No Comment — January 21, 2008, 5:56 pm

Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up?

Leo Strauss died back in 1973. But in the last few years it’s been hard to come up with a figure who has been more loved and reviled among those who study and write about political philosophy. And even among those who love him, there seems to be a very catty rage over just who are the proper “Straussians.”

A lot of this of course has to do with the Neoconservative movement, which properly claims roots in the writing and thinking of Leo Strauss. The obvious starting point would be to note that while it may be true that the Neocons are Straussians, the suggestion that Strauss is a Neocon is more than doubtful. After all, he died in 1973, and this would seem to attribute to him rather firmly developed notions about a number of things as to which he had no documented position whatsoever.

Among the new books is Eugene Sheppard’s Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile published by Brandeis University Press, a superior work from the more critically inclined camp which I have been thinking of reviewing in the near future (stay tuned). But what draws my immediate attention is Harvey Mansfield’s review of the book in the current issue of the Claremont Review of Books (“Timeless Mind.”)

Mansfield is the consummate American Straussian. His career seems to be marked with a preoccupation with Straussian themes and writers, and his work ranges from the brilliant (especially his Machiavelli writings) to the comical (though perhaps not intentionally so, Manliness). Mansfield hastens to the lists to be Strauss’s defender. But his defense doesn’t persuade me. Neither am I entirely convinced by the critique. Both seem to strain to make Strauss into something which he isn’t. (I don’t know whether Strauss himself would be flattered or embarrassed to be the subject of this intellectual jousting.)

strauss

A focal part of Mansfield’s defense relates to a letter that Strauss wrote to Karl Löwith on May 19, 1933, which I translated and commented upon in my essay “The Letter.” The letter is the most significant document from the time of Strauss’s initial exile that casts light on his politics during that point of historical catharsis. Here is Mansfield’s comment:

In it Strauss shows a “shocking” (Sheppard’s term) receptivity to conservatism in speaking of how to deal with what he called the “shabby monster” of Nazism. Instead of a “laughable and pathetic” appeal to the rights of man—the fixed truths of liberalism—Strauss proposes resorting to the principles of the Roman empire, in Virgil’s words, “to spare the subjects and subdue the proud.” This is what “men of science” should say. The shocking thing is that Strauss says they should speak to right-wing Germany (as it had become) in terms of right-wing principles: “fascist, authoritarian, imperial.” The implication of this progression of terms is that the fascist ordering that consigns Jews like Strauss to the status of natural Untermenschen can be best opposed by consenting to the need for authority , but replacing the principles of the Third Reich with those of the Roman Empire. Strauss says that the “men of science,” including himself, have no place to stay but only seek (non habemus locum manentem, sed quaerimus). It is as if they, from their platform above, were refuting Nazi “natural right” with Roman rather than liberal natural right, replacing vicious right-wing principles with benign ones.

This letter certainly confirms Strauss’s disgust with the liberalism of Weimar Germany, a pitiful and cowardly liberalism unable to defend itself against the Nazis because it had abandoned its own fixed truths and absorbed much of the relativism of German nihilism. . . Obviously this was not the case with all liberalism in 1933, for Strauss fled the Nazi enemy to France, then England, and finally, the United States—all liberal democracies and the last two, it turned out, not incurably infected with appeasement. In effect, Strauss’s letter warns Löwith against putting his trust in the liberals (and Christians) of Germany who had given false assurance of security to German Jews.

Mansfield does an amazing job of projecting back to the first years of Strauss’s emigration attitudes that he developed over a career of writing after he came to the United States. Essentially he’s presenting Strauss as a dynamic new kind of liberal, who is prepared to act robustly (and militarily) to defend democratic institutions. This argument presents a strange contortion of liberalism, just as the main themes of neoconservatism present a departure from the traditional conservatism of the Anglo-American world. But it seriously distorts Strauss’s attitude towards fascism at the time of emigration.

