Strauss and Bolton

By Crispin Sartwell

 

Whether or not, as reported,  John Bolton chases people through hotels throwing things at them (which I think would be an asset or indeed a necessity for a UN ambassador), he certainly is dedicated to overstating the threats of mass destruction posed by "rogue states" such as Cuba, Syria, and Saddam's Iraq.

    Indeed, Bolton's entire function in the first George W. Bush administration seems to have been exaggerating or manufacturing threats, and one wonders what evils, under his aegis, the "intelligence" community might have associated with Djibouti or Bhutan.

    Be this as it may, the idea of manipulating policy and public opinion through deception is perhaps the central feature of the political philosophy with which such architects of administration policy as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky are associated. I refer to "Straussianism": the thought of German/American philosopher Leo Strauss. All of these figures were students of Strauss (who died in 1972) or of his students.

    Bolton's own function seems to have been as a kind of hatchet man for the Straussian thinkers in the administration foreign-policy community.

    Before I give a sketch of Strauss's philosophy, let me issue a disclaimer: Strauss is a difficult thinker, and according to his own philosophy he might have meant the opposite of what he actually said (a disconcerting and irritating idea to say the least). Great philosophical texts, for Strauss, have an "exoteric" meaning - a direct interpretation of what they say, aimed at the common reader - and an "esoteric" meaning available only to an elite of highly trained intellectuals.

    Strauss held that the world should be run by such intellectuals, inheritors of the grand Western tradition as it existed previously to such aberrations as democracy and tolerance.

    Plato is the Straussians' model and hero, though Strauss unsurprisingly thought that Plato's dialogues said the opposite of what they meant. But Plato, in the Republic, argued that the state should be governed by a group of philosopher-kings who would manipulate the common rabble through systematic lies. Of course they'd do this for the good of the rabble themselves.

    I would think the Republican Straussians have done about as thorough a job of implementing this noble program as is possible under present conditions. For example, fundamentalist Christianity as a central governing motif is the very model of a Straussian exoteric text: it's a strategy for re-instituting absolute values by which the people can be controlled, though no self-respecting Straussian would take it seriously as a body of doctrine.

   On the other hand, the new German pope, with his "dictatorship of relativism" seems to have Straussian proclivities.

   George W. Bush himself is no Straussian, and perhaps he's the First Victim: the instrument under whose folksy tutelage the rest of us are brought to heel

     With the possible exception of the Nixon and Johnson administrations, the Bush administration is the most secretive, dishonest, and manipulative in American history. The difference, if any, is that the Nixon and Johnson administrations did not actually have a coherent philosophy according to which lying was a moral obligation.

    In its remarkable perversity, Straussianism is an interesting philosophy, but let me list some of what I regard as its little drawbacks.

(1) It is almost nothing but a pure form of self-congratulation. Strauss and his followers have erected an astonishing edifice of historical interpretation all dedicated to a single proposition: we are smarter than you. Straussianism is soaked in arrogance and profound insecurity.

(2) The idea that rulers must govern by publicly promulgated laws, known judges, and public proceedings is associated with the philosophy of John Locke: the great intellectual hero of the founders of the American republic, a pernicious, decadent fool according to Strauss. The actual way the administration conducts itself ≠ for example, its quaint notion that it can imprison people without charge, trial, or representation of any kind ≠ makes you wonder whether all the talk about democracy is strictly exoteric.

(3) As one uses falsehood to wield power one becomes not only a liar (although an extremely intelligent liar superior to people simple-minded enough to regard honesty as a virtue) but unaccountable to anyone for the policies one then goes on to formulate. In other words, abuse of power is built into the intellectual structure at its foundation.

     Perhaps the next wave of American rulers will be deconstructionists or post-impressionists or equestrians. Until then, keep your nose to the grindstone and your fingers in your ears.

 

Crispin Sartwell teaches political philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.