Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is Glenn Beck a Straussian?

  1. #1

    Is Glenn Beck a Straussian?

    If you go back to Straussian philosophy, a lot of the rhetoric is very similar to the Liberty movement. Are people like Glenn Beck Straussian's? Is the "Tea Party" movement a merger of the two?

    Rothbard on Strauss

    by David Gordon

    Paul Wolfowitz and other architects of American foreign policy, according to a recent article by James Atlas linked on this site from the New York Times, are "Straussians," i.e., disciples of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss’s intricate works on Plato, Alfarabi, Spinoza, and Hobbes, among others, are decidedly an acquired taste; but even those uninterested in Strauss’s distinction between natural law and natural right, or his theory of esoteric writing, need to understand the basics of his thought, in view of Mr. Atlas’s revelations.

    What are we to think of Strauss? Murray Rothbard addressed this question more than forty years ago, in several reviews of Strauss’s works, written for the William Volker Fund. The situation that Rothbard confronted differed entirely from the present. Strauss did not then appear, whether rightly or wrongly, as the supposed mastermind behind an aggressive American foreign policy. Quite the contrary, to most American conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s, Strauss seemed a valiant battler against positivism and historicism in political science. In their stead, he wished to revive the study of the Greek classics; and he appeared to defend natural law against its modern detractors. Would Rothbard, himself a champion of natural law, find in Strauss a welcome ally?

    Rothbard located a fatal flaw in Strauss’s work. He was no friend whom libertarians should rush to embrace: his view of natural law was entirely mistaken. Further, his mistake was not a mere theoretical failing, of interest to no one but a few scholars. The misunderstanding of morality that ran through Strauss’s work might lead, if applied in practice, to immense harm. Strauss wished to replace the ironclad restrictions on the state, imposed by natural law rightly understood, with the "prudential" judgments of political leaders who aim to enhance national power.

    Though he opposed Strauss, Rothbard paid generous tribute to his insights: Strauss’s "virtue is that he is in the forefront of the fight to restore and resurrect political philosophy from the interment given it by modern positivists and adherents of scientism – in short, that he wants to restore values and political ethics to the study of politics."(All quotations are from unpublished letters by Rothbard, written in 1960.)

    Rothbard found Strauss effective in his criticism of assorted relativists and historicists: "Strauss begins [an essay on relativism] with the almost incredibly confused and overrated Isaiah Berlin, and has no trouble demolishing Berlin and exposing his confusions – Berlin trying to be at the same time an exponent of ‘positive freedom’, ‘negative freedom’, absolutism and relativism." Strauss shows that, "in denying the possibility of rational ends [as relativists do] rational means are not on a very secure basis either."

    Strauss has demolished relativism; but what does he propose to put in its place? The version of natural law that Strauss supports fails to extricate us fully from relativism. "Strauss, while favoring what he considers to be the classical and Christian concepts of natural law, is bitterly opposed to the 17th–18th Century conceptions of Locke and the rationalists, particularly to their ‘abstract’, ‘deductive’ championing of the rights of the individual: liberty, property, etc." Strauss’s own arguments against the relativists show that we must have an ethics based on reason, but the version of natural law he favors does not meet this requirement.

    As Strauss sees matters, classical and Christian natural law did not impose strict and absolute limits on state power; instead, all is left to the prudential judgment of the wise statesman. From this contention, Rothbard vigorously dissents. "In this [Straussian] reading, Hobbes and Locke are the great villains in the alleged perversion of natural law. To my mind, the ‘perversion’ was a healthy sharpening and development of the concept." In Rothbard’s view, medieval natural law thinkers fully recognized that individuals have rights. Incidentally, the foremost work of contemporary scholarship on this issue, Brian Tierney’s The Idea of Natural Rights, vindicates Rothbard’s side of the dispute.

    Strauss’s rejection of individual rights led him to espouse political views that Rothbard found repellent: "We find Strauss . . . praising ‘farsighted’, ‘sober’ British imperialism; we find him discoursing on the ‘good’ Caesarism, on Caesarism as often necessary and not really tyranny, etc... he praises political philosophers for yes, lying to their readers for the sake of the ‘social good’…. I must say that this is an odd position for a supposed moralist to take."

    Not only did Rothbard oppose Strauss’s account of natural law; he also found risible the method of textual analysis by which Strauss arrived at his conclusions. Strauss believed that the great political philosophers faced a dilemma. They often held views at odds with prevailing orthodoxy; should they propagate their dissent openly, they faced persecution. In any case, their doctrines were meant for an elite group of disciples, not for an unlearned public unfit to judge them.

