History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
It certainly seems plausible that if Straussians are divided over what Straussianism implies for foreign policy, it is the Straussians who favour an expansionist, imperial policy who would be more likely to win positions of power and influence in Washington, while the Straussians who think otherwise would be less likely. (Advising the state to extend its reach is always likely to result in greater preferment from the state.) So we would expect the DC Straussians to be more imperialist than the Straussian mainstream, WHATEVER the correct interpretation of Strauss himself (to which I can't speak).
Well I'm not a Strauss scholar, but I do think that based on my reading of him it's probably fairer and closer to the man than some public intellectuals who get grouped with him are. The real folks to ask would be people like Mike Zuckert at ND or one of my colleagues like Mark Yellin or Christine Henderson. I'll ask them to take a look at it and comment on it if possible.
Interesting. So do you think that the essay is a pretty fair assessment?
I think it's safe to say that there are A LOT of Straussians who could do with some Strauss reading. The guy was not nearly as radical in his worldview as many of his "followers," and should certainly be credited with pretty much saving political theory from the post-mods.