The Narrow Passage: Plato, Foucault, and the Possibility of Political Philosophy

by Glenn Ellmers

Americans are more divided today than at any time since the Civil War. Our differences are not merely moral and political, but philosophical, and even spiritual. We hardly seem to experience the same reality anymore, preferring to self-select into media perception chambers whose projections vary according to political persuasion.
Something has gone terribly wrong in the American political community. We have entered an era wherein the federal government’s democratically elected officers are powerless in comparison to their unelected, bureaucratic counterparts. The old balance of power, laid out in the Constitution, has been replaced by an entirely new structure.
The American regime has become post-constitutional. But what is this post-constitutional arrangement? How does it operate? Who is in charge? Can it be overcome? What role will the Constitution play in the nation’s future?
Glenn Ellmers—senior fellow with the Claremont Institute, widely-published analyst of current affairs, and scholar of political philosophy—provides answers to these and other questions, as he explores the deepest roots of our political turmoil, illustrating the connections between government bureaucracy, the misuse of science, and the leftwing ideology that controls so much of our public and private life.

Genres: Politics

120 pages, Hardcover

Published July 11, 2023

Reviews

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author attempts to provide a political way forward for a deeply divided America. A central theme of this book is the "battle between the scientific-bureaucratic-rational state (which comes out of Hegel) and the post-modern rejection of all objective standards (which comes out of Nietzsche)." Between these two horrific choices lies the choice of self-government and/or ordered liberty. The author, although aware of the dangerous trajectory of the West, is more optimistic than I am concerning the future of the Western world. Nevertheless, it is worth reading. Having a broad educational background in political and social philosophy is a must in understanding the book.

[Peter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quite frustrating. Ellmers is for America's founding, and also against modern liberalism. He favors a clear distinction between public and private, but supports a new political theology. He argues that the Chinese really understand the problem of modernity, but ignores that Chinese communism is part of the modern rationalist project. He opposes dogmatism, and he insists that our problems are on the left (and that the proto-fascists on the right should be excused). He wants to restore the constitution, and also suggests we find a strongman to suspend it. He thinks Platonic rationalism is the root of our problem, and also its solution.

He sees the mote in his brother's eye but not the beam in his own.

Mostly he advocates a restoration of political theology against the forces of rationalism.

It's not terribly coherent. Challenging, and I'm glad I read it so I could think through its errors. But not recommended.

[David McGrogan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am sympathetic to the basic idea behind this book, and there are some important germs of insight, but in the main it is simply too brief and muddled to be taken seriously - indeed, it borders on being incoherent. It conveys the impression of having been written in a great hurry. I also can't help but wonder who it is written for. It is impossible really to make head or tail of without being steeped in the work of Leo Strauss (whose name, inexplicably, does not appear in the title, despite occupying perhaps 75% of the book's attention). Clearly, then, it would leave the layperson utterly nonplussed. Yet it is also too slim and discursive for a scholarly text. This makes its aims rather mystifying.

[Will Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, almost unintelligible. Ellmers set himself much too lofty of a goal in trying to illustrate the issue with modern thinking and the answers provided by political philosophy, all in the space of 75 pages. You would expect that, given its brevity, this book would be very focused and to the point, but it's actually quite the opposite. Ellmers never seems to hone in on his point, and even his point just seems to be a restatement of what other thinkers have said much more clearly. Pretty disappointed with this book but at least it introduced me to some new authors and books I will be reading in the future.

[James Long · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat difficult but a worthy read

I was hoping for a greater dissemination of the philosophies and how they seemed relevant in today's political theater. The word age seemed a little more academic then necessary for an non academic reader.

[Jack Janzen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think my problem with the book is that I did not have the prerequisite understanding of the philosophy linked to the ideas presented.

[Marge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Political philosphy... hmmm. Deep but semi interesting.

[Jerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t even begin to know how to summarize this for myself. It is very short, and very dense. It focuses specifically on the philosophy of Leo Strauss and, to a lesser extent, Harry Jaffa. More specifically, the political philosophy, and the necessity of a political philosophy for the United States that unites rather than divides.

Leo Strauss’s essay “The Three Waves of Modernity” serves as a loose model, but with significant additions from other figures including Machiavelli, Fustel de Coulanges, Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Liu Xiaofeng, as well as several of my own teachers. In each case I have tried to emphasize those observations that are most relevant for understanding our current dilemma.

Of all of the other books I’ve read, this reminds me most of Einstein’s Relativity, which was similarly fascinating, well-written, and difficult enough to understand that I did not. While the book does not require that you be well-educated in philosophy and the history of philosophy, it definitely helps.

The focus is on the growing foundational divide within the United States, in which both ends become increasingly detached from the general population, or, in his words, “our twin political dangers of rational tyranny and tribal passions”.

As belief—in anything, let alone a deity—disappears into “the spiritual emptiness of modern life”, what fills the void of our primal urge to believe in something is a pre-civilizational barbarism (my words) that manifests itself in a pre-political tribalism.

The primal urge to believe and belong seems to be erupting in such alarming ways because it is expressing itself only in resentment and racial antagonism. To become properly political, to establish the conditions for a virtuous life, those instincts must be elevated by rational thought. If our moral-political divide leads only to a battle of wills and preferences, it would be no more dignified or meaningful than scorpions fighting in a bottle.

Much of the book also is about the technological commodification of life, and how that makes it impossible for consumers to believe what they consume. Civilization, however, preceded our modern technological innovation, and in that before-time something spiritual was lost.

Renewing the productive tension between reason and revelation can only take place by recovering the pre-scientific form of pious rootedness.

Even back as far as Plato the idea of the statesman as the leader of his flock was recognizable as flawed if one looked at it.

Taken as a whole, the dramatic section of the dialogue [in Plato’s The Statesman] seems to indicate by counter-argument that the carnivorous interest the shepherd has in his flock is not a suitable analogue to lawgiving among men.

That carnivorous interest has only become more obvious in this age of the tech billionaire and the world-traveling technocrat.

Another piece of media the book reminded me of is the movie musical Cabaret, and the very important question, “Do you still think you can control them?”

One of the central themes of this book is the battle between the scientific-bureaucratic-rational state (which comes out of Hegel) and the post-modern rejection of all objective standards (which comes out of Nietsche). Harry Neumann insisted that in this conflict the corrosive power of historicist nihilism will inevitably win out. This would mean, by the way, that in the factional struggle between the Left’s oligarchic and anarchistic elements—Silicon Valley versus Antifa—the technocrats wealth and power will eventually fail, since they have no solid basis on which to defend their legitimacy or expertise. Their trust in science is ultimately arbitrary.

This is a book that will benefit from multiple readings in order to have any idea of what the hell it’s even talking about—and likely be worth the time taken.