oliver craner said:
The documentary was anything but an in-depth account of Leo Strauss's ideas or method: Curtis has simply given you a crude caricature to work with.
Both of you sucumb to the classic mistake of over-emphasising Leo Strauss. Why not Allan Bloom? Why not Albert Wohlstetter? Why not George Schlutz? Why not people involved with policy making in the Reagan Administration? Or the Nixon one?
If it has to be Strauss, then why not Plato, or Machiavelli, or Hobbes, or Locke? Maybe then at least you'd get around to engaging with Strauss. And, perhaps, effectively countering him.
Incidentally, I know that I'm a worse person than Leo Strauss.
some would argue that every thinker is responsible for his epigones. maybe. but i agree with oliver crane that the bbc doc "power of nightmares," which i've read in transcript but have not seen in video, provides only a crude caricature of strauss . . . .
if resort to secondary literature you must, then i'd recommend, w/ some reservations, Anne Norton's "Leo Strauss and The Politics of American Empire" (Yale, 2004).
and if you can track down the essays, Gregory Bruce Smith's "Leo Strauss and the Straussians: An Anti-Democratic Cult?" (PS: Political Science and Politics, June 1997) , and Robert Pippin's "The Modern World of Leo Strauss" (Political Theory, August 1992)
but if you can find the time, i'd suggest reading Strauss himself. whatever his politics or final positions, he is without question intricate, subtle, profound . . . .
for most, i'd suggest beginning with his book "natural right and history."
for people with a particular interest in plato, spinoza, machiavelli, or hobbes, strauss has books on each of these thinkers . . . .
also, strauss' "on tyranny," though it begins as a commentary of xenophon's "hiero," contains in its published form an extensive debate with kojeve concerning the modern state, liberal democrary, the end of history, the last man, etc
and the u. of chicago edition of schmitt's "concept of the political" also contains leo strauss' critique of schmitt's thesis . . . .
but getting back to what the bbc doc says about strauss, i can only reply that strauss is a notoriously difficult thinker to pin-down to any final position (largely because, like Derrida, he presented himself as a scholar-commentator, writing about other texts, not writing in his own name) . . . . if anything, strauss' thought pivots around "eternal" questions, reason vs revelation, ancients versus moderns, the relationship of philosophy to the city, without ever resolving these questions . . . . whether he is for (1) plato (philosophy as man's highest end and the best way of life); (2) nietzsche/machiavelli (philosophy as will to power); (3) heidegger/revelation; (4) some eccentric brand of judaism; or (5) position 2 read into position 1 == i imagine very few people can say with certainty strauss' final position
clearly strauss accepts much of the nietzschean/heideggerian critique of modernity (and liberal democracy), but then so does every other interesting thinker of the past 100 years
as for the political views of strauss' students, it is clear that many of his most prominent students were/are political conservatives. but they're not monolithic in their conservatism. joseph cropsey is not harvey mansfield is not allen bloom is not harry jaffa. and many of his other students, say stanley rosen, are not identified with political commitments. and still others are on the left, albeit not nearly so prominent as his conservative students ------ but really, if you're looking for the story of the movement from Strauss to (1) the so-called Straussians and the Neo-Conservatives now making U.S. policy, as distiingusihed from (2) students of Strauss and of his writings and interpretive techniques. . . . then consult the Anne Norton book, that is, the real story of American neo-conservatism is the APPROPRIATION of Strauss by people like Irving Kristol, the use of his name to give pedigree to a program largely at odds with his thought
also, much of the distrust of Strauss is connected to his theory of esoteric/exoteric writing. certainly his interpretations of past thinkers are disturbing -- in some cases (like Locke, like Xenophon), it does seem that Strauss does serious violence to the text; in other cases (like Machiavelli, like Plato), his approach may well be correct ------- of course to really assess Strauss' readings of philosophic texts, you have to study the texts closely in conjunction with Strauss' commentary -- that is, this is the very same procedure that you have to use in assessing Derrida's readings . . . . AND OF COURSE, most people are not going to make the investment in time and effort (myself included, sadly) -- for most readers, the experience of strauss' profound cunning and insight is reason enough to read him (but won't entitle you to defend or attack his interpretations of this or that past thinker)
and last, i should add that Strauss exerts through his writings a strange charisma (the intoxicating effect of his intellectual cunning), and that charismatic men attract all kinds of followers, some first class, some mediocre, others power-hungry and ambitious
and one last point -- nothing could be further from Strauss that the neo-conservative enterprise to "ennoble" America by fighting "evil" in Iraq (as "Power of Nightmares" presents the matter) -- Only when fought b/w relative equals is war ennobling. And even if so fought, in the age of technology everything about war is so altered that perhaps even wwii was not, in the end, noble or ennobling -- So Strauss would have criticized the invasion of Iraq both on prudential grounds and because the war, as experienced by most Americans watching on tv, is the very opposite of ennobling
as for Oliver Craner's wider views on the global situation and the war in iraq, i find his arguments worth taking seriously and hope that others here will continue to take his arguments up
as for my own position on the global situation, i'm not sure what to think . . . . but my inclination is to believe that the terrorism threat, especially here in America, has been way over hyped -- so if anything, i'm sympathetic to the argument of "Power of Nightmares," except for the scapegoating of Leo Strauss