Eddie Thomas has posted a very thoughtful and interesting piece on the Straussians. He begins by citing Andrew Sullivan to the effect that, as Thomas puts it, this is "a story that pops up every now and then to scare old ladies and small children." I have to say, if I wanted to scare old ladies and small children, I think I would come up with something rather more vivid and concrete than the spectre of Leo Strauss. If you call someone a Marxist, just about everyone will have some idea of what that means, though they may have differing opinions on the significance of the term. But a Straussian? Who outside the academy, and now perhaps also outside the readership of the NYTimes and the New Yorker (still a relatively small group), has ever heard of Leo Strauss or has any idea of what Straussian might mean?
In a related vein, I want to finally reply to Robert Schwartz's suggestion -- made in the comments section to my own entry on the Straussians -- that to speak of a Straussian influence in politics is to "[feed] a dangerous meme," ie, to encourage the notion that there is a sinister cabal of specifically Jewish neocons. I actually don't think this is a fair move on Schwartz's part.
Obviously Leo Strauss was Jewish, and as I understand it, his distrust of democracy stemmed in part from having witnessed the rise of Nazism, which he characterized as a popular movement with broad support and from which he of course had to flee for his life. Other Straussian scholars and admirers also have been and are Jewish. But many Straussians have not been and are not Jewish. I don't think of Straussianism as a Jewish phenomenon any more than I think of Marxism as a Jewish phenomenon. Karl Marx was Jewish too, and there has been a specifically anti-Semitic version of anti-Marxism from its very inception. Since there are specifically anti-Semitic forms of challenging and attacking Marxism, does this mean that any and all criticism of Marx and Marxism must be anti-Semitic? Of course not. So likewise with the Straussians, is how I see it.
In terms of the political angle (which is the angle of the Atlas article), the questions for me are: are there really self-identified Straussians in the Pentagon and other high places? There may not be: the article by Atlas may be inaccurate. But if so, what do they mean by the term? how and in what ways do they view their policies as having a Straussian influence? And what should we think about this?
I am still thinking about how to reply to the comments by Schwartz and Thomas as they relate to higher education and the role of the humanities in public life. I do think the humanities are in trouble. And though I am unapologetically a liberal, I am willing to meet some conservative criticisms of the academy halfway, and in some areas, perhaps more than halfway. But more on this anon.
Posted by Invisible Adjunct at May 13, 2003 11:09 PMI have the sense that you are late to the party. In the run up to the Iraq war, opponents of the Administration put forth various arguments of greater and lesser weight against the proposed undertaking. One of the arguments against the war raised in various quarters was that the war was not in the best interest of the United States but that Jewish advisers and Jewish lobbyists pressured the the President into the war in order to protect Israel. Some of these arguments tossed in the Jewish media too (Comentary? The New Republic?). I guess the international Jewish banker has fallen out of favor. I do not want to make light of this so I am going to quote Larry Kaplans' article about this trend at length.
Toxic Talk on War, By Lawrence F. Kaplan, Tuesday, February 18, 2003; Page A25
Who is driving this rush to war in Iraq? A decade ago, on the eve of the last Persian Gulf War, conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan alleged that Israel and its "amen corner" were to blame. A media firestorm ensued, with condemnations pouring in from across the political spectrum. Now, on the eve of yet another Gulf war, Buchanan has revived the claim. Only this time a chorus of voices from the left, right and center has emerged to echo it. . .Buchanan . . . has transformed his new magazine, the American Conservative, into a regular forum for those who share this conviction. One of its contributors, University of Illinois history professor Paul W. Schroeder, deems it self-evident that the plan for an invasion "is being promoted in the interests of Israel." "Certainly it is being pushed very hard by a number of influential supporters of Israel of the hawkish neoconservative stripe in and outside the administration (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and others)," Schroeder writes.
Seconding this appraisal, conservative writer Georgie Anne Geyer, whose column appears weekly in the Washington Times, reveals how "the fanatic neoconservatives around the administration, the rabid Israel supporters in the White House and the Pentagon," plan to wage war in Iraq and then to "democratize the entire Middle East, including Syria and Saudi Arabia, if necessary by military means, in order to secure Ariel Sharon's Israel."
. . . Writing in the Nation, Jason Vest reports that the Bush team's "attack-Iraq chorus," working in tandem with "far-right American Zionists," subscribes to "articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between U.S. and Israeli national security interests." The respected liberal intellectual Ian Buruma has managed to locate the reasons for a U.S. war against Iraq in, among other places, "Jewish-American hysteria" . . .
