Books, Arts & Manners

Liberalism, Ancient and ModernBy Leo Strauss Basic Books, $8.95 Getting acquainted with the thought of Leo Strauss is not especially easy for most readers. For one thing, Strauss presents his thought mainly in the form of commentaries on authors long since dead. This is a double jeopardy, for not only does he thereby disappoint the demand for originality—the real philosopher, we are assured, opens new vistas and brings fresh insights—but in addition his choice of ancient authors must, in the opinion of many, class his work as history of ideas at best, or nostalgic rummaging in archives at worst. Conservatives, who by and large do not simply share these opinions, if only because they are aware that the Bible is an ancient book, are nevertheless frequently ill-prepared by modern education to understand old writings even with the help of commentary. For all such persons, Liberalism, Ancient and Modern takes its place beside What is Political Philosophy? as the most appropriate introduction to Strauss’ thought.

Strauss’ originality consists not in innovation but in the recovery of something lost. Its importance is to be estimated from the fact that the thing lost is clarity about and comprehension of the fundamental moral, religious and philosophical opinion upon which the modern secular state and modern life are based. An instance of this forgetfulness is noted in the Preface, when Strauss explains the inadequacy of “liberal” and “conservative” as terms denoting opposites. The distinction was originally made with respect to the opposition of advocates of popular sovereignty and freedom of religion to the principles of throne and altar. Since American conservatives fully agree with liberals on this important question, one should rather say that what conservatives oppose is “progressivism.” Strauss provisionally characterizes this opposition in terms of a single issue: the attitude of the two camps toward the idea of a world-state. Progressives in principle favor a “universal and homogeneous” society, not merely in deference to the threat of nuclear war, but because they regard it as the moral and rational completion of man’s future, whereas conservatives in principle favor many particular societies. Consequently, conservatives oppose Communism both in its means and end, whereas progressives, disapproving only of the means, frequently find themselves joined by Communists in opposition to conservatives on questions of national sovereignty (hence foreign policy), religion and so forth.

HC

About the Author

Hiram Caton

Featured Tags

Liberalism, Ancient and ModernBy Leo Strauss Basic Books, $8.95 Getting acquainted with the thought of Leo Strauss is not especially easy for most readers. For one thing, Strauss presents his thought mainly in the form of commentaries on authors long since dead. This is a double jeopardy, for not only does he thereby disappoint the demand for originality—the real philosopher, we are assured, opens new vistas and brings fresh insights—but in addition his choice of ancient authors must, in the opinion of many, class his work as history of ideas at best, or nostalgic rummaging in archives at worst. Conservatives, who by and large do not simply share these opinions, if only because they are aware that the Bible is an ancient book, are nevertheless frequently ill-prepared by modern education to understand old writings even with the help of commentary. For all such persons, Liberalism, Ancient and Modern takes its place beside What is Political Philosophy? as the most appropriate introduction to Strauss’ thought.

Strauss’ originality consists not in innovation but in the recovery of something lost. Its importance is to be estimated from the fact that the thing lost is clarity about and comprehension of the fundamental moral, religious and philosophical opinion upon which the modern secular state and modern life are based. An instance of this forgetfulness is noted in the Preface, when Strauss explains the inadequacy of “liberal” and “conservative” as terms denoting opposites. The distinction was originally made with respect to the opposition of advocates of popular sovereignty and freedom of religion to the principles of throne and altar. Since American conservatives fully agree with liberals on this important question, one should rather say that what conservatives oppose is “progressivism.” Strauss provisionally characterizes this opposition in terms of a single issue: the attitude of the two camps toward the idea of a world-state. Progressives in principle favor a “universal and homogeneous” society, not merely in deference to the threat of nuclear war, but because they regard it as the moral and rational completion of man’s future, whereas conservatives in principle favor many particular societies. Consequently, conservatives oppose Communism both in its means and end, whereas progressives, disapproving only of the means, frequently find themselves joined by Communists in opposition to conservatives on questions of national sovereignty (hence foreign policy), religion and so forth.