    What then was to be done? According to Strauss, the philosophers concealed their true opinions through esoteric writing. Seeming contradictions in a text by a great philosopher were not mistakes; they instead signaled the presence of a hidden message.

    Rothbard, to say the least, found Strauss’s method unpersuasive. Strauss’s most extended presentation of esoteric interpretation is contained in his Thoughts on Machiavelli. About this work Rothbard comments: "But it is one thing to look for circumspection, and quite another to construct a veritable architectonic of myth and conjecture based on the assumption of Machiavelli as an omniscient Devil, writing on a dozen different levels of ‘hidden meaning’. The Straussian ratiocination is generally so absurd as to be a kind of scholar’s version of the Great Pyramid crackpots."

    Rothbard offers this as an example of Strauss’s striving for esoteric novelty: "Note the odd ‘reasoning’: ‘Since the Prince consists of twenty-six chapters and the Prince does not give us any information as to the possible meaning of this number, we turn to the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses’. Note the ‘since’, as if this had the sweet logic of a syllogism." Perhaps it is by similar "reasoning" that Straussians in the Department of Defense have convinced themselves that their schemes for American hegemony are purely defensive in nature.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon7.html
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Strauss is the father of neo-conservativism. Irving Kristol studied under him at the Univ. of Chicago.

  4. #3
    It seems like there is a resurgence in interest in Strauss, and it seems to be a basis for people like Beck, who use often speak about natural rights. They seem to be (outwardly) backing up over Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, and going back to Strauss.

    IC's Top 25 Philosophical and Ideological Conservative Books
    No. 25 - Leo Strauss: Natural Right and History
    by Dr. Enrico Peppe
    27 September 2003

    Starting with #25, IC's Dr. Enrico Peppe reviews the first of IC's top 25 conservative books. Dr. Peppe argues that Strauss' book on natural rights does not advocate either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative position. Strauss is a traditionalist, not a classical liberal.

    Published in 1950 when Strauss was a professor at the University of
    Chicago, this tour de force is remarkable for the effect it had on the
    conservative mind.

    Today, the book is equally remarkable for the brouhaha it elicits
    amongst the conservative factions. It is well nigh impossible to go a
    day or two without reading that the book and Strauss are responsible for
    our troubles in Iraq (from the paleos) or that he espoused ideas that
    justify our occupation (the neo contention that we should conduct
    foreign policy so as to protect liberal democracy).

    Both the neos and paleos are skimpy and careless in their analyses. But,
    first, what did Strauss say?

    In "Natural Right and History" Strauss explicates modern conceptions of
    natural law (or its alter ego, natural rights). He discusses Hobbes,
    Locke, Rousseau, Burke (yes,Burke) and others. He finds their ideas
    wanting because they had departed from the doctrines of Plato,
    Aristotle, and Cicero. As a result of not consulting with the classical
    sages, an emergence of destructive trends (positivism and historicism)
    led to Nihilism and, as we all know, the rest is history.

    For Strauss, ignorance of the ancients leads to "...(the) inescapable
    practical consequence of ...fanatical obscurantism."
    As he says, " Once we realize that the principles of our actions have no
    other support than our blind choice, we really do not believe in them
    any more...We cannot live any more as responsible beings. In order to
    live, we have to silence...the voice of reason, which tells us that our
    principles are in themselves as good or as bad as any other
    principles...." The late, great, Will Herberg, writing at about the
    same time, and referencing the conservative critique of modernism, says
    (this sums up Strauss perfectly!):

    "Conservatives, true to the classical tradition, of our culture, whether
    Hebrew or Greek...affirm the doctrine of the higher law as the very
    cornerstone of their moral, social, and political philosophy. (Liberals)
    have frequently rejected this doctrine in favor of some form of legal
    positivism, cultural relativism, and moral pragmatism."

    And this is what the book is about. No more. No less. So why the vitriolic disputation? For miasmic and stupid reasons, I think.

    (1) The conflict between the paleos and neos is not a family quarrel. Both cabals have motives (resulting from their philosophical underpinnings) that result in verbiage designed to entice the public to their side. As a result, inanities prevail. The fact that Irving Kristol hailed Strauss as one of his heroes should not lead to William Pfaff's observation that "...His real appeal to the neoconservatives...is that his (Stauss') eltism presents a principled rationalization for policy expediency and ...necessary lies." Hell, I liked Hendrix 30 years ago; now, I like Segovia. Or, the neo versions, abounding in the "Weekly Standard" that castigate the paleos with the charge of anti-Zionism and worse because Paul Wolfowitz studied under
    Strauss, and paleos, as we are told endlessly, fear a Wolfowitz quagmire
    in Iraq. Peter Berkowitz, in the 6/02/03 issue of the "Weekly Standard"
    says of Strauss and his supposed power that...(the Neos)
    are able, a generation and a half after (Strauss') death, to...compel
    the actions of highly successful and well-placed individuals not only in
    politics, but in the media and the academy." He says this sarcastically,
    but his point is germane. Both the paleos and neos are off-kilter --
    Strauss made a very important contribution to the conservative canon --
    that's all. Both factions would do well to review Kant and his passages
    pertaining to epistemology. Kant makes it clear that knowledge either
    "is" or "is perceived." The warriors of both sides are perception-whacky I fear.

