Neoconservatism and Leo Strauss: the place of a liberal education

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the work of Leo Strauss, specifically his two essays on liberal education. Strauss is often claimed to be a founding thinker of neoconservatism and while much scholarship has been produced analyzing his work, very little discusses his essays on liberal education and how these fit within his larger project. This essay begins to fill that void by outlining the two essays and discussing their relation to his projects of critiquing both modernity and western liberal democracy. The essay further draws out some tentative connections between these essays of Strauss's and the larger landscape of neoconservative thinkers currently in favor within the United States government.

Keywords:

• Leo Strauss
• liberal education
• modernity
• neoconservatism

Notes

1. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (2005), in their book America alone, offer an excellent overview and critique of the neoconservative movement from a conservative standpoint. They discuss the influence Strauss has on past and current neoconservatives and claim that while first generation neoconservatives seem clearly influenced by his ideas (e.g., The closing of the American mind by Allan Bloom), the current generation either treats him with indifference or is wholly unfamiliar with his work.

2. Arguably, one could hold a less hierarchical concept of teaching and learning in which the student/teacher relationship is more reciprocal, less rigidly differentiated. This would be one where the teachers learn from their students and incorporate life experiences to enhance such learning. Under this model, the concern of an infinite regress disappears as the clear distinction between student and teacher blurs.

3. Electoral apathy is a real concern, even 38 years after the publication of Strauss's book. However, those concerned with this ‘lack of public spirit’ are not usually so dismissive of the masses, as Strauss seems to be. Certain people like Noam Chomsky make similar points concerning the use of mass media in order to distract the general public from issues that are more important. On the other hand, Chomsky usually places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the elites for this state of affairs, and does not argue that the masses are incapable of ruling themselves, something Strauss seems to imply throughout his discussions on modern democracy. In his defense, it is unclear whether Strauss is actually dismissing the ignorant masses or simply critiquing modern democratic politics.

4. In fact, Strauss studied the Islamic philosopher and scientist al‐Farabi and the Jewish philosopher and rabbi Maimonides. However, it seems to be the case that these two were the exception to the rule.

5. This book is written by two former students of Strauss. It is a sympathetic reading of Strauss, and is meant to combat much of the criticisms offered by the media and specifically Shadia Drury. It makes a strong case for reading Strauss as a postmodern thinker, in the sense of being critical of modernity and the modern condition. It also addresses the debate over whether Strauss wrote esoterically, and argues that he did not. For those interested in an introduction to Strauss, both by those who studied under Strauss and who are sympathetic to his teachings, it is a good one. For those wishing to hear both sides of the story, so to speak, it is good for that as well.