What do Plato, Machiavelli, and Carl Schmitt have to do with the Iraq war? In this interview with Danny Postel, Shadia Drury argues that the doctrines of the late political philosopher Leo Strauss provide a key to understanding the Bush administration's selling of the invasion and the logic of the neocon worldview. Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
Posted by Danny at October 16, 2003 09:34 AMDanny,
Read your interview. Very interesting... Thanks! I was aware of the Neo-Con/Bushco Straussian connection but not aware of Professor Drury's interpretation of "the Man".
Did you hear of Tim Robbins' reference to "those Straussians in Washington DC" on the Daily Show with John Stewart a couple of weeks ago?
I want to share your article with a friend, but do not want to subscribe to Open Democracy. Could you send me an attachment that I can print out or forward to my friend?
Miles
Posted by: Miles Mendenhall at October 17, 2003 08:25 PMDanny,
On the one hand, I enjoyed your interview with Shadia Drury. On the other hand, she strikes me as a Grade A (okay, maybe Grade C) wack-job. Having not read Strauss, I realize I'm on thin ice, so I'll make three points I think I can safely make based on your interview and her website.
1.) She was very vague, in the interview, as to who in the Bush administration qualifies as one of the "gentlemen" and who as one of the "wise" (in fact, she seems to be switching categories, in describing the same people, from one paragraph to the next).
This is important because if the Bush administration is full of gentlemen - i.e. people who believe in the spread of American ideals throughout the world - then who the hell are the wise? And what the hell does Strauss have to do with any of this? Is he pulling their strings from the grave?
2.) Along those lines, until she identifies some evidence - names some names, cites some quotations, etc. - that Straussian actors actually exist and have influence, then as far as I'm concerned it's just another crackpot conspiracy theory.
It's easier for me to believe that Irving Kristol et al actually believe what they write when they defend Strauss, and themselves, as defenders of liberal democracy than it is for me to believe that Drury has uncovered a conspiracy, particularly when she cites no evidence of said conspiracy other than letters she received from Straussian graduate students. Bunk, I say, Bunk.
3.) For some insight into the quality of her thought, check out her ridiculous review of Saul Bellow's RAVELSTEIN. It reads like the work of a bright, well-educated college sophomore with a completely deaf ear for literature. Honestly, I find it hard to have respect for the opinions of someone who reviews Bellow as if, in RAVELSTEIN, he was attempting to write a primer on neo-conservatism.
My general point, Danny, is that I think you got snookered. Drury sounds to me like a thoughtful, if unorthodox, critic of Strauss with a paranoid, unsophisticated understanding of politics and human nature.
Best,
Dan Oppenheimer
Ignore the critics. I think your interview with Drury was excellent. I read it on OpenDemocracy with a grim satisfaction. I have only read two of Strauss' works, but when reading what Drury had to say, it was quite clear that she was right. I found this website and I'm going to read other writings you've written. I graduated with a degree in PHilosophy from a very Straussian school. How can I get in touch with Drury?
Posted by: Ameer at October 23, 2003 01:49 PM