On 5/3/05, Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 2005-05-02 17:39, d.brin wrote: <snip>> > Break for new subject. > > > Leo Strauss Leo Strauss was a professor of political philosophy at > > the University of Chicago. > > > > <b>Leo Strauss: A Neo-Conservative </b> > > At the same time Leo Strauss, an American professor of political > > philosophy, also came to see western liberalism as corrosive to > > morality and to society. Like Qutb, Strauss believed that individual > > freedoms threatened to tear apart the values which held society > > together. He taught his students that politicians should assert > > powerful and inspiring myths - like religion or the myth of the > > nation - that everyone could believe in. > > Glosses over Strauss' (Strauss or Stauss?) glorification of Western > Civilization and values in contrast to Qutb's complete condemnation of the > same greco-pagan and Judeo-Christian values.
And this glosses over Strauss's history. He supported some elitist parts of classical education. It has been said that Leo had no problems with 30's and 40's Germany except they attacked the wrong group of people - his people. > > I have not read Strauss, but my impression is that it started as a movement > WITHIN the liberal or leftist wing of the struggle for Western Culture > arguing for the absolute and universal imperative toward Western > Civilizational Values and explicitly against liberal and radical relativism. Depends on your definition of the words liberal and leftist. > Indeed, the Kennedy administration was Neo-Conservative in contemporary > terms. Through the 1960's and 1970's, however, ethical relativism (once the > darling of the extreme fascist right) moved to the very center of > liberal-leftist-radical thought. Ironically, relativism gives no ideological > or political traction to the left. Faith is of no utility and fundamentalism > impossible when leftism is hybridized with relativism. Without > fundamentalism there is no fanaticism and with no fanaticism, activism dies. > Relativism realized leftism thereby rendering leftism impotent. I have been following an argument that is being made for that. This could be said for both religion and politics. A certain ruthlessness and non-relativism may be required for broad activism. > > The leftist sea-change in favor of relativism left the Straussian liberals > with no one to ally with but the right. It is only in the 1970's than one > can properly begin to talk about "Neo-Conservatives". True > > Well at any rate you need to mention Alan Bloom since he connects the young > turks to Strauss. > > > A group of young students, including Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama > > and William Kristol studied Strauss' ideas and formed a loose group > > in Washington which became known as the neo-conservatives. They set > > out to create a myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was > > to battle against evil in the world. There are antecedents for this myth - for example the Mormon brotherhood in the Nixon White House. There is too much of a tendency to point to the early Trotsky infatuation of a couple of media neo-conservatives and think that is a characteristic and defining element of the group. Many neo-conservative did not have this brief fling with the radical left. > > > > Both Qutb and Strauss were idealists whose ideas were born out of the > > failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. Somewhat agree. It has also been argued that Strauss was reacting to the Hitlerian dream of a better world. He saw its power but thought a better foundation in Greek philosophy would be an improvement Of course, perhaps also Qutb saw the power of the West and Egypt's governement and thought a model that incorporated some of that brutality but started on a foundation of a "pure" Islam would succeed. > > Perceived failure, mind you. One could argue that the liberal/communist era > DID build a better world. Brin should, it is easy to argue that even > communism was an advance over Tsarist monarchy and Bautista's quisling > kleptocracy. (Ardent [American conservative] anti-communists do not buy it > but the argument is MORE than merely plausible.) > > > The two > > movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue > > their societies from this decay.</i> > > > > For more of this writeup, see: > > http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/powerofnightmares/one.html > > ________________________________________ Interesting. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
