Being Leo
Strauss
Monday April 17th 2006, 6:52 pm
Leave it up to the Straussian house organ, the Weekly Standard, to write about Leo Strauss without really saying too much about Leo Strauss. In the latest issue, Steven J. Lenzner reviews Heinrich Meiers Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem. Meir, described as a prominent interpreter of Rousseau, apparently tackled Strauss after an exhausting dissection of the political theologian Carl Schmitt, who was a Nazi (no mention that here). Strauss showed that the underlying basis of Schmitts affirmation of the political was a profound dissatisfaction with liberalismthat is, with liberal universalism and its aspirations for boundless security and a life that seeks fulfillment in the interesting and entertaining. Liberalism, according to Schmitt, was above all a rejection of the political, the characteristic distinction of which he held to be the division into friends and enemies. Such a lifelacking the passion and commitment that would lead one to die for a causeseemed to Schmitt a rejection of all that was high and vital in man, writes Lenzner. Classical liberalism, as opposed to modern liberalism, can be defined as a tradition which holds libertyfreedom of thought, limited government, the rule of law, and the free exchange of ideasas a primary political value (the word liberal comes from the Latin liber, or free). Schmitt rejected the idea of liberty and embraced dictatorial government and the German concept of Ausnahmezustand, or a state of emergency, and the disencumbering of the executive branch from all legal (and moral) restraint, as Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. For Schmitt, Ausnahmezustand (literally, state of exception) allowed the executive, as a dictatorial office not obliged to a Constitution, to engage in violence under right, thus transforming the state into a death machine (Schmitt would later condone the Night of the Long Knives as the highest form of administrative justice). It only takes a cursory glance to see an ugly glimmer of this authoritarian philosophy at work in the Bush administration under the sway of the Straussian neoconsfrom Guantanamo Bay to the NSA snoop scandal and beyond (note: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) accuse Bush in separate letters of illegally initiating military action against Iran without congressional authorization and plan to introduce a resolution in opposition). Meiers complex exposition and arguments give no inkling of the fascistic character of Carl Schmitt and his student Leo Strauss, at least not in Steven J. Lenzners review of his book. Instead, Meir apparently investigates, in Strauss words, the relation between society and philosophy, not the ultimate outcome of that philosophy (the effort to destroy classical liberalism and create a dictatorship). In contrast to the widespread abuse of mining Strausss works for snippets that ostensibly show Strausss agenda, Meier treats them as invitations to think about the most important problems; that is, to philosophize, that is, to avoid the terrible totality of the Straussian philosophy with its underpinnings in the authoritarian theology of Machiavelli and Schmitt. Hardcore Straussians like to call this esotericism. The esoteric, or supposedly secret teaching which [Strauss] inculcated into [Thomas] Pangle, [Allan] Bloom, Werner Dannhauser, and many others, including, reportedly, Blooms protégé Paul Wolfowitz, was indeed pure Nietzsche, writes Tony Papert. From Nietzsche to Leo Strauss, only the names have been changed, as they say. To begin with, what Nietzsche called the superman, or the next man, Strauss calls the philosopher. Papert continues:
Lenzner tells us by serving as a timely and enticing summons to accept Strausss generosity, Meiers work helps us begin to understand the greatness of Strauss as a philosopher. That is an achievement worthy of note and gratitude. Strauss is all about Nietzschean relativism (the Nazis liked this about Nietzsche toomade it easier to kill millions of people) and Hegelian historicismthat is, the end of history and, as Nietzsche saw it, a return the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy (Strauss, however, sternly rejected the Socratic question: What is the good for the city and man?). As Bush and his Straussian crew have repeatedly demonstrated, the executive has embraced antiquity, including Platos idea of noble lies as reformulated by Strauss and his students and their students. In the process, liberty is to be flushed down the tubes. Now, as the idea of perpetual war gains momentum under a shock and awe campaign gearing up to decimate Iran (and destinations beyond), we are beginning to see the horrible price humanity will be required to pay for the post-Straussian ideal and Schmitts decree of endless friends and enemies and Thomas Hobbes bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. And it sure aint pretty. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|