|
The futile attempt to link Strauss to the neocons
(A slightly different version of this was sent as a letter to the editor of Prospect a few weeks ago; the editors initially expressed interest in publishing it, then changed their minds.) In the excellent first half of Edward Skidelsky’s article, “No more heroes,” appearing in the British web magazine Prospect, he explains Leo Strauss’s philosophy and shows that it has nothing to do with today’s global democratist neoconservatism. Thus he inadvertently undercuts his thesis that today’s neoconservatives are followers of Strauss. In the second half of the article, despite his valid insights into Strauss in the first half of the article, Skidelsky keeps trying to force together Strauss and the neocons, Strauss and his vulgarized successors. His argument is that Strauss was a non-liberal believer in virtue (and thus bad from a liberal point of view), and that the neocons are non-liberal believers in virtue (and thus bad from a liberal point of view). The argument doesn’t hold up. Today’s neocons have gone so far off in a strange direction of their own (and many of them were never Straussians to begin with) that nothing useful or true is gained by trying to connect them to Strauss. Skidelsky writes: “Like so many other forms of imperialism, [neoconservatism’s] secret focus is domestic. Its ostensible mission of spreading freedom around the globe is in reality an instrument for the kindling of public spirit at home.” I concede that there is some truth to this. Think of William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s article some years ago on “National Greatness Conservatism.” They thought that by pursuing some large project, America could restore a sense of common moral purpose. But, as was widely noted at the time, Kagan and Kristol had no thought about what this purpose should be; they just wanted something big. They were pushing “greatness” for its own sake, which in practice comes down to believing in power for its own sake. Any assertion of a philosophical connection between these vulgar promoters of greatness for the sake of greatness and Leo Strauss, with his profound grounding in Plato and Aristotle, has gotten so thin and selective by this point that it has no relevance and is deeply misleading. Then there is Skidelsky’s assertion that neocons are nationalists. Wrong. The neocons are nationalist only insofar as American national power serves their global democratist objectives. They care nothing about the American nation as a nation. Can you call fanatical advocates of open borders—which is what the neocons are—“nationalists”? Can you call people who routinely label as racists and xenophobes ordinary Americans who want their borders protected from an illegal alien invasion—nationalists? Can you call people who define their country as a universal idea—nationalists? Can you call these universalist democratists “conservatives”? It’s absurd. The truth (which Skidelsky touches on and then shies away from) is that the neocons are a type of liberal, though with some conservative elements thrown into the mix, such as support for national defense. They are not conservatives or nationalists by any genuine definitions of those words. Strauss’s thought, derived from the Platonic teaching of a natural constitution of man and society, would lead to a devotion to the well-being of one’s own society. The neocons’ thought leads to a restless search for some idea or slogan (“All people in the world want freedom, and any threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to our security”) as the basis for an unending global crusade. Trying to connect the neocons to Strauss’s traditionalist conservatism, Skidelsky says that the neocons are crusaders, and therefore not liberals, because liberals believe in live and let live. That is a selective and self-serving definition of liberalism. Liberalism has been calling itself a fighting creed since long before neoconservatism came along. Has Skidelsky never heard of Woodrow Wilson?
In conclusion, let us accept as true Skidelsky’s statement that the neocons believe in the use of American power to advance a moral purpose in the world, namely universal liberal democracy, and that they hope in the process to reinvigorate American public morality and self-confidence. I don’t see what this has to do with Leo Strauss. The argument comes down to saying that Strauss believed in virtue, and the neocons believe in virtue, and therefore the neocons are followers of Strauss. This is like saying that Charles Martel believed in armies, and the neocons believe in armies, and therefore the neocons are followers of Charles Martel. Some important distinctions have been lost. Martel believed in the use of armies to defend European Christendom from Moslem invasion and conquest. The neocons believe in the use of armies to spread liberal democracy to all humanity, with the aim of creating a single mankind unified under a single global ideology. The neocons are not conservatives. They are liberal—even leftist—revolutionaries. Email entry |