The intellectual sterility of the neocons

The philosophical framework of the Powerline blog is defined by the Jaffa-ite school of thought of the Claremont Institute, an ideologically debased version of Straussianism that makes “all men are created equal” the sole dispositive principle of all questions in the universe, including the question of whether to invade and democratize a Muslim country. The cultural framework of Powerline is defined by pop culture. The only cultural references I’ve ever seen the Powerline guys make are to their favorite pop musicians and to beauty contests, of which they are particular fans. I was surprised, therefore, when this morning Scott of Powerline quoted Yeats’s “Easter 1916,” with its famous line, “A terrible beauty is born.”

Unfortunately, because the younger neocons (meaning young compared to the neocon founding generation) have such a narrow intellectual and cultural base, whenever they do make literary references they almost invariably get them wrong. Thus Scott’s painfully ham-handed application of “Easter 1916” to the current controversy at Dartmouth College.

Knowing nothing except pop culture and “all men are created equal,” neocons exhibit the same cluelessness with regard to literature as they do with regard to foreign policy.

- end of initial entry -

Thomas West writes:

On Sept 10 (yesterday), in your criticism of Powerline, you said that “the Jaffa-ite school of thought of the Claremont Institute” is “an ideologically debased version of Straussianism that makes “all men are created equal” the sole dispositive principle of all questions in the universe.”

Leaving aside your quarrel with Powerline, I don’t understand why you speak so negatively of Jaffa and those who respect him. I am a former student of Jaffa. In 2004 I published an article on Leo Strauss and foreign policy in which I argued that neither Strauss nor America’s Founders would have supported the neocon views of Bill Kristol and his like. My guess is that you would find the article quite sympathetic.

As for immigration policy, I recently co-authored a book on immigration together with two other former Jaffa students. In my chapter, I show that the Founders’ principles rightly understood lead necessarily, under current circumstances, to a restrictive immigration policy. Again, I think you would like it.

The point of my work on the Founding is to revive the true meaning of what I regard as the sanest approach to politics in the modern world—that of Locke and the Founders. Unfortunately, the vocabulary of the founding has been appropriated and abused by today’s liberals, so that most Americans no longer understand the meaning of the elementary concepts of equality and liberty as they were once soberly understood.

By the way, I don’t believe the principle of equality solves all problems.

LA replies:

Dear Professor West,

Thanks for writing.

First, I did not say that Strauss would have agreed with the neoconservative ideology or with Jaffa-ism; I called Jaffa-ism a debased version of Straussianism (and see below for clarification of what I mean by Jaffa-ism). I am not a student of Strauss and have only read one entire book of his, Natural Right and History. But from what I have read of Strauss I do not think that he is the source of the neocon universalist democratist ideology, and I’ve criticized people like Claes Ryn and even Paul Gottfried for declaring (with no evidence) that he is. I think Strauss is much more conservative than the neoconservatives and that he respects individual nations, which the neocons do not do. I see no basis for saying that Strauss would support universal crusades to spread democracy.

Second, I was aware when I wrote the entry about Powerline that not all people associated with Claremont and Jaffa’s thought are supporters of Bush’s Iraq policy. Obviously Mark Helprin and Angelo Codevilla, who are contributors at Claremont, have been strong critics of the Bush policy (and in fact I have drawn on their ideas in forming my “Separationist” policy.) However, I’m not aware of Helprin and Codevilla actually being Jaffa-ites, which I define as someone who makes the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence the key to all political and moral understandings, as literally everything I’ve ever read by Harry Jaffa has done.

Perhaps Charles Kesler of Claremont is more of a Jaffa-ite, and he has criticized the Bush policy, but in terms so cautious and attenuated they make no impact.

Also, I did not say that Jaffa-ism necessarily leads to support for the Bush policy; I said that Jaffa-ism reduces all questions to “all men are created equal.” However, maybe I was not correct or fair in this, since, as I said, what I really mean by Jaffa-ism is what I’ve read by Jaffa himself, and I am not clear on “Jaffa-ism” as a consistent position followed by students of his, though some clearly have that orientation. So, perhaps I should say that I’m speaking of Jaffa himself, not necessarily of all people who see themselves as his students and followers.

Thanks very much for the article and chapter, which I look forward to reading.

Best regards,
Lawrence Auster

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 10, 2007 02:16 PM | Send