Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The other conservatives, being the second part of American Conservatism
For part one, see here.
Burke may be the intellectual godfather, so to speak, of conservatism, but he is not without his critics on the right. First and foremost among them is Leo Strauss, arguably the most influential conservative thinker of the 20th century.
Strauss is a philosopher – a political philosopher, but nonetheless a philosopher. As such he puts much stock in classical philosophy, or pre-Machiavellian political thought.
Strauss and his followers are very much elitists. They believed that philosophy should be left to the grownups. In other words, much like Plato, he believed that only a select few had the gifts and wisdom to be true leaders. So ingrained was this thought that he made a distinction between “exoteric” and “esoteric” writing. The philosophers’ “public” thought was represented in their exoteric scribbling, but their underlying and true thought was revealed in the esoteric writing accessible to the chosen few. Confused? Well, try reading Strauss.
What makes Strauss a right-wing figure is his abhorrence of liberalism and its tendency to celebrate relativism. In this and in many other ways he is not wholly unsympathetic to Burke. But where he and Burke part company is in regards to historicism. Strauss reads into Burke’s thought a quasi-relativistic philosophy. Because Burke praises the particular, it seems to Strauss that he shuns universal values of justice. Strauss fails to appreciate the synthesis in Burke’s political thought. Burke does not eschew universal rights. He believes there is a universal moral order, but that no society perfectly encapsulates this moral order, and that through the workings of history this moral order will become more readily apparent.
Strauss is also representative of a type of thinking ill-favored by Burke. Burke rejects the metaphysical abstractions of the French revolutionaries, but Strauss is very much an abstract theorist – though clearly his theories are not the same as those whom Burke writes of. Burke and Straus are both critical of the French revolution, but for different reasons. Strauss harkens to the classical philosophers who envisioned an ideal society. Burke is no idealist. Strauss reasons through abstract thought, whereas Burke prefers the experiential.
In some regards Strauss is a rightist version of Rawls. They are cold, calculating, and quite frankly dull. Burke’s writings are effusive and capture the imagination. Strauss speaks the language of an elitist academic conjuring none of the so-called moral imagination.
Strauss accuses Burke of debasing philosophy by bringing it low. But Burke’s pragmatism, in rejecting the idle utopianism of the philosophes, actually raises political thought to greater heights by bringing us closer to reality. What good are Plato’s ruminations about the perfect society when such an ideal can never be achieved?
Arguably Strauss has had a greater influence on American conservative thought than Burke, at least at the highest levels of academia and government. Burke’s conservatism is the conservatism of the masses; Strauss’ that of dreamy idealists in positions of authority. Of course, Burkean conservatism is in its own ways elitist as well. But its elitism is rooted in the notion that there are natural distinctions between people, and that true equality is a chimera. Strauss takes this elitism to a new level. Not only are there certain people better fit to guide, the masses are essentially to be ignored. Yes, this is a very crude way to characterize Straussian elitism, but this is a blog post, not a dissertation. But because Strauss precludes the great majority from thinking about weighty matters, they have little to contribute to the political debate. Burke’s conservatism applies to the society in general – Strauss’ to the elites.
Oddly enough it is Strauss that is the intellectual patron saint of that brand of conservativism that seeks to import American democracy across the globe. Burkeans are warier of global adventurism, though they certainly would permit the aggressive use of force to defend the nation. In their own ways, both strands of conservative thought would allow for “preventative” strikes, but their overarching objectives would be quite different.
And we’ll get to the heart of those differences in the future.
Burke may be the intellectual godfather, so to speak, of conservatism, but he is not without his critics on the right. First and foremost among them is Leo Strauss, arguably the most influential conservative thinker of the 20th century.
Strauss is a philosopher – a political philosopher, but nonetheless a philosopher. As such he puts much stock in classical philosophy, or pre-Machiavellian political thought.
Strauss and his followers are very much elitists. They believed that philosophy should be left to the grownups. In other words, much like Plato, he believed that only a select few had the gifts and wisdom to be true leaders. So ingrained was this thought that he made a distinction between “exoteric” and “esoteric” writing. The philosophers’ “public” thought was represented in their exoteric scribbling, but their underlying and true thought was revealed in the esoteric writing accessible to the chosen few. Confused? Well, try reading Strauss.
What makes Strauss a right-wing figure is his abhorrence of liberalism and its tendency to celebrate relativism. In this and in many other ways he is not wholly unsympathetic to Burke. But where he and Burke part company is in regards to historicism. Strauss reads into Burke’s thought a quasi-relativistic philosophy. Because Burke praises the particular, it seems to Strauss that he shuns universal values of justice. Strauss fails to appreciate the synthesis in Burke’s political thought. Burke does not eschew universal rights. He believes there is a universal moral order, but that no society perfectly encapsulates this moral order, and that through the workings of history this moral order will become more readily apparent.
Strauss is also representative of a type of thinking ill-favored by Burke. Burke rejects the metaphysical abstractions of the French revolutionaries, but Strauss is very much an abstract theorist – though clearly his theories are not the same as those whom Burke writes of. Burke and Straus are both critical of the French revolution, but for different reasons. Strauss harkens to the classical philosophers who envisioned an ideal society. Burke is no idealist. Strauss reasons through abstract thought, whereas Burke prefers the experiential.
In some regards Strauss is a rightist version of Rawls. They are cold, calculating, and quite frankly dull. Burke’s writings are effusive and capture the imagination. Strauss speaks the language of an elitist academic conjuring none of the so-called moral imagination.
Strauss accuses Burke of debasing philosophy by bringing it low. But Burke’s pragmatism, in rejecting the idle utopianism of the philosophes, actually raises political thought to greater heights by bringing us closer to reality. What good are Plato’s ruminations about the perfect society when such an ideal can never be achieved?
Arguably Strauss has had a greater influence on American conservative thought than Burke, at least at the highest levels of academia and government. Burke’s conservatism is the conservatism of the masses; Strauss’ that of dreamy idealists in positions of authority. Of course, Burkean conservatism is in its own ways elitist as well. But its elitism is rooted in the notion that there are natural distinctions between people, and that true equality is a chimera. Strauss takes this elitism to a new level. Not only are there certain people better fit to guide, the masses are essentially to be ignored. Yes, this is a very crude way to characterize Straussian elitism, but this is a blog post, not a dissertation. But because Strauss precludes the great majority from thinking about weighty matters, they have little to contribute to the political debate. Burke’s conservatism applies to the society in general – Strauss’ to the elites.
Oddly enough it is Strauss that is the intellectual patron saint of that brand of conservativism that seeks to import American democracy across the globe. Burkeans are warier of global adventurism, though they certainly would permit the aggressive use of force to defend the nation. In their own ways, both strands of conservative thought would allow for “preventative” strikes, but their overarching objectives would be quite different.
And we’ll get to the heart of those differences in the future.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:27 PM
