Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique

by Grant N. Havers

Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy critically interprets Strauss's political philosophy from a conservative perspective. Most mainstream readers of Strauss have either condemned him from the Left as an extreme right-wing opponent of liberal democracy or celebrated him from the Right as a traditional defender of Western civilization. Rejecting both portrayals, Grant N. Havers shifts the debate beyond the conventional parameters stating that Strauss was neither a man of the Far Right nor a conservative but. in fact a secular Cold War liberal.

In Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy Havers contends that the most troubling implication of Straussianism is that it provides an ideological rationale for the aggressive spread of democratic values on a global basis while ignoring the preconditions that make these values possible. Concepts such as the rule of law, constitutional government, Christian morality, and the separation of church and state are not easily transplanted beyond the historic confines of Anglo-American civilization, as recent wars to spread democracy have demonstrated.

Genres: Politics

264 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2013

Reviews

[Tomislav]

A populist, religious critique which, much like Shadia Drury’s book, unwittingly makes its subject seem much cooler that he actually was. The main point is that Strauss was wrong in his critique of historicism and his attempt to diminish the role of Christianity; his philosophical project actually does a disservice to American democracy by intellectually undermining its foundations. Havers dismisses him as an elitist Cold War liberal, a pagan, fake conservative who searched for eternal values and ancient role models to counter historicist relativism, and believed that all humans have the natural ability to understand a good political order. The titular conservativism is not meant in some broad sense; it is equated with democratic populism and, most importantly, Protestant religiosity, which is interpreted in a historicist way as the force of progress in history.

Havers acknowledges that Strauss’s ideas are complex and more moderate than other critics assume. However, he then proceeds to criticize them in a quite a simplistic way. He tends to take Strauss at his word, rather than go into hermeneutic and conspiratorial readings. However, in order to move past Strauss’ ambiguities he turns to his followers for more precise explanations and it often becomes unclear whether he is criticizing him or his students. Havers dismisses the modern reinterpretations of Greek political life and points out that American founders distanced themselves from classical heritage and did not see their politics as an expression of a natural, ahistorical ideal. By focusing on excesses of Straussians, he creates a simplistic dichotomy in which any political idea that cannot be traced to Greeks is inevitably attributed to Protestant theologians. Some of his interpretations are very dubious and he is quite inconsistent in his use of the terms such as Christianity, the West, historicism, progress, etc.

Western political development is presented in a simplistic, reductionist and constructivist way. There is no multitude of historical and cultural factors, no natural evolution of society, spontaneous order or anything like that – the West was created by political philosophers reading Bible and implementing its democratic ideas. Like pedantic Straussians Havers goes into detailed explanations of what some author actually meant, as if such nuances are crucial to understand differences between societies. Russia probably did not develop a flourishing democracy because it lacked authors who would extol the virtue of charity. Maybe he implicitly assumes some facts about social dynamics and development, but it is hard to understand that from the text because most of his claims seem very simplistic. For example, he questions the "viability of spreading Western ideals to parts of the world that have not been exposed to a biblical heritage" as if failures of American policy can unquestionably be reduced to that.

Havers’ criticisms raise more questions than they answer. Is American democracy doomed because of the declining number of Protestants? Will Sub-Saharan Africa become the next beacon of democracy because it was exposed to the correct Protestant version of biblical interpretation? The book was written in the aftermath neoconservative policies and does not address challenges of the last decade, nor does it provide a convincing defense of democracy. If Westerners start to see democracy as a thing of the past, or authoritarianism becomes a viable global alternative, it is hard to imagine that pointing out the correct Protestant interpretation of the Bible will do much to save it. Havers’ criticisms are mostly unconvincing because his own positions in crucial issues are not any stronger than Straussians’. He often drifts into sectarian disputes and trivialities. The book is frustrating because he throws around words without much consistency and jumps carelessly from Strauss to his students. If you share his particular religious views this might be a useful book, but if you are more interested in Strauss, Anglo-American democracy and broader conservatism, there isn’t really much in there.

[The American Conservative]

"Grant Havers, a professor at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, has written an erudite and thoughtful study of Leo Strauss and the philosophical and political forces he fathered in the new world. As the title promises, Havers examines Strauss’s legacy in the context of Anglo-American democracy. ... In any revelatory study, there is always the moment when the reader thinks 'That’s true. I should have seen that.' For me, that moment came with Havers’s account—learned, subtle, and occasionally surprising—of Strauss’s liberalism."

Read the full review here: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...