Natural Right and History
By Leo Strauss
University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Although Neoconservatism suffered a setback in 2006 with the results of the midterm elections and the firing, resignation or indictment of several of the movement’s leading figures, the pernicious ideology that the Neocons espouse is by no means dead, nor even out of power (viz. Cheney, Rice, and even the Chief Executive himself). Nor is a book first published in 1953 such an odd subject for a review in 2007, particularly when one realizes that its author, Leo Strauss, a University of Chicago professor who died in 1973, is today recognized as one of the founders and guiding lights of the Neoconservative movement. More importantly, Natural Right and History is perhaps the closest thing we have to a Mein Kampf of American Neoconservatism.
Read on its surface as a textbook of Plato’s, Hobbes’, Locke’s and Weber’s philosophical approaches toward academic questions of 'natural law' and government, the book would be mind-numbing to anyone but the most erudite specialist in the field. However, progressive readers who are willing to bypass the first two nearly unreadable chapters of the book will be rewarded with repeated 'Aha!' revelations of why twenty-first century Neocons act and believe as they do, along with a deeper understanding of how to defend democracy against shifting, mendacious and sometimes confusing Neoconservative ideological attacks that have no means been quashed or eliminated in spite of most Americans’ sincerest wishes that such a politically venomous philosophy join Nazism, Fascism and Jim Crow in the toxic waste dump of human ignominy.
The ideology of Neoconservatism first arose during of the Cold War period but had its roots in much earlier thought, particularly that of Plato and Machiavelli (and, some would allege, Hitler as well). In this book Strauss very rarely writes in the first person, but when he offers the reader his take on Platonic or Machiavellian concepts it is clearly Strauss himself speaking from behind the ancient philosophers’ mask. Natural Right and History can be usefully read as a handbook of how American Neoconservatives have tried to apply ancient and medieval ideals of government (tyranny, brute force behind the kid glove, rule of the strong and scorn for the people, 'great opportunities for those of great talent' and piety, poverty, lies, and exploitation for the rest) to the twenty-first century world. In his discussion of Platonic political thought Strauss honestly acknowledges the obvious, that 'laws are, in fact, the work not of the city [state], but of that section of the city that happens to be in control.'
Speaking in the voice of Plato, Strauss has precious little tolerance for democracy except as an empty form practiced to more easily ensure popular acquiescence. He warns his Neocon readers that real democracy would mean majority rule, 'but the majority are the poor,' who naturally have interests radically opposed to their own. And, as he frankly points out, 'The ruling section is, of course, concerned exclusively with its own interest. But it pretends for an obvious reason that the laws it lays down with a view toward its own interest are good for the city as a whole.' His bottom line: 'There is no essential difference between political rule and that of a master over his slaves.' It is fascinating to note how closely this resembles Neoconservative ideology as practiced by the Bush / Cheney administration. And what about justice? 'The man who is truly just is unwise or a fool,' proclaims Strauss in the voice of an ancient philosopher. 'One must indeed be clever to hide one’s injustice successfully while practicing it on a large scale,' he warns in the voice of Machiavelli. To Strauss, justice as commonly understood is 'unnatural' precisely because it implies equality, while Strauss defines 'Natural Right' as natural inequality, meaning neither more nor less than the inherent 'right' of the strong , the 'wise,' the smart or the rich to absolute power.
Thus he concludes, 'life according to nature is the preserve of a small minority, of the natural elite, of those who are truly men and not born to be slaves.' In his eyes, as in the eyes of today’s Neocons, the majority are born to humbly serve and to be ruled with an iron fist. .In Strauss’ world, the axiom that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' is absolutely wrong, since a man who is 'wise' or born to rule is naturally incorruptible, while the mass of men are born only to obey (and women are beneath mention anywhere in the book). For Strauss, the only other significant natural human rights beyond the right of the powerful to rule are the right to self-defense and the absolute right to private property.
However, Strauss is not an explicit defender of capitalism—on the contrary, his philosophy occasionally seems more feudal than capitalist, and both he and contemporary Neocon’s have been repeatedly criticized for this by traditional right-wingers and 'Paleo-con' extremists as well. Although Strauss explicitly warns readers in advance not to apply to his ideas a 'reduction ad Hitleram' (thus falling into a well-known logical fallacy known as 'the Taboo,' ruling certain objections 'off limits' a priori), it is sometimes excessively difficult to distinguish the ideology he proposes from that of full-dress Fascism. Thus he suggests that 'Despotic rule is unjust only if it is applied to beings who can be ruled by persuasion or whose understanding is sufficient.' And of course, ordinary people may be ruled only by force and are incapable of reason or understanding. In his view, 'There cannot be justice, i.e., giving everyone what is by nature good for him, except in a society in which wise men [i.e. Neoconservatives] are in absolute control.'
Thus, 'The summit of happiness is the life of the tyrant.' The ideas expressed by Strauss do much to explain otherwise inexplicable actions by those who have held the levers of power during the last six years in the United States. When the people are seen as little more than cattle, why shouldn’t their rulers be cowboys? When justice is foolishness, why shouldn’t fools staff the Department of Justice (or, for that matter, the Supreme Court)? If democracy is undesirable, why shouldn’t tyrants flourish?
Reading Strauss makes even the more irrational proclamations of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice and the American Enterprise Institute a great deal more comprehensible (and far more scary!). Natural Right and History is reputed to be the most 'popular' and accessible of Strauss’s numerous writings. In fact, the author’s language and style is deadly dull (as well as sexist), even while the ideology he proffers is breathtakingly poisonous.
This book is neither pleasant nor easy to read. However, if one keeps in mind that an important section of America’s ruling class still bases their political perspective on the ideas expressed in this book, it becomes worth reading if only to understand how deeply reactionary and dangerous Neoconservatism truly is. The worst thing we can do is to simply ignore ideas like Strauss’s and undialectically proceed on our merry way building the future, secure in the false belief that we beat the Neocons in 2006 and everything is 'smooth sailing' from here on in. Very much to the contrary, every conscientious progressive needs to become familiar with books like this in order to develop and strengthen our common ideological fighting-points against the Neocons’ viciously anti-democratic appeals that still materially threaten democracy and the future of the whole world as long as the Bush gang remains in office.
