Leo Strauss: Philosopher of the New Right

[studiodekadent]

Leo Strauss: Philosopher of the New Right

by Andrew Russell

A long time ago, the US Republican party stopped paying even lip service to Classical Liberalism and instead became controlled by "Neoconservatives."

Neoconservatives believe in, essentially, top-down politics. By this, I mean they believe a society must be manipulated and engineered by the government. Many political creeds believe this: Socialism (especially of the Marxian variety) believes that this must be done through economics (since people are automatons controlled by their economic circumstances, they will follow the economy). So-called "Feminism" (more correctly; political misandry masquerading as equal-rights-for-women) believes this must be done through family law and education. So-called "Multiculturalism" (reverse-racism and thought-reform masquerading as tolerance) believes that this must be done through coercive 'diversity training' that preaches no people of different race can get along without big brother. The Jesus Fascists of the right believe their values (which belong in barbaric, pre-enlightenment ages) should be directly legislated. Oakshottean Conservatives (Conservatives in the traditionalist sense of the word) try to strike a balance, in that they recognize traditions and institutions are ground up, but they protect those institutions with top-down laws, only allowing very slow change on the grounds of 'stability.'

Classical Liberalism, on the other hand, had the insight to realise that society is, generally speaking, self-regulating, and that the only things that must be removed from social relationships are interpersonal coercion (violence or the threat of) and fraud. Hence, it can be seen that the New Left and the New Right are both in open revolt against Classical Liberalism. Both the Diversity Nazis and the Jesus Nazis are Fascists.

Neoconservatism is one arm of the New Right. In order to explain how its 'top-down' politics work, I will use as evidence a quote from the Neocon's favorite philosopher; Leo Strauss.

“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed ... Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.”

In short, human beings are evil and depraved in virtue of their nature, not their actions (what they do) but in their natures (what they are). A newborn human being is evil. This is a restatement of the Christian concept of Original Sin (although the concept is not unique or essential to Christianity). Lets also look at "he has to be governed." By whom? Blank out. Its obvious that human government must be governed by humans (God ain't faxing orders down from heaven these days, and the Aliens sure as hell haven't landed), and yet humans are intrinsically evil. This means that we are not fit to decide our own actions, but we are fit to decide the actions of others. I think it is relatively obvious how absurd this truly is.

Lets look at another component of the quote: "such governance can only be established, however, when men are united." That perpetual emphasis on unity can mean only one thing: collectivism. Man united as, to use Ayn Rand's words, "one neck for one leash." Now, what instrument to use to craft such a collective? Such unity? Strauss recommends religion.

To Quote Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” Any religion will do. “Secular society … is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”

Drury, may I add, is a leftist, so she is not a friend of Individualism. However, the fact remains that Strauss is yet another piece of evidence that religion (any religion) is the enemy of individualism and freedom. Even so, look at how absolutely cold the use of Religion actually is; it is merely a tool and the elite do not need to actually believe it! Now, what movement was beginning to gain strength in the late 80's? The Christian Right! How perfect for the Straussians! Its obvious why the Neocons are so enamoured with the Christian right. Who is the puppet-master in this axis of evil? Manifestly the Straussians. Look at the intellect of the Christian right, or the current ignoramus in the Oval Office: obviously they are critically dependent on advisors (who happen to be, surprise, all Straussians!).

On to the final component of Strauss's quote. "And they can only be united against other people." This explains precisely how monstrous Strauss and his intellectual progeny actually are. Pick a scapegoat, any scapegoat, or let your Christian Soldiers do it for you (and so our scapegoat is homosexuals, maybe muslims as well). Or even better, lauch a war against other people!

To the Classical Liberal vision, war is a catastrophe. War is not only economically counterproductive (there is no such thing as war profiteering, contrary to the ignorance of socialists) but it is a moral monstrosity: the only justifiable reason for going to war is self-defense (real self defense, not falsificated intelligence speculating about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction). To the Straussian view, war is a requirement of government.

The prosecution rests.

SOURCE: http://www.ariwatch.com/AynRandAndTheNobleLie.htm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

I took some time before letting this article through because it appeared more as a rant than an article proper, and it appeared incomplete. For instance, you cite Drury without giving her more specific name, Shadia Drury, and you do not cite her work, Leo Strauss and the American Right. And there are some broad opinions on things like feminism, etc., without any substantiation. I suggest reworking this article to make it more factual and less opinionated—in the sense of being less opinion-heavy quantity-wise, not in the sense of expressing less strong opinions. Strong opinions are good if they are few and backed by cited facts. Strong opinions only are not good.

For instance, you provided a link to an essay by Mark Hunter from ARI Watch (without giving his name, and I admit that he makes it difficult to find out what it is). I disagree with his blasting of Tracinski at the end of the essay for simply being amused and mentioning Rand and Strauss in the same breath (within the specific context of mentioning "conservative thinkers" who rejected Christianity). But Hunter gave sources and quotes before he gave his opinions. I may not agree with his opinions, but I cannot claim that they are completely unfounded.

Actually, Hunter could have done much better (although that does not invalidate my point). I have not read any Strauss, but I personally would not blast a man's ideas based on somebody else's writing (shades of Rand blasting Rawls!). Here is what I mean from Hunter's article Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie:

Here are the main points of Strauss’s philosophy. Except for one quote of Strauss, as noted, all quotes are of Ms. Drury describing Strauss’s ideas.

— There are the rulers and the ruled; “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”

— This elite must perpetually deceive those they rule.

— Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” Any religion will do. “Secular society … is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”

— “... a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, ... if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”

— “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed ... Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.” (Leo Strauss)

To sum up: Strauss advocated a benevolent aristocracy that keeps its citizens in line using religion, deceit, and perpetual war.

I am not saying Strauss is any different than what you or Hunter claimed. However, there is quite a ways to go than your essay went (or even Hunter's) before proving it. The prosecution does not rest by a long shot.

Consider revising. And consider actually reading and quoting Strauss if you want to blast him. As an outline, your article is is not a bad start.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I am not saying Strauss is any different than what you or Hunter claimed. However, there is quite a ways to go than your essay went (or even Hunter's) before proving it. The prosecution does not rest by a long shot.

Consider revising. And consider actually reading and quoting Strauss if you want to blast him. As an outline, your article is is not a bad start.

Michael

Michael,

My article was intended as a brief summary rather than a conclusive philosophical review. A conclusive and thorough review of Strauss would need a book length. And the quote I provided from Strauss was directly from Strauss, and Im sure you would agree that the quote has rather frightening implications.

There are many other elements of Strauss I could bring in, for example his belief that the goodness of a society is not in the freedom enjoyed by the citizens but how virtuous the citizens are. In practice this means the state enforces its version of morality at gunpoint. Strauss certainly deserves a longer 'thorough critique' than what I have given, but as I said I did not want to advance the definitive rebuttal to Strauss, merely contribute to the Anti-Straussian intellectual ammo.