Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America

by Paul Edward Gottfried

This book offers an original interpretation of the achievement of Leo Strauss, stressing how his ideas and followers reshaped the American conservative movement.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Politics, Nonfiction, American

194 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2011

About the author

Paul Edward Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles and a former Horace Raffensperger professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.

Reviews

[Dietrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Gottfried’s critical appraisal of Strauss and the Straussians is learned, sensible, and fair-minded. I find 3 general aspects of Gottfried’s book especially persuasive: 1) Gottfried effectively relates Strauss’s hermeneutic to his strong sense of Jewish self-identity and his experience of having to emigrate from Nazi Germany to the Anglosphere. By doing so, it becomes apparent that 2) it is very difficult to separate Strauss’s hermeneutical system from certain definite political commitments. And 3) Gottfried amply demonstrates that the Straussian hermeneutic, passed on uncritically from generation to generation, is highly problematic.

The portrait that emerges of Strauss as a young man in this book is that of a philosophically sophisticated and probably religiously skeptical Weimar Jew, whose enthusiasms included a defense of Jewish orthodoxy and the support of political Zionism. After leaving Hitler’s Germany, Strauss eventually developed a defense of the Anglosphere, hoping that these countries could provide support for Israel and a place where Jews could live safely and comfortably. Strauss became a staunch supporter of “liberal democracy,” and his philosophical system attempts to “ground” liberal democracy in such a way as to ward off a potential repeat of Weimar.

At the basis of Strauss’s system is an equation of classical rationalism with skepticism. Strauss’s Plato does not believe in the eternal forms, and affirms no knowledge concerning any larger metaphysical reality. (Gottfried suggests this skeptical interpretation of Plato, which is based on very little evidence and which flies in the face a seeming mountain of countervailing evidence, amounts to a Straussian “leap of faith.”) This interpretation lays the ground for and is tied up with other commitments: esoteric writing; Jerusalem vs. Athens; a history of political philosophy characterized by an ancients/moderns split and 3 waves of modernity; an interpretation of America as the best of contemporary regimes, grounded in natural right; a valorization of natural right at the expense of specific religious and cultural traditions; an assault on historicism, relativism, positivism and nihilism; a belief that philosophical ideas rule the world. Gottfried shows how for Straussians, all these commitments tend to go together to make up one binding tradition. In addition, when speaking of Strauss’s treatment of esoteric writing, Gottfried makes the shrewd observation that “Because we cannot know the intention of an author in the way that Strauss says we can, we are therefore required to perform a leap of faith by accepting his interpretation of authorial intention. To the weight of a tradition that is philosophically opposed to tradition is now added the weight of authority, or the master’s claim to truth.” (p.155) And looking at the basic elements of this cohesive Straussian system, liberal democracy is affirmed on the universalistic, philosophic ground of natural right.

Gottfried’s examination of Strauss’s life and hermeneutic helps show that Straussianism helps provide an underpinning for what is variously called right-wing liberalism, cold-war liberalism, or neo-conservatism. This neo-conservatism involves the crusade to spread the blessings of liberal democracy to all peoples around the globe, a defense of Israel in the Middle East, and a comfortable acceptance of statism at home. Gottfried does not go so far as to simply equate Straussianism and neo-conservatism, but in practical terms, the two are basically impossible to disentangle. Gottfried also does not consider the divisions between different Straussian camps all that significant. When it comes to politics, these groups are basically similar. Gottfried also laments that in recent decades, “conservatism” in America has largely come to be identified with this right-wing liberalism. Older, and from Gottfried’s point of view, more authentic conservative traditions have been increasingly marginalized.

Gottfried acknowledges but does not emphasize places in Strauss’s writings that seem to indicate an ultimate pessimism concerning all modern regimes. Though some interpreters make much of such moments, Gottfried sees such pessimism as inconsequential in comparison to the general direction of Strauss’s work. However, it does show that Strauss was able see beyond his own liberal democratic salvage project. Gottfried sees Strauss as highly insightful and capable of sympathy for surprising points of view, and far more flexible and learned than most of his progeny. Gottfried, a right wing thinker, even points out that Strauss provided very astute observations concerning Left and Right that showed he understood very well what one might call the concerns of Gottfried. Gottfried generally does not think that Strauss’s pupils have managed to live up to the master. Even so, he is far from dismissive of all their work, and acknowledges the many real contributions Strauss and the Straussians have made to the world of scholarship.