. . . The ubiquitous talk-show host Chris Matthews pins blame for the impending war on "conservative people out there, some of them Jewish, who are very tough on foreign policy. They believe we should fight the Arabs and take them down. They believe that if we don't fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger." Matthews even thinks that Sharon is "writing [Bush's] speeches sometimes" and that Sharon's cabinet ministers are "in bed with the vice president's office and the Defense Department." Syndicated columnist Robert Novak has described the U.S conflict with Iraq as "Sharon's war," adding that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's branding of Hezbollah as the world's most dangerous terrorist organization suggests that "the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric." Twice in recent speeches, former senator Gary Hart has said that we "must not let our role in the world be dictated by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and its national interests."
You can also read the following to get some idea of the climate of argument.
Kaus Files
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078333
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079177
The Lemann Article
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030217fa_fact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45652-2003Feb8¬Found=true
Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01
http://slate.msn.com/id/2073093/
What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq
President Bush won't discuss two big reasons he wants to invade Iraq.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 12:40 PM PT
The French ever clever academics caught an academic angle on this argument. See this translation of the Le Monde article on which Atlas based his article.
My take is that if Atlas calls them Straussians and winks then you absolve him of anti-Semitism and he can continue to dine out in New York. But Pat Buchanan knows what he means and so do I.
Note the last line of the Atlas piece:
" Next time we might remember to put a tank at the museum door."
Problem is that there never was a looting of the wretched museum, although insiders stole some high value items.
Is the rest of the article any better?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 14, 2003 01:52 AMThe problem with the move you make: You have predetermined that any discussion of the question of Straussianism is a form of anti-Semitism. One is either ignorant ("late to the party") of the real meaning of this term, or else one is to be lumped in with the likes of Pat Buchanan.
Both the New York Times and the New Yorker have recently published articles on the Straussian theme. Do you really mean to equate these two publications with Buchanan's rag, and to suggest that the New York Times and the New Yorker are now fomenting anti-Semitism (which Buchanan surely is)?
You are evading the question of whether or not the people whom Atlas claims are self-identified Straussians are indeed self-identified Straussians. Do they call themselves Straussians? And if so, what do they mean by this term?
Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at May 14, 2003 02:19 AMOY!
The problem with the move you make:
I was not aware that this was a chess game.
You have predetermined that any discussion of the question of Straussianism is a form of anti-Semitism.
No. That is not the case. The Atlas article was mis-using the academic label so that the author could pillory the Jews.
One is either ignorant("late to the party") of the real meaning of this term.
No you were apparently unaware of the context in which the Atlas article was written that rendered it toxic.
or else one is to be lumped in with the likes of Pat Buchanan.
See below.
Both the New York Times and the New Yorker have recently published articles on the Straussian theme. Do you really mean to equate these two publications with Buchanan's rag, and to suggest that the New York Times and the New Yorker are now fomenting anti-Semitism (which Buchanan surely is)?
Sigh! Rhetorical trick. The Kaplan Article that I quoted also mentioned The Washington Times, Slate, The Nation, MSNBC and a couple of freelance columnists. As Kaplan noted this rhetoric has spread across the political spectrum.
More to the point, it has been many long years since I have worshiped any publication anywhere. All men have their eyes planted in the middle of their faces and their hearts in the middle of their bodies. None of the living sits at the right hand of the Almighty and passes down judgment.
Within the past week the New York Times has taken special care to remind everyone that it is written, edited and published by fallible men just like thee and me. But those who have read the rag with a jaundiced eye, and I count myself among that number, have known this little secret all along. Furthermore their political leanings are neither secret nor confined to the editorial page (although Week in Review where the Atlas article was published is not listed as a news page on their web site), they are just more acceptable to your lunch buddies than Buchanan’s; but so what?
The New Yorker has an illustrious literary history but the last time I subscribed to it was in the 1970’s when I was single. Back then I found its hard left politics hard to jibe with the Harry Winston’s ads and when I married and had children, I no longer had time or money for it. Its late and I am getting lazy so I am not going to look up the URL but the feeling is that Hersh is over the hill and that he got played by his sources, who have used him to get off a couple of shots against their bureaucratic enemies. Its a fairly frequent theme in Washington reporting. Anti-Semitic, maybe a bit. I doubt that Sy knew it but like I said he was being used.
You are evading the question of whether or not the people whom Atlas claims are self-identified Straussians are indeed self-identified Straussians. Do they call themselves Straussians? And if so, what do they mean by this term?
The Atlas article as befits its editors is kind of murky. I have removed the material not about the living and set it forth below, with my comments.
the tribute President Bush paid in February to the cohort of journalists, political philosophers and policy wonks known — primarily to themselves — as Straussians. "You are some of the best brains in our country," Mr. Bush declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, "and my government employs about 20 of you."
AEI is a well known conservative think tank. The Republican answer to the Brookings Institution. Some of the scholars in residence, such as Walter Berns, are probably former students of Leo Strauss. Some of them are just plain conservatives who are uninterested in political philosophy. Atlas does not explain where he got his information from, so I can not verify it.
