February 8, 2005
After dealing with Allan Bloom in the 'American Applications of Straussian Philosophy,' chapter of her book, Leo Strauss and the American Right Shadia Drury turns to Willmore Kendall. He provides the pragmatic, practical and poltical application of Straussian ideas. Drury says:
"The third reaction acknowledges the truth of Bloom's vision, but refuses to despair. Instead, it takes a pragmatic approach and sets out to make the most of a bad situation. Willmoore Kendall is the best example of this approach, although it can be argued that Joseph Cropsey, Martin Diamond, and Thomas Pangle provide variations on this theme. This pragmatic approach lays the foundations of neoconservatism discussed in the next chapter."
This response combines the position of Jaffa and Bloom. Drury explains this in the following way:
"It accepts Jaffa's claim that America's foundations have an ancient lineage and are therefore not altogether modern, as well as Bloom's assertion that America's troubles have their source in her liberal modernity. But in this view, what is critical is the recognition that America's troubles are not totally incurable. They can best be addressed by curbing the excesses of her modernity. The key to nursing America back to health is to undermine her liberal modernity and bring to the fore vestiges of ancient wisdom that are deeply hidden and long forgotten."
This looks to be more promising as populism is deemed to be the cure for America's liberal malaise. This is certainly the main response in Australia to the problems of neo-liberalism.
The argument is that:
"..the populist project is not a betrayal of America's roots or her heritage, and that antiliberal, anti-individualist, and antisecularist ideas have always been a part of America's heritage, even if they have never been part of her official documents. The conservative spirit may not have inspired many American leaders, and as a result, it has been politically overshadowed by the more flamboyant spirit of liberalism."
So what is the Kendall's Straussian strategy?
Drury argues that Kendall launches an assault on liberalism by employing the:
"...classic friend-enemy dichotomy. The enemies are "barbarians" or Communists who threaten America from without, and "heretics" or Communist sympathizers and liberals who undermine America from within. The internal enemy is by far the most dangerous. Kendall is convinced that the liberal enemy may have won many battles, but it has not won the war."
The key is to turn the people against liberalism and foster a new populism in the service of conservative principles. The elite must turn the people against liberal institutions. The idea is to drive a wedge between liberalism and democracy, and to use the popular will to defeat liberalism.
Is this not what has happened in Australia under John Howard? Or in America under George Bush? Do we not have the populist attack on the (left)liberal elite in the name of the sentiments of the people? Do we not have the religious right attacking liberal permissiveness for moral decay of civil society in the name of family of values? Do we not have the cultivation of conservative populism as a working class movement---Thomas Frank's blacklash populism?
|
Why exactly do you take Shadia Drury's word for what Strauss says? Why do you indulge in her guilt by association tactics? Strauss was not a neo-conservative and deserves to be treated on his own terms.
Last time I read Drury's second book on Strauss she would make wild allegations and provide the odd footnote reference, which, sadly for her, in no way supported her case.