Note: Henrik and Lana of Red Ice need some help with medical bill. Their new born needed almost two week in the ICU. Donate here.
There are men who are remembered for what they did. There are men who are remembered for what they said. Then there are men who are remembered for who they have influenced or the chain events touched off by them. This last group is unique for the simple reason it is hard to say exactly why they are remembered. They are history’s version of the popular figure who is famous for being famous. One such example is the late philosopher, Leo Strauss.
That last sentence provides a clue as to why this mediocre philosopher and historian is a figure who looms large of contemporary politics. Serious students of philosophy take exception to calling Strauss a philosopher. Historians dismiss him outright. Students of Greek philosophy roll their eyes when they the man’s name. Even his followers will spend hours debating how to properly label the man. Despite this lack of distinction, Leo Strauss is an important figure in our politics.
For those looking for an accessible explainer on Leo Strauss and his work, Paul Gottfried’s book, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America is a straight forward summary and analysis of the man and his work. For those looking for an even shorter introduction to the topic, here is a good review of the book. At the end of that review, the reviewer touches on the central question of Strauss. Why does this mediocre academic cast such a long shadow?
The main reason anyone talks about Strauss is that his followers have been central to American politics for half a century. His most famous acolyte was Harry Jaffa, who created the cult of Lincoln that still animates conventional conservatism. His reimagining of American history allowed contemporary conservatives to get to the left of their opponents on the issue of race. It is why the modern conservative cannot shut up about Abraham Lincoln. He is their get out jail free card.
That does not explain why we have lots of middlebrow intellectuals announcing themselves as Straussians rather than Jaffians. Modern conservatism owes far more to Jaffa than Strauss, but the conservative intellectual space is littered with people flying the flag of Leo Strauss. Additionally, there are flavors of Straussianism, as in the East Coast Straussians and the West Coast Straussians. What is so magical about this man that half a century after his death he still casts a shadow?
This is where Marx comes into the picture. Like Strauss, Marx was a mediocre intellectual, but he cast a huge shadow. There were many smart men working the communist and socialist circuits in the 19th century, many smarter and more reasonable than Marx, but it was Mark who towered over the rest. Despite having been wrong about pretty much everything, Karl Marx remains a respected thinker and philosopher on the Left.
One reason Marx rose above the rest was that he provided intellectual authority the socialist movement. His theory of history turned a collection of moral preferences into scientific fact, which gave the believers an unquestionable authority upon which to base their economic and political claims. To this day we hear people on the so-called Left claim that they are on the right side of history. This means their opponents are on the wrong side of history, so they can be dismissed.
Similarly, the Straussian method provides the believer with a set of tools to instantly create the needed authority for their normative claims. Strauss taught that you must learn the true intent of a writer. The Straussian, of course, has the special skill to see through the esoteric writing of genuine philosophers, who out of necessity always cloak their real meaning from the casual reader. Strauss allows his followers to divine the real meaning of historical texts.
At first this does not sound like much, but it allowed Harry Jaffa to tease out the real thoughts of the Founders, which to that point had been called the Framers, because they wrote the text of the Constitution. Jaffa claimed that their real thoughts were contained in the Declaration. From that he could turn the Founders into Moses and Lincoln into Joshua. The former led his people out of bondage, but not into the Promised Land, while the latter completed the journey.
That is a clever trick, but as Gottfried noted, this was not simply for the amusement of bored intellectuals, but part of a political strategy. By casting Lincoln as the real founder of the American republic, conservatives, who were clustered in the Republican party, could claim him as their own. Not only does the “great emancipator” become a shield against the charge of racism, but he also becomes a license to turn egalitarianism and the blank slate into conservative principles.
That is a major appeal of Strauss. His method provides a set of tools for rhetorical combat within practical politics. The Straussian method allows the user to flit from one tine of Hume’s fork to the other. They can conflate those things that are axiomatically true with those things that are contingently true. Decorated with their own interpretations of Plato and Aristotle, gratuitous assertions become immutable fact. These tools let the users win the debate, rather than reveal important truths.
Probably the main appeal of Strauss is the same as for Marx. For the initiate, the system of thought provides a framework to answer every question. This in turn elevates the believer’s sense of self. When you are on the right side of history, you inevitably are filled with confidence. When you can divine the intent of the great minds and use this secret knowledge against your opponents, you become a god. The appeal in both cases is spiritual, not intellectual.
The comparison between Marx and Strauss works because of the people who were most attracted to the two men. The people who rallied to Marxism were not the urban proletariat, but the urban bourgeois intellectuals. Similarly, those rallying to Strauss are not highbrow political thinkers. His appeal is to the middlebrow bourgeois intellectuals that grow like a fungus on the modern age. Both provided a purpose to idle men without an obvious role in life.
Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. That should be the lesson of Marxism. Leo Strauss was a clever man, for sure, but his bad ideas have given us a half century of political agitation and subterfuge. One would think the embarrassing catastrophe that was the Bush presidency would have relegated Strauss and his followers to the dustbin of history, but when you are untethered from facts and reason, the facts never get in the way of your next argument.