Nevertheless, despite his respectful and at times even appreciative treatment of Strauss and the Straussians, Gottfried provides a rigorous challenge to the Straussian hermeneutic. In chapter 4, he marshals different (though sometimes overlapping) sets of critiques from two basic groups: traditionalist conservative intellectuals and more mainstream scholars from the Academy. For me, this chapter was the heart of the book. I will not delve into specifics here, but I will say that basically every element of the Straussian hermeneutic I listed in the 3rd paragraph comes under assault. Interestingly enough, these powerful criticisms are largely ignored by the Straussians, who instead choose to engage leftist criticism that they are far right-wing extremists.

The Straussians have no trouble meeting this leftist challenge. The Straussians may be right wing liberals, but that is different than being right wing. The Straussians tend to come across looking good in such encounters. But why not address tougher, more substantive criticism? Gottfried clearly does not sympathize with Straussian politics and dearly wishes these thinkers would reexamine their philosophical presuppositions that support such political commitments. Even beyond political considerations, though, it is healthy for a movement to engage the intellectual critics in order to evolve. But, thinks Gottfried, as long as these Straussians can get away with insulating their hermeneutic from challenge in order to train more adepts in their strongholds, the Straussians will probably not reassess their interpretive tradition. And because in Gottfried’s opinion “we are now dealing with epigones with far less humanistic erudition but with a warlike devotion to democracy and human rights,” there has been a definite shift in emphasis in the movement. What was once partly political has been increasingly absorbed in politics.

I would be curious to read a Straussian reply to Gottfried’s critical appraisal. This is a serious book that merits a serious response.

I would also mention that very recently, a minority faction of Strauss-influenced thinkers have broken with neo-conservatism in support of Donald Trump, the candidate whom Gottfried supported in the recent election. Now that Trump has won, I imagine the attempt to reconcile Strauss’s legacy with Trump’s populist nationalism will move forward. I wonder whether Gottfried thinks the Straussian theoretic preference for natural right over history is ultimately compatible with such populist nationalism.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fair minded, if paleo-conservative, critique and explication of Strauss. Particularly interesting is Gottfried´s critique of Strauss´s notions of "political philosophy" as well as his delineation between types of Straussian thinkers. The focus of this book, despite its title, is mostly aimed understanding if Strauss could be said to have a strong relationship to the conservative movement, and how different Strauss actually was from neo-conservatives and the more aggressive thinkers around Strauss´s students like A. Bloom and Jaffa. The first two biographical chapters are enlightening. My primary complaint is that book could have been a little longer and more developed, although its a fairly quick read at less than 200 pages.

[A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good on the politics, bad on the theory (par for the course when the subject is Strauss, whether supporters or detractors). This problem, I suspect, is the product of an inability to differentiate between Strauss and his ostensible students; this inability is in turn a consequence of a lack of recognition of the manner in which Strauss wrote his books. (That is to say, Strauss 'practiced' what he 'preached'.)

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal" is a book written by Paul Edward Gottfried, a political scientist and academic, that examines the ideas and influence of Leo Strauss, a German-American political philosopher, on the conservative movement in the United States.

In the book, Gottfried provides a critical analysis of Strauss's thought and its impact on the conservative movement in America. He discusses Strauss's ideas about the role of philosophy in politics, the importance of tradition and classical learning, and the dangers of relativism and nihilism.

Gottfried also examines the ways in which Strauss's ideas have been received and interpreted within the conservative movement, and the ways in which they have influenced the development of conservative thought and policy in the United States. He suggests that Strauss's ideas have had a significant impact on the conservative movement and have shaped its approach to a range of issues, including foreign policy, social conservatism, and the role of religion in public life.

Overall, "Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal" is a thought-provoking and insightful examination of the ideas and influence of Leo Strauss on the conservative movement in the United States. It is an important resource for anyone interested in the history and development of conservative thought in America.

GPT

[The American Conservative]

'In Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America Paul Gottfried, the Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, offers an explanation of the Straussian phenomenon that is concise and compelling. While treating Strauss’s work with considerable respect, Gottfried concludes that the historians’ and philosophers’ rejection of Strauss is, for the most part, justified. However, unlike critics on the left who suggest that Strauss is illiberal and anti-modern, Gottfried argues that Strauss’s appeal consists largely in his creation of a mythical account of the rise of liberal democracy and its culmination in a creedal conception of the American polity.'

Read the full review, "The Right's False Prophet," on our website: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...