More than four decades ago Willmoore Kendall announced “there is a new breed of political scientists abroad in the land, as different from the old breed as chalk from cheese.” He was referring to the earliest members of the first generation of students of Leo Strauss.This new breed of political scientists, Kendall observed “are still rara avis, and come, for the most part, from a single institution, namely the University of Chicago, and for good reason. Most of them are pupils of one of the two or three great teachers of politics of our day, Professor Leo Strauss, who communicates to them, as if by magic, his own love of learning, his own sense of the gravity of the great problems of politics.”1 Kendall also noticed that “into the vocabulary of professionals in the field of political theory there has entered, in recent years, a new noun ‘Straussian.’” It is, he observed, a noun that “does service . . . as an adjective (as in the sentence, ‘Professor So-and-so is a ‘Straussian’).”2 Since Kendall wrote, the influence of Leo Strauss has been extended through the first generation, including many not discussed in this book, to their students and to their students’ students, into the third generation.
We wish to explore, upon the centenary of Leo Strauss’s birth, his enduring legacy as a teacher and scholar, a legacy that has richly influenced the study of the American regime. In recent years academic and political criticisms have been lodged against Strauss and “Straussians” (those who acknowledge the influence of Leo Strauss on their work). It has been said that Strauss sought to organize a return to ancient Athens, or to defend liberal capitalism against its critics, or to affirm Nietzschean nihilism under cover of an esoteric natural right teaching. Critics such as Sheldon Wolin, Charles Larmore, Stephen Holmes, Shadia Drury, and George Kateb have accused him of founding an antidemocratic cult dedicated to maintaining orthodoxy within its elitist membership. Has any other contemporary academic political thinker been subjected to the rancor that Leo Strauss has? Thus, Brent Staples could actually write on the New York Times editorial page that Strauss thought philosopher-kings should rule in such a way as to keep the “rabble” in their place. Thus also Shadia Drury in her book Leo Strauss and the American Right blames him for the contemporary political agenda of the Republican Party, the suppression of women, and the pernicious influence of the phalocratic character of his political philosophy.
This book shows that the diverse academic and public activities of Strauss’s students and followers in American politics have been profoundly influenced by the questions raised between ancient and modern republicanism, between reason and revelation, and between poetry and philosophy, as well as by the understanding of the theological-political problem and by the importance of the nonhistoricist reading of texts. Strauss taught that all of these questions must be taken seriously. He and his students, unto the third generation, share questions about the origins and health of the American regime rather than final answers or political orthodoxies. Strauss encouraged his students to explore the crisis of liberal democracy, the pervasive character of relativism in contemporary political science, the original intent of the Framers, the problems of statesmanship and political exigency, and the problem of the philosopher’s relationship to a liberal democratic regime. He very much sought to provide his students and followers with that critical distance needed for judging the dominant opinions of our era, attempting thereby to draw them out of the “cave” of the contemporary American regime.
Actually, Strauss sought to free his followers from a “second cave,” one much deeper than Plato’s original cave. As he put it:
Bearing in mind the classic representation of the natural difficuldes in philosophizing, in other words, the Platonic allegory of the cave, one can say that today we are in a second, much deeper cave, than the fortunate ignorant persons with which Socrates was concerned.We need history first of all to reach the cave from which Socrates can lead us to the light. We need preparatory instruction—that is, precisely learning by reading.3
Liberation from the “second, much deeper cave” requires the radical questioning of the layer of ideas—positivism, modern rationalism, and historicism—that covers over all natural phenomena. Liberation from the second cave will enable some to pursue a serious study of the relationship between wisdom and consent found in the type of democracy identified with the self-understanding of the American Founders as well as in the study of the political problems of tyranny and the universal state. Strauss’s paradox here is as follows: Only in a contemporary liberal democracy will the search for truth be permitted, yet it is necessary for us to begin leaving the depths of the second cave of contemporary American liberal democracy in order for that search to take place. In this manner Leo Strauss was both cautious and bold in his approach to the contemporary American liberal democratic regime.
In Part One George Anastaplo, Laurence Berns with Eva Brann, Joseph Cropsey, and Harry V.Jaffa offer, in alphabetical order, reflections for this volume. They describe various facets of Leo Strauss’s extraordinary life as teacher and scholar in the United States. They draw upon their exposure to him at the New School for Social Research, the University of Chicago, Claremont Men’s College, and St. John’s College (Annapolis).
Part Two addresses “Taking Strauss Seriously.” Kenneth L. Deutsch begins with Leo Strauss’s influence on the study of the American regime. Hadley Arkes describes the teacher he encountered in Strauss’s classes at the University of Chicago. Eugene F. Miller documents the bold encounter between Strauss and American social science. Gregory Bruce Smith explores Strauss’s political response to Friedrich Nietzsche’s and Martin Heidegger’s teachings. Aryeh Botwinick makes a case with reference to the American Founding, for reading Strauss as a “mitigated skeptic” who embraces the American Founding because of its link between liberalism and skepticism. Ronald J. Terchek locates Leo Strauss in the debate in which both liberalism and communitarianism are accepted in part and rejected in part as solutions to political problems.