It’s common in speaking about this period to conflate Nazism and fascism. But Strauss certainly would not have done so. Nor would Strauss have labeled himself a “liberal.” Indeed, a historian of the last years of the Weimar Republic would be hard pressed to identify these cowardly Weimar “liberals” of whom Mansfield speaks. The closest candidate would have been the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, associated at its start with Max Weber. It had started the post-war years with a significant stake of the vote (18.5% in 1919), but it faded quickly and by 1928 fell below 5%. The problem with Weimar’s liberals was not, as Mansfield would have it, that they were feckless but that they didn’t exist. Liberalism had been pilloried by the left and the right in Germany. For the great majority of the German electorate, “liberalism” was a foreign political ideology, associated—as Strauss makes plain in this letter—with the values of the French Revolution, or as Thomas Mann would have said in his earliest phase of political consciousness (Gedanken im Kriege, 1914), “Manchestertum,” namely the political philosophy of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Germany was torn between left (by which I mean socialist) and right (on a spectrum between the traditional conservatives of the Wilhelmine period to the Nazis). The liberals could have provided a stable platform from which to defend the values of the republic. . . except that there weren’t many of them, certainly not enough to form a government.

Strauss is arguing that fascism may be an antidote to Nazism. His fascism turns to the Italian model of Mussolini, which drew intensely from the thoughts and concepts of the Roman empire. It was to be sure chauvinist and tinged with racism, but had not in 1933 manifested anything like the anti-Semitism that was being seen in Germany. And Karl Löwith, who was to become one of the best Nietzsche scholars of the last century, was just the proper audience. Like Strauss, Löwith was a cultural conservative who was repelled by Nazism and found a curious attraction, for the moment at least, to Italian fascism—indeed he was living in Italy at the time. Löwith was also fascinated by Martin Heidegger, and was shortly to feel utterly betrayed by him—just as Strauss did. Löwith’s escape, like Strauss’s, was possible thanks to a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation — whose generosity saved several dozen prominent German Jewish scholars from a horrifying fate. He has left us with a fascinating memoir of this period, My Life in Germany Before and After 1933, and he catalogues this period roughly between pp. 47-90. Strauss does not appear explicitly, but several of Löwith’s portraits of German-Jewish academic émigrés sound close to the mark.

The key to understanding the letter lies in the political themes that Strauss adopts, “fascist, authoritarian, imperial.” And the key phrase that can be used to understand “imperial” in Strauss’s sense is supplied when he quotes one of the most famous passages from the sixth book of the Æneid,

Tu regere imperio… parcere subjectis et debellare superbos

But more important than what Strauss quotes is what he elides. The full text reads:

Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento
(Hæc tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere morem,
Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.

You, Romans, take care to rule the world
(for such are your arts), and to crown peace with justice,
To spare the vanquished and to crush the proud.

Throughout the time Strauss was pursuing his university education, Virgil had appeared as a very important figure on the German intellectual stage, mirroring the status he had long held south of the Alps. He was the object of a great deal of contention. For cultural conservatives, like Strauss, Virgil was the philosopher-poet of the Roman Empire, justifying the grandeur, glory and power of authoritarian rule backed by a firm military tradition and a state church. The fascists used the images of imperial Rome as a powerful tool to sell their political thinking. It was, they argued, merely a modernization of these hallowed images. And it was decidedly the Roman empire, not the republic, that was their focus. For those standing on the left-critical side of the spectrum, Virgil was torn between the values of empire and republic, perhaps openly embracing the empire out of political expedience while retaining an inner commitment to republican ideals (this for instance is the Virgil who emerges from the masterwork composed by Strauss’s contemporary and fellow émigré Hermann Broch in Der Tod des Vergil). For Catholics, Virgil was presented as “the father of the West,” and an important forerunner of Christian doctrine. The latter view was being popularized just as Strauss was writing this letter, for Theodor Haecker’s Vergil: Vater des Abendlandes was one of the bestsellers of 1933. Each of these schools had their own reading of the Æneid and particularly of this passage of book six. For the Christians and the left, the key phrase was the commitment to peace and justice, just the words that the right-leaning Strauss has edited out.

Equally revealing are lines that Mansfield neglects to mention, namely Strauss’s condescending remarks about the “entire German-Jewish intellectual proletariat is assembled” in Paris. Let’s keep in mind some of the names about whom Strauss is speaking so disparagingly—Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Heinrich Mann and Kurt Tucholsky, for instance. For Strauss they are “rabble,” but for most of the scholarship of the period, they are major figures and Strauss is a footnote.

