I promise to stop this soon, but everyone knows that the first Sunday after Thanksgiving is known as “political theory Sunday.” From a reader:

Dear Jonah,
I have a rule of not writing commentators, but Leo Strauss so mis-represented and mis-understood in both the conservative and the liberal media, that I decided to go ahead with this email notwithstanding my personal rules.
I openly call myself a Straussian, and a conservative (a neo-conservative, if I had to be classified into a particular group). I studied with two direct students of Leo Strauss, one self-educated Straussian (the late Eve Adler, who probably understood Strauss better than anyone in her generation), and another student of Strauss’ students at Middlebury. My education largely focused on the sort of careful reading of ancient and modern texts of philosophy that Strauss thought worthwhile. I also studied a lot of Strauss himself, even though most of his former students prefer not to teach his writings in their classroom. (Incidentally, in connection to a topic that was discussion at the NRO blog earlier this month, the main reason why Middlebury is not as heavily influenced by the academic left as other similar schools in New England is because of its Straussian professors, as well as other teachers who are influenced by Strauss one way or the other.)
I think it is a stretch to suggest that Leo Strauss was a conservative. The fact is that Strauss and three of his most important early students (Joseph Cropsey, Allan Bloom, and Herbert Storing) were moderates who stayed away from politics. A further testament to this fact is that most of Strauss’ other direct students are not conservative either. If you look across the academia, it is true that many students of Strauss fight the radical leftward movements, the attempt to undo the study of the classical tradition, and the like, but they are not ideological in the sense that we understand conservatives. They are judicious moderates who try to stay away from politics as much as they can. Furthermore, I think most Straussians are disheartened when their teacher is brought into the partisan debate between conservatives and liberals, notwithstanding his great influence on modern conservatism. They also find it quite unfortunate when people who regard themselves as Straussian bring in their partisanship into the classroom; I will not mention any names, but on a personal level, I chose to attend Middlebury precisely because Straussians there do not do that, while at some its competitor colleges, they did.
Of course, there are many conservatives who trace their academic roots to Strauss (including some who studied with him) like Charles Fairbanks, Bill Kristol, Harvey Mansfield, etc. My own view is that it is impossible to read Strauss and not be supportive of the ideas that are today represented by the conservative movement, especially on foreign policy. However, this is a minority view among those who knew Strauss personally, and I think his students are accurate in arguing that Strauss stayed away from partisan politics for a reason. He has had a great influence on modern conservatism, but it does injustice to his great scholarship when he is made part of the partisan debate. This is largely the doing of the left (Norton’s book is the most recent example of an attempt to try to demonize Strauss), but his conservative followers would be most fateful to their teacher if they defend his writings on its own merits as some of the most important contribution to political philosophy there is, rather than to try to defend his merits as a conservative.
With best wishes,
Irakly Areshidze