Strauss and Neoconservatism

Over the last months, I've thought quite a bit about "neoconservatism" and the works of Leo Strauss. The influence of the latter on the former is not at all evident to me.

I wonder if those keen to establish a close connection have read many - or any - of the works of Strauss. I have read a fair number - "The City and Man," "Natural Right and History," "What is Political Philosophy?," "Persecution and the Art of Writing," "A History of Political Philosophy" (to which Strauss contributed, and co-edited, with Joseph Cropsey), etc. As Strauss was nothing if not a counsellor of careful, charitable reading of primary texts, he would be amongst the first to point out that my having "read" these works doesn't imply that I've come to terms with them. True enough; but on my reading - however imperfect - the programmatic of Strauss seems only dimly related to that of neoconservatism.

The similitude I notice is that Strauss was keenly alive to the limitations of "Liberalism," or what we might call constitutional democracy. Having beheld the disintegration of Weimar first hand, and having the not implausible view that its weakness was to some extent one endemic to democracy itself, he was keen to see that American Liberalism be "shored up" so as to prevent a similar implosion. The substance of his "conservatism" was very much at-odds with the dominant strains in the Anglo-American variety which runs through much of American tradition and political thought - it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that his point of departure was the account that Socrates gives of the various "regimes" in Plato's Republic, an account none too enthusiastic about Democracy (by contrast note that Thomas Jefferson detested the Republic). At least rhetorically, the neocons express their idealism in a recognizably and unashamedly American idiom. A "noble lie"? Possible, but I think not likely - their "political philosophy" (creed) doesn't seem to be exceptionally attenuated by "political philosophy" (expedient, politically sensitive presentation).

If one wished for a shorthand slogan for neoconservatism, whatever its demerits, surely it would be something like "seeking to renew/revive American idealism, so as to strengthen the nation morally and materially to meet the (grave) perils at hand." It's that sense of seeking to revivify the foundations of American civic life - rekindling the fire of civic piety - which arguably shows a Straussian imprint. As to "regime change," "promoting Democracy" 'round the world, etc. ; those might not be inconsistent with Strauss' teaching, but they hardly are implied by his often (intentionally) esoteric writings on classical political philosophy. Perhaps the strongest connection one could make is that some of the neocons have cited Strauss as an influence, and their doctrine is reasonably stimulating and coherent, compared to the usual doctrinal welter that issues from prosaic political parties and politicians. (As to the neoconservative proclamation of American pre-eminence and even "destiny," it's not clear to me how much of that simply poetizes the obvious, and how much is a sincere kind of American Hegelianism - after all, the neocons are allegedly chastened Leftists).

Aside from reading the man himself, an interesting commentary and analysis of Strauss may be found in a recent volume, Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order, by Ted V. McAllister.