To intellectual-conspiracy theorists, the Bush administration's foreign policy is entirely a Straussian creation. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, has been identified as a disciple of Strauss; William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, a must-read in the White House, considers himself a Straussian; Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century, an influential foreign policy group started by Mr. Kristol, is firming in the Strauss camp.
The lead in sentence to this paragraph is just plain weasel. Is he proposing a conspiracy theory or not? Wolfowitz and Kristol are well known. Josh Cherniss has persuaded me of Wolfowitz’ discipleship. I have never heard of Schmitt
One is reminded of Asa Leventhal, the hero of Saul Bellow's novel "The Victim," who asks his oppressor, a mysterious figure named Kirby Allbee, "Wait a minute, what's your idea of who runs things?" For those who believe in the power of ideas, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to answer: the intellectual heirs of Leo Strauss.
More weasel; a quote from a Saul Bellow novel. No actual animals harmed no actual people named.
During the Reagan administration, some of Strauss's admirers, like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, emerged as house intellectuals — favored dinner guests who gave the intellectual justification for policies usually drawn up by more practical political types.
Irv is Bill’s Dad, but he went to CCNY as did Norm, then they joined the Party. Then they became anti-Communists and the real neo-conservatives. Straussians? I doubt it. But dinner must have been interesting.
Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, writing in Le Monde two weeks ago, provided a vivid snapshot of these fugitives from the academy. "They have an `intellectual,' often New York, often Jewish, profile, and often began on the left.
The shiv is stuck in. Notice no names.
The Bush administration is rife with Straussians. In addition to Mr. Wolfowitz, there is his associate Richard N. Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and the managing partner in Trireme Partners, a venture-capital company heavily invested in manufacturers of technology for homeland security and defense. Mr. Perle and Mr. Wolfowitz are both disciples of the late Albert Wohlstetter, a Straussian professor of mathematics and military strategist who put forward the idea of "graduated deterrence" — limited, small-scale wars fought with "smart" precision-guided bombs.
Rife is 2. Although, Atlas had apparently missed the announcement from several weeks ago that Perle had resigned from the Defense Policy Board because of his conflict of interest. Facts who needs ‘em we’re the Times what we say goes. Describing Wohlstetter as a Straussian is kind of breathtaking. I have no idea why he did it. Of course I have no idea of why he isn’t delivering sandwiches for a deli instead of writing for the Times. So outside of being a hawk, we have no clear proof that Perle was a student of Strauss or any of his colleagues or students.
As for your question of who is a Straussian? If somebody was a student of Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey, Harry Jaffa, Alan Bloom, Harvey Mansfield, etc. and espouses the ideas he learned from his teacher then it is fair to call him a Straussian. But all of the Straussians in the country could probably meet down at the elks lodge and not overcrowd the place. I took, one course from Joe Cropsey. I do not think that it qualifies me as a Straussian, even though I am a staunch conservative.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 14, 2003 06:15 AMThe New Yorker is hard left? Dear, dear me.
Posted by: drapetomaniac at May 14, 2003 11:12 AM"The New Yorker is hard left? Dear, dear me."
On the cover of the Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy it says:
"Don't Panic"
Please read what I wrote:
"in the 1970’s when I was single. Back then I found its hard left politics"
AFAIK, that was before you were born, and it was certainly before Tina Brown, and before Tina Brown's sucessor. So there may have been many changes in editorial policy at the New Yorker and I just would not know, because it is just not on my radar screen.
We also have the perspective problem. I am a self identified conservative. I realize that there is a lot of ideological territory between Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and U.S. Democrats on on hand, and the kids who dress in black masks and bust up coffee shops at WTO meetings on the other. But all of them are to the left of me.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 14, 2003 01:33 PM"We have a perspective problem."
Well, yeah. For me, the possibility of fruitful discussion dwindles when I find out that someone thinks that the New Yorker is hard left and that Mickey Kaus an anti-Semite.
The Straussians I met (and in one case, knew) in 1963-68 identified themselves as Straussians, were mostly Jewish, and a number of them, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky, have made names for themselves either in the State Department or in conservative politics. This isn't like talking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati. Finding Jewish conspiracies everywhere is for paranoid idiots, but tabooing statements of fact is just as bad.
Posted by: zizka at May 15, 2003 12:13 AMWell, yeah. For me, the possibility of fruitful discussion dwindles when I find out that someone thinks that the New Yorker is hard left and that Mickey Kaus an anti-Semite.
Where to begin?
For me the possibility of fruitful discussion dwindles when I find out that someone has not read what I wrote with any care at all.