Part Three surveys how first-generation Straussians have established the thought of the Founding generation and the thought of Abraham Lincoln as central to understanding the aspirations of the American regime. John A. Murley explores the distinctive and wide-ranging constitutionalism of George Anastaplo. Gary D. Glenn discusses Walter Berns’s moderate constitutionalism. Walter Nicgorski identifies Allan Bloom’s debt to Leo Strauss on liberal education. Christopher A. Colmo presents Joseph Cropsey’s understanding of the modernity of the American regime. Michael Zuckert examines Martin Diamond’s work on The Federalist. Will Morrisey explores Paul Eidelberg’s analysis of the American Regime as a mixed regime. Charles R. Kesler discusses the Lincolnian themes that have guided Harry V Jaffa’s study of America. Miriam Galston addresses Ralph Lerner’s study of the independent and thoughtful deliberation of the Framers as a distinctive mode for our time. Larry Arnhart explores Roger Masters’s work on natural right and evolutionary biology. Murray Dry examines the work of Herbert Storing as teacher and scholar of the Founding.
Although Strauss wrote very little directly on American political institutions, one can discern Straussian themes in the research of those influenced by Strauss who have studied Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the bureaucracy. Part Four suggests that research. John A. Murley discusses deliberation and representation in Congress. Robert Eden addresses leadership and statesmanship in the presidency. Ralph A. Rossum revisits the First Amendment and the role of the Supreme Court as republican schoolmaster. John A. Marini explores the problems of constitutionalism, tyranny, and the universal state.
Since the mid-1970s more than a few scholars influenced by Leo Strauss have assumed a wide variety of significant positions in one or another Democratic or Republican administrations in Washington. In Part Five Gary J. Schmitt and Abram N. Shulsky, Carnes Lord, Susan Orr, William A. Galston, and Mark Blitz offer their reflections from their various perspectives of practice, including their views on the often tenuous yet challenging relationships between ancient and modern republican theory and contemporary political practice.4
With any project of this kind insightful suggestions can make all the difference. Helpful suggestions over the course of this book’s progress have been made by Walter Soffer as well as by several of the contributors. We wish also to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of two editors, Jonathan Sisk and Steve Wrinn of Rowman & Littlefield, who have contributed to the conversation that is political philosophy. We wish to record as well our gratitude to the Earhart Foundation for their generous support of this work.
Kenneth L. Deutsch and John A. Murley
December 1998
Willmoore Kendall, The Conservative Affirmation (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1963), pp. 202-3. See also ibid. pp. 249-52, 257-60.
Willmoore Kendall, review of Ancients and Moderns: Essays on the Tradition of Political Philosophy, ed. Joseph Cropsey, American Political Science Review 61 (September 1967), pp. 783-84. See also Willmoore Kendall, “John Locke Revisited,” in Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum, ed. Nellie D. Kendall (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994), pp. 418-56.
Jurgen Gebhardt,“Leo Strauss: The Quest for Truth in Times of Perplexity,” in Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss: German Émigrés and American Political Thought after World War II, ed. Peter Graf Kielinansegg et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 98.
It is also worthy to note that many others influenced by Leo Strauss and his students have assumed, at various times, responsible positions in Washington. Among these have been the following: William B. Allen served as chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. John T. Agresto served as deputy chairman and then as acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Joseph Bessette served as acting director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Mark Blitz served as the associate director of the U.S. Information Agency. David Epstein serves in the Office of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense. Robert A. Goldwin served as special assistant to President Gerald R. Ford. Alan Keyes served as assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs. William Kristol served as chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. Carnes Lord served on the National Security Council and later as the chief foreign policy adviser of Vice President Quayle. Michael Malbin served as the associate director of the House Republican Conference. John A. Marini and Ken Masugi each served as special assistant to the chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Gary L. McDowell served as adviser to Attorney General Edwin Meese III. James H. Nichols served as a senior official at the National Endowment for the Humanities. Charles Fairbanks served as assistant deputy secretary of state for human rights. Ralph A. Rossum served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Gary J. Schmitt served as head of President Ronald Reagan’s National Advisory Board of Foreign Intelligence. Peter W Schramm served as a senior official in the Department of Education. Steven R. Schlesinger served as Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Abram N. Shulsky served as director of strategic arms control policy at the Department of Defense. Nathan Tarcov served as a member of the State Department policy planning staff. Michael Uhlman served as Assistant Attorney General in the Ford Administration and as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Jeffrey D. Wallin served as Director of General Program at the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford P. Wilson served as Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger.
Parts of this list can be found in Robert Devigne, Recasting Conservatism: Oakeshott, Strauss, and the Response to Postmodernism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 221-22, n. 76. As Devigne points out, this kind of information is found in the short biographies of contributors to books and journals.