The esoteric truth is out

University of Chicago

Anne Norton's book "Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire" isn't a scholarly book on the Straussian movement. Rather, it's a liberal (?), ideological criticism of the Straussians, coupled with a lot of gossip about both Strauss himself and his self-proclaimed disciples.

The book is an easy read, but it also feels disorganized. Still, the gossip is actually quite interesting. Norton's book can therefore be devoured as a kind of dessert after reading Shadia Drury's more scholarly criticisms of Strauss and the Straussians. However, I wouldn't expect to get any deep insights from Norton.

In contrast to Drury, Norton doesn't believe that Strauss had an esoteric message. If you read his books carefully, she argues, it's all in there. Norton seems to regard Strauss as a real conservative. At the same time, her description of both Strauss and the Straussians nevertheless give the impression of a weird and fanatical sect or cult. Apparently, the Straussians made themselves impossible in wide scholarly circles, so impossible that many universities still refuse to hire them!

The most sensational "revelation" in the book is, of course, that Alan Bloom was a hedonistic homosexual. Bloom, one of the leaders of East Coast Straussianism, wrote the bestselling "The Closing of the American Mind", a seemingly conservative attack on political correctness. But apparently, Bloom's personal life was something else again. (Incidentally, this lends credence to Drury's opinion that Bloom was indeed an esoteric nihilist.)

Norton further believes that the Straussians have deviated from the true ideas of Leo Strauss himself. However, she never really proves her point. Didn't Strauss support the Cold War? Wasn't he an anti-modernist and elitist? Couldn't this logically be squared with Neo-Con interventionism and calls for a more autocratic regime? Maybe, maybe not. Norton's book isn't very informative on this point. She does describe the contrast between the Neo-Cons and an older breed of conservatives, but she never explains why Strauss should be seen as one of the latter.

Norton ends by pointing out the irony that Strauss studied al-Farabi, a Muslim philosopher based in Baghdad. He also studied Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher who belonged to the court of Saladin, the Muslim leader who eventually defeated the crusaders. The Straussians are hysterically anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and pretty much organized the Iraqi war, while Strauss himself viewed Muslim and Jewish philosophy as part of the Western heritage he so cherished. That is indeed ironical. Socratic irony, perhaps?

To sum up, I'm not sure whether you can actually learn much from this collection of anecdotes, but as a light afternoon read after the more demanding works of Drury (or Strauss!), it nevertheless deserves a place on any anti-Straussian bookshelf.