    (2) I have not found a decent analysis of Strauss yet. So forgive my
    cheek:

    In theology, a distinction is made between transcendence and immanence.
    Transcendence refers to the permanent and objective presence of the
    Godhead, of the eschaton, if you will. God's status is independent of
    His Creation. He intervenes, from time to time, within nature and
    history, through miracles. Immanence speaks of God's presence and activity within the arenas of nature, human nature, and what we think of as reality -- as a day-to-day thing. Here, God's status is that of a continual presence within us.

    The history of man shows a marked presence for immanence. Eric Voeglin
    has warned us to not "immanentize the Christian eschaton." But we do. We
    can't help it. Strauss saw transcendence in Plato and immanence in
    Hobbes.

    And thus we witness Strauss' contribution to the conservative cause. And
    I posit, we witness the real Strauss -- a traditionalist pure and
    simple, not a classical liberal (sorry, Paleos. Sorry, Neos).

    Millard Erickson, theologian extraordinaire, clears it up for me when he
    says, "The twentieth century has seen several movements, which place
    heavy emphasis upon divine immanence...classical liberalism...has seen
    God as immanent within the world. The difference is a world-view...The
    conservative operates...with God outside the world...he sees reality as
    occupying more than one level (with sound morality an a priori consideration)...The Liberal tends to have a single-story view of reality. (For him), there is no supernatural realm outside of the natural realm...God is within nature rather than beyond or outside it."

    Neither the paleos nor neos can claim Strauss. Both camps are well
    within the confines of classical liberalism. Both camps pay homage to
    it.

    Strauss was a traditional Catholic. He just didn't know it.

    http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2710.html
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    What to make of this quote?

    "The attack on natural right in the name of history takes, in most cases, the following form: natural right claims to be a right that is discernible by human reason and is universally acknowledged; but history (including anthropology) teaches us that no such right exists; instead of the supposed uniformity, we find an indefinite variety of notions of right or justice. Or, in other words, there cannot be natural right if there are no immutable principles of justice, but history shows us that all principles of justice are mutable. One cannot understand the meaning of the attack on natural right in the name of history before one has realized the utter irrelevance of this argument. In the first place, 'consent of all mankind' is by no means a necessary condition of the existence of natural right. Some of the greatest natural right teachers have argued that, precisely if natural right is rational, its discovery presupposes the cultivation of reason, and therefore natural right will not be known universally: one ought not even to expect any real knowledge of natural right among savages. In other words, by proving that there is no principle of justice that has not been denied somewhere or at some time, one has not yet proved that any given denial was justified or reasonable. Furthermore, it has always been known that different notions of justice obtain at different times and in different nations....If the rejection of natural right in the name of history is to have any significance, it must have a basis other than historical evidence. Its basis must be a philosophic critique of the possibility, or of the knowability, of natural right—a critique somehow connected with 'history.'" Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (1990 edition), Chapter I, "Natural Right and the Historical Approach," pp. 9-10

    http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/bookstrauss.htm
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #5
    lol I really don't think Beck has a coherent political philosophy at all. He certainly isn't the devotee of some fairly obscure theorist like Strauss. Any resemblance is probably due to the fact that Beck is heavily influenced by the political world-view of the neocons, not because he actually understands their underlying philosophy.

    ~~~Forum Asshole & Resident Annoying Leftist~~~
    ~~Member of BAFC (Blame America First Crowd)~~

    "The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

  7. #6
    Flashback.

    I don't recall what this was all about. No doubt something Beck was professing at the time...
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    If "Straussian" is codespeak for "$#@!", then yes.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #8
    He's a pundit. Just because some in corporate/government media are kissing our asses right now does not mean we should forget how the media works. These people are schills whose job it is to control, shape and shift the narratives (not to mention the ratings prerogative of course).

    Pundits are not our friends. We should only use them insomuch as they're using us.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. [Video] Glenn Greenwald on the Glenn Beck Radio Program
    By tsai3904 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-05-2015, 05:11 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-08-2014, 09:11 AM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 06:40 PM
  4. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 07:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •