Should we care about the work of Leo Strauss, even if there is no there there?
Kenneth B. McIntyre explains why we should:
When writing about the work of an academic historian or philosopher—as opposed to a polemicist, a politician, or a popularizer—there is an obvious threshold question with which to begin: is the writer’s work intrinsically interesting or compelling in some way? If this question is answered in the negative, then there is usually no reason to carry on.
The strange case of Leo Strauss, however, proves that there are definite exceptions to this rule. Strauss’s work is almost universally dismissed by philosophers and historians, yet he has attracted a following amongst political theorists (hybrid creatures most often associated with political science departments) and neoconservative political activists. So, while the verdict on the intellectual importance of Strauss’s historico-philosophical work has been that, like Gertrude Stein’s Oakland, there is no there there, the practical influence of Strauss, its manifestation as Straussianism, and Straussianism’s connection with neoconservatism still present themselves as intriguing problems in contemporary American intellectual history.
Almost universally dismissed by philosophers? Not in my experience. What about Ernst Cassirer, his phd adviser, or Susanne Langer, his fellow student. Are they “almost universally dismissed,” too? Is “almost universally dismissed” code for “I don’t like him” ?
Also, though he’s been adopted by the neo-conservatives, that hardly makes him a neo-conservative.
Prof. Ruccio,
There is something I can’t help but wonder: what’s Trostky doing in that chart?
Just today, by coincidence, I found this post by John Quiggin about the phenomenon of left-wingers who turn into right-wingers (and the more recent apparent phenomenon of right-wingers who turn into left-wingers). It also links to other thoughtful pieces.
Converts, conversely
http://johnquiggin.com/2012/05/27/converts-conversely/
This is a subject where your opinion would be very welcome.
Magpie,
It is an interesting part of the history of the neoconservatives in the United States that some of them (such as Irving Kristol), during the 1950s, passed through the anti-Stalinist Trotskyist movement on they way to joining and defining the intellectual and political right-wing. Later, of course, there were others, such as Christopher Hitchens.
There’s a whole generation of economists who also, during the 1950s, moved from the Left to the Right (or at least the center). A friend has written up a study of former Communists who became neoclassical economists, attributing at least part of that shift to immigrant Jews who wanted to assimilate into U.S. academic culture behind mathematics. Unfortunately, the study hasn’t been published—and probably won’t be as long as the people are still alive.
The more recent Right-to-Left (or at least Right-to-Liberal) “conversions” are also interesting. I have in mind Kevin Phillips (who was a political strategist for Nixon), of course, but also such diverse figures as Bruce Bartlett, Francis Fukuyama, and Paul Krugman. Their criticisms of the Right and of the problems occasioned by right-wing policy (such as inequality) are useful, although it’s also clear they have little interest in or knowledge of the kinds of nonmainstream political and economic ideas some of us have been learning, producing, and disseminating for decades now.
Thanks for the reply. It never ceases to amaze me how similar Australia and the US are.
It’s like Australia is a miniature version of the US with a lag of a couple of decades. As it happens, here many right-wing talking-heads (pundits, some writers and such) also were lefties once. Perhaps here they are less prominent than their American counterparts, but many do seem to have an anti-Stalinist background.
Thanks again.