And finally, Strauss’s own writings in the period up to and right around the letter leaves no ambiguity as to his ideas about Anglo-American liberalism. He despised it. This emerges especially in several of the essays he authored in connection with the Jubiläumsausgabe of the works of Moses Mendelssohn, and in particular the writings surrounding Lessing and the so-called Spinozastreit. Within the context of German Enlightenment thought, Lessing emerged as an enthusiastic advocate of the American revolution, though his proximity to the Hanoverian crown required him to be discreet about it — this happened based largely on reports of the Philadelphia convention Lessing received from Georg Forster. But Strauss’s criticisms of Lessing and his embrace of political concepts of the Enlightenment are withering. In fact, he picked this issue for his dissertation (Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis, 1921), completed under the supervision of the great Neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, of course, was the man who coined the word “nihilism” and who advanced the view that a state religion was an essential adjunct of any successful state: a proposition rather sharply at odds with the American Founding Fathers. Incidentally, Strauss was not much pleased with his dissertation and hesitated to have it translated and published – with good reason, I think. It’s far below the standards of the works on which his reputation rests, and he grew, over time, rather distant from the ideas espoused in it.

So what does this letter tell us? Strauss is not by any stretch a “liberal,” no matter how you want to qualify that. He is concerned with the hold the Nazis are taking on Germany, and he is looking for a tool to try to pry Germany’s conservatives away from Nazism. There is no doubt that he sees real appeal in fascism, Mussolini style. Strauss’s instincts lie in a pure traditional cultural conservatism. He has no affinity for what followed the collapse of the second Kaiserreich and thought very little of liberal, secular democracy. Probably, like the core of German conservatism, he would have been supremely happy with a resurrection of the Kaiser and his authoritarian rule with minimalist democratic attributes. But he is also remarkably open to a dalliance with fascism.

So there’s good reason for Straussians like Mansfield to be troubled by this letter and what it says about Strauss the man. But we should keep in mind that this is a snapshot in time. Strauss went on to England, and ultimately he made a new homeland in the United States. He clearly changed his attitudes as he came to see that the American project was not the unsustainable horror he first made it out to be. But much of Strauss’s tinkering and his thoughts about “bolstering” American democracy go back to the Caesarism that was common coinage in the days of his university schooling. It clearly has been extremely influential. And not necessarily in a good way.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

September 2019

The Wood Chipper

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Common Ground

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Love and Acid

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Black Axe

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Wood Chipper·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I was tucked in a blind behind a soda machine, with nothing in my hand but notepad and phone, when a herd of running backs broke cover and headed across the convention center floor. My God, they’re beautiful! A half dozen of them, compact as tanks, stuffed into sports shirts and cotton pants, each, around his monstrous neck, wearing a lanyard that listed number and position, name and schedule, tasks to be accomplished at the 2019 N.F.L. Scout­ing Combine. They attracted the stunned gaze of football fans and beat writers, yet, seemingly unaware of their surroundings, continued across the carpet.

Article
Common Ground·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Thirty miles from the coast, on a desert plateau in the Judaean Mountains without natural resources or protection, Jerusalem is not a promising site for one of the world’s great cities, which partly explains why it has been burned to the ground twice and besieged or attacked more than seventy times. Much of the Old City that draws millions of tourists and Holy Land pilgrims dates back two thousand years, but the area ­likely served as the seat of the Judaean monarchy a full millennium before that. According to the Bible, King David conquered the Canaanite city and established it as his capital, but over centuries of destruction and rebuilding all traces of that period were lost. In 1867, a British military officer named Charles Warren set out to find the remnants of David’s kingdom. He expected to search below the famed Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, but the Ottoman authorities denied his request to excavate there. Warren decided to dig instead on a slope outside the Old City walls, observing that the Psalms describe Jerusalem as lying in a valley surrounded by hills, not on top of one.

On a Monday morning earlier this year, I walked from the Old City’s Muslim Quarter to the archaeological site that Warren unearthed, the ancient core of Jerusalem now known as the City of David. In the alleys of the Old City, stone insulated the air and awnings blocked the sun, so the streets were cold and dark and the mood was somber. Only the pilgrims were up this early. American church groups filed along the Via Dolorosa, holding thin wooden crosses and singing a hymn based on a line from the Gospel of Luke: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Narrow shops sold gardenia, musk, and amber incense alongside sweatshirts promoting the Israel Defense Forces.