If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
I love these parallels. If Strauss is the Karl Marx of the Right, wouldn’t that make that “Mencius Moldbug” dude the Michel Foucault of the Right?
1
My main association with Foucault is the normalization of pedophilia, https://dissidentrealist.com/michel-foucault-wanted-to-normalize-pedophilia/.
As low an opinion as a I have of Moldbug, it doesn’t include this association. I mostly think of Moldbug as a guy who will use ten obscure sentences to say what could be said clearly with one and who intentionally misdirects people. He popularized the term “the Cathedral” as where we should affix blame when the temple where his people worship would have been at least as accurate.
1
“Marx was a mediocre intellectual, but he cast a huge shadow. There were many smart men working the communist and socialist circuits in the 19th century, many smarter and more reasonable than Marx, but it was Mark who towered over the rest. Despite having been wrong about pretty much everything, Karl Marx remains a respected thinker and philosopher on the Left.”
Granted, his prognoses turned out wrong. But in the three volumes of “Das Kapital” — which few people read today, and particularly not the so-called US Left — he provides an unparalleled analysis of the structure and dynamics of 19th century industrial capitalism. This was overshadowed by the finance capitalism of the early 20th century, and for that one has to turn to other thinkers such as Kautsky and Hilferding, who in a sense had to revise and update Marx’s analysis. But for its time, Marx’s “Das Kapital” and his “Grundrisse” were major breakthroughs. Nowadays virtually no-one reads him or if they do, it’s the lightweight “Communist Manifesto”, co-authored with Engels.
Agree completely about the mediocrity of Strauss, who couldn’t hold a candle to Marx.
Returning to Marx and the tradition of leftist thought (the real thing, not the bullshit identity politics of today), it kept developing and evolving. I have in mind the major US work, “Monopoly Capital” by Baran and Sweezy, published in the mid 1960s, which remains relevant even today.
1
I admit to being a bit unfair to Marx in order to make the parallel.
2
Fair enough. I know you to be too smart to not know something about Marx’s real work.
I have said many times that Marx is important, not just historically, but as a model for anyone looking to create a genuine alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy. Fostering and developing an alternative elite is fundamentally a Marxist idea.
Granted, his prognoses turned out wrong. But in the three volumes of “Das Kapital” — which few people read today, and particularly not the so-called US Left — he provides an unparalleled analysis of the structure and dynamics of 19th century industrial capitalism.
That seems to be the common problem with all our modern political analysts, from everywhere on the political spectrum. All of them have a great analysis of the problems. And none of them have a clue how to fix them.
2
The settled dialectic seduces a lot of people. I think it goes back to something you said about Obama. He constantly liked to say things like “We solved that already” or “That’s already been decided.” As if every problem had a solution, rather than requiring constant vigilance, and recognition of the intractability of the human condition and all its downsides. Bumper stickers and yard signs are not going to stop the hostility—genocides, wars, etc.—that erupt every so often as much for atavistic reasons no one understands as over territory. But Obama was “the first president who’d gotten where he was by waiting in line and filling out the correct bubbles on the scantron,” as I think you said.
That programmatic view of things is what gives Marxism its appeal. Such brainwashing can actually be helpful in certain situations. Young dumb kids who believe they’re invincible need to have it impressed upon them that they’re not, in everything from driver’s ed to basic training. One alcoholic I know said, “AA is brainwashing, and do you know what? My brain needed washing.”
But trying to cram all of human nature into an economic dialectic (or a philosophical one, like Anton) is lethal. The best way to deal with life, with politics, with everything, is like a jaded detective who puts on his gun every day knowing any good he does is but a drop in the bucket, and may be undone by the end of the day. Life is hard and messy and complicated and it’s a war and any Weltanschauung that doesn’t recognize this can’t properly be called conservative.
6
Clowns to the left of me
jokers to the right,
here I am stuck in the middle of jews.
6
The Biden administration isn’t influenced by Karl Marx, but Groucho Marx.
7
To follow up the Straussian angle, looking forward to your response to Michael Anton who paid you the compliment of reviewing your piece on natural rights. Anton is reasonable and readable. I think it would be a profitable back and forth.
2
Marx, Strauss, Jaffa. There’s a pattern.
2
Have never understood this conservative/Republican fascination/fetish for A. Lincoln. An atrocious president who – IMHO – helped set up the tyrannical state now unfolding before our eyes. He mobilized the Army & sent it south to shoot up & destroy private property & force the southern states back into the Union @ the point of a bayonet. Under The Articles of Confederation, the South had the right to secede. Slavery is a totally separate issue; Lincoln- in a cynical move – framed that argument masterfully by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, thereby keeping France & Britain out of the war on the side of the South.
Moreover, Lincoln suspended The Writ of Habeas Corpus & considered arresting the Chief Justice of the SC…
…& Republicans celebrate this guy?
1