As for the New Yorker. FOR THE THIRD TIME! I spoke to what their editorial stance was a generation ago. I expressly disclaimed knowledge of their current editorial stance.
As for Mr. Kaus. I did not label his articles one way or the other! But submitted them as samples of the discourse on the subject pre-war.
The Straussians I met (and in one case, knew) in 1963-68 identified themselves as Straussians, were mostly Jewish,
I can not gainsay this. I do not know who you knew.
and a number of them, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky, have made names for themselves either in the State Department or in conservative politics.
I should point out that Wolfowitz and Shulsky are both at DoD and no one I have heard of is claiming that there is a cabal of neocons at State.
This isn't like talking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati. Finding Jewish conspiracies everywhere is for paranoid idiots, but tabooing statements of fact is just as bad.
I thought that I was arguing against the existence of conspiracies. Mr. Atlas was the one who manufactured rife out of 2 people one of whom was no longer on the payroll.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 15, 2003 06:24 AM"in the 1970’s when I was single. Back then I found its hard left politics"
AFAIK, that was before you were born
My, my. Well, you don't know anything at all about me, so this assumption is unwarranted.
And yes, if you'd prefer that I were more explicit, let me rephrase what I originally wrote.
"The New Yorker of the 70's is hard left? Dear, dear me."
We also have the perspective problem.
Is this the royal 'we'? For terms like 'hard left' to have any meaning, they must refer to some neutral axis of belief systems, not how they relate to you.
I would also gently suggest that if you have trouble making distinctions between Howard Dean and the Black Bloc, you will not seem very persuasive to those of us to whom such distinctions are as elementary as the distinction between say, Newt Gingrich and Timothy McVeigh.
Posted by: drapetomaniac at May 15, 2003 10:57 AM"FOR THE THIRD TIME!"
I really appreciate people visiting my site, commenting on the posts, and entering into dialogue with other readers. But keep it civil, please. No all caps: that is the online equivalent of yelling at someone.
Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at May 15, 2003 12:25 PM"in the 1970’s when I was single. Back then I found its hard left politics"AFAIK, that was before you were born
My, my. Well, you don't know anything at all about me, so this assumption is unwarranted.
AFAIK = "As Far As I Know" You are absolutely correct that I know absolutely nothing about you. Not even your name. I do not know if you read the New Yorker in the late 1970’s. I did. I remembered it as being, in my sole and untethered judgment, as being hard left. I remember corresponding with Dan Seligman, who then wrote for Fortune and now for Forbes, about the phenomenon of the contrast between the editorial content and the advertising content. That was three or four editors ago. I have not read it much since then. You may have. I do not know.
And yes, if you'd prefer that I were more explicit, let me rephrase what I originally wrote."The New Yorker of the 70's is hard left? Dear, dear me."
"Is," I assume you meant was. As I said that was my judgment. I do not remember the details. So you will either have to take my word for my judgment or disregard it. Either way it boots me not.
We also have the perspective problem.Is this the royal 'we'? For terms like 'hard left' to have any meaning, they must refer to some neutral axis of belief systems, not how they relate to you.
We was, in that context, me and thee, but it could be the editorial. If it were royal, would we be wasting our time like this? "More wine! Bring out the dancing girls!"
Terms like left and right are in relation to the speakers own body and nothing else. This is as true of politics as it is of my trip to the bakery and the market. Even worse, My trip to the market could be described in terms of East West, North South co-ordinates determined by GPS. This is the basis of the navigation systems that you can now buy for your car. I have never heard of such a co-ordinate grid for politics and I deeply suspect that none could ever be devised that could win wide assent.
I would also gently suggest that if you have trouble making distinctions between Howard Dean and the Black Bloc, you will not seem very persuasive to those of us to whom such distinctions are as elementary as the distinction between say, Newt Gingrich and Timothy McVeigh. Posted by drapetomaniac
I concede that there is an easy distinction between establishment politicians and violent criminals with political slogans, but it was Bill Clinton who connected Gingrich with McVeigh. OTOH, what I wrote was:
"I realize that there is a lot of ideological territory between Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and U.S. Democrats on one hand, and the kids who dress in black masks and bust up coffee shops at WTO meetings, on the other. But all of them are to the left of me.
I think that I was making a distinction but since the left right spectrum is in fact linear, all of the named parties are to the left of me just as Gingrich, McVeigh and me are to the right of you.
"for the third time"I really appreciate people visiting my site, commenting on the posts, and entering into dialogue with other readers. But keep it civil, please. No all caps: that is the online equivalent of yelling at someone. Posted by Invisible Adjunct
I am very sorry. It was 3:30 a.m. and I had been working on a tax return for several hours. I was cranky and I apologize.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 16, 2003 01:34 AMTaxes will make anyone a bit cranky. Thanks!
Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at May 16, 2003 06:12 PM