I passed through the Western Wall Plaza to the Dung Gate, popularly believed to mark the ancient route along which red heifers were led to the Temple for sacrifice. Outside the Old City walls, in the open air, I found light and heat and noise. Tour buses lined up like train cars along the ridge. Monday is the day when bar and bat mitzvahs are held in Israel, and drumbeats from distant celebrations mixed with the pounding of jackhammers from construction sites nearby. When I arrived at the City of David, workmen were refinishing the wooden deck at the site’s entrance and laying down a marble mosaic by the ticket window.

Article
The Black Axe·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Eleven years ago, on a bitter January night, dozens of young men, dressed in a uniform of black berets, white T-­shirts, and black pants, gathered on a hill overlooking the Nigerian city of Jos, shouting, dancing, and shooting guns into the black sky. A drummer pounded a rhythmic beat. Amid the roiling crowd, five men crawled toward a candlelit dais, where a white-­robed priest stood holding an axe. Leading them was John, a sophomore at the local college, powerfully built and baby-faced. Over the past six hours, he had been beaten and burned, trampled and taunted. He was exhausted. John looked out at the landscape beyond the priest. It was the harmattan season, when Saharan sand blots out the sky, and the city lights in the distance blurred in John’s eyes as if he were underwater.

John had been raised by a single mother in Kaduna, a hardscrabble city in Nigeria’s arid north. She’d worked all hours as a construction supplier, but the family still struggled to get by. Her three boys were left alone for long stretches, and they killed time hunting at a nearby lake while listening to American rap. At seventeen, John had enrolled at the University of Jos to study business. Four hours southeast of his native Kaduna, Jos was another world, temperate and green. John’s mother sent him an allowance, and he made cash on the side rearing guard dogs for sale in Port Harcourt, the perilous capital of Nigeria’s oil industry. But it wasn’t much. John’s older brother, also studying in Jos, hung around with a group of Axemen—members of the Black Axe fraternity—who partied hard and bought drugs and cars. Local media reported a flood of crimes that Axemen had allegedly committed, but his brother’s friends promised John that, were he to join the group, he wouldn’t be forced into anything illegal. He could just come to the parties, help out at the odd charity drive, and enjoy himself. It was up to him.

John knew that the Black Axe was into some “risky” stuff. But he thought it was worth it. Axemen were treated with respect and had connections to important people. Without a network, John’s chances of getting a good job post-­degree were almost nil. In his second year, he decided to join, or “bam.” On the day of the initiation, John was given a shopping list: candles, bug spray, a kola nut (a caffeinated nut native to West Africa), razor blades, and 10,000 Nigerian naira (around thirty dollars)—his bamming fee. He carried it all to the top of the hill. Once night fell, Axemen made John and the other four initiates lie on their stomachs in the dirt, pressed toge­ther shoulder to shoulder, and hurled insults at them. They reeked like goats, some Axemen screamed. Others lashed them with sticks. Each Axeman walked over their backs four times. Somebody lit the bug spray on fire, and ran the flames across them, “burning that goat stink from us,” John recalled.

Article
Who Is She?·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I couldn’t leave. I couldn’t get up—­just couldn’t get up, couldn’t get up or leave. All day lying in that median, unable. Was this misery or joy?

It’s happened to you, too, hasn’t it? A habit or phase, a marriage, a disease, children or drugs, money or debt—­something you believed inescapable, something that had been going on for so long that you’d forgotten any and every step taken to lead your life here. What did you do? How did this happen? When you try to solve the crossword, someone keeps adding clues.

It’s happened to us all. The impossible knowledge is the one we all want—­the big why, the big how. Who among us won’t buy that lotto ticket? This is where stories come from and, believe me, there are only two kinds: ­one, naked lies, and two, pot holders, gas masks, condoms—­something you must carefully place between yourself and a truth too dangerous to touch.

Article
Murder Italian Style·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Catholic School, by Edoardo Albinati. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1,280 pages. $40.

In a quiet northern suburb of Rome, a woman hears noises in the street and sends her son to investigate. Someone is locked in the trunk of a Fiat 127. The police arrive and find one girl seriously injured, together with the corpse of a second. Both have been raped, tortured, and left for dead. The survivor speaks of three young aggressors and a villa by the sea. Within hours two of the men have been arrested. The other will never be found.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

After not making a public appearance for weeks and being rumored dead, the president of Turkmenistan appeared on state television and drove a rally car around The Gates of Hell, a crater of gas that has been burning since it was discovered in 1971.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today