to write in a manner that doesn’t require the reader to possess a secret de-coder ring. Thus, you are probably not a Straussian.
Denying he’s a Straussian. How typically Straussian.
(this comment is a joke)
I don’t get it.
Kevin, how do I know your parenthetical comment “(this comment is a joke)” is not itself the joke?
A-a-h-h-h-h…
What a clever, good-looking crew we are.
Folks here are enjoying being in on an in joke.
Leo Strauss thought that many philosophers did not say exactly what they believed, sometimes because their opinions would not have been acceptable to the government or society of their times but expressed these opinions in their works in a hidden way.
He was scholar in residence at my college and many people went to his lectures(extracurricular, voluntary, non credit)but I myself never found that thesis compelling as the key to all philosophy.
I am sure there is more to his teaching than this and maybe somebody knowledgable will enlighten us.
Susan Peterson
The dividing line between proto-Straussians and non-Straussians comes, in my mind, to two questions: “Are there some people who are able think in such a way that makes them superior to those who cannot think in that way?” and “In situations where consent is necessary, are “the perceptive” justified in deceiving “the imperceptive” in order to receive their consent?” If you believe the idea, popular among journalists and media types, that, if the people had enough information, they would make a good decision, then Strauss is out of the question.
In a way, it is seems a lot like a political version of gnosticism, and such ideas are repugnant to those who believe wholeheartedly in radical democracy. Or who seem to believe in radical democracy. They may actually know how manipulable the system is and are merely defending the democratic ideal because they know the masses need the illusion of being heard.
The idea was very popular among neo-cons and perhaps among many on the left who would not admit it. To give a hypothetical example, if an insider group knew that another government needed to be overthrown for the good of the whole but also knew that the people would never go for anything like war unless they believed a more immanent threat, like WMDs, it would be OK to deceive them for the greater good. Or if another group knew there were WMDs (or previously believed there to be) but also believed the president to be dangerous, they could legitimately deny having consented in order to stir up the populace for a regime change, even though they do not believe the president to have lied in the first place. All quite hypothetical, of course. I don’t believe any of it. And neither should you.
I would note that the interpretation of all Straussians as deceptive liars is likely too paranoid. Though they are depicted as big fans of Plato’s teachings about lying or creating a myth for the sake of maintaining political order, many are also firm public opponents of moral relativism.
Their great merit, in my view, is that they take the ancient philosophers seriously, as people one must argue with and not mere museum pieces.
Like Strauss himself, Straussians tend to be a bit dismissive towards Christian philosophy. But there are even a few Catholic Straussians: Father Ernst Fortin is definitely one, and Robert Kraynak and Rev. James V. Schall, SJ, seem to have found Straussian analysis insightful.
many are also firm public opponents of moral relativism
But – that’s just what you’d expect! The question is – what’s their real (esoteric) teaching? Just like – as someone observed above – you’d expect a Straussian to deny even being one.
(I’m [mostly] joking, by the way.)
Also – I just re-read the Kagan piece (I’m a WS subscriber and had read it when it came out). I notice that in the middle paragraph (no. 6 out of 11), he appeals to filial piety as his main reason for not being a Straussian. But every Straussian knows that filial piety is for the many and that philosophers are above it. Therefore, Kagan is esoterically signaling to his fellow philosophers that he doesn’t really mean it when he says he’s not a Straussian. QED.
FYI – Leo Strauss and the Neoconservative Cabal Oct. 6, 2005.
Fortin was a brilliant Straussian, the brilliant Schall is not.
Ed: I lost you there – you’re saying that although Schall is generally brilliant and also a Straussian, when he’s a Straussian, he isn’t brilliant – or that he isn’t a Straussian?
he he he. schall is brilliant, but’s he’s not a straussian. thus, brilliant completely catholic scholars can be “straussian” or not.
I’m not sure that there isn’t a pretty significant Straussian influence on Schall – and that this doesn’t detract from what might otherwise be his brilliance. For instance – when he talks about the relationship between faith and reason, the role of religious authorities vis-a-vis decisions like our decision to invade Iraq, that sort of thing – I think there’s a Straussian influence there.