Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique by: Grant N. Havers
240pp.:Northern Illinois University Press, 2013
Reviewed by Michael Wagner
Grant Havers’ conservative-oriented critique of Leo Strauss’ work is brave, counter-intuitive, and ultimately persuasive. Strauss, he argues in the face of what many people “know”, is incompatible with Anglo-American conservatism.
To some conservatives, Leo Strauss is the greatest political theorist in recent memory. He recovered classical political philosophy and re-established it as a meaningful alternative to modern thought. In so doing he offered a robust defence of liberal democracy against Marxism and other related ideologies.
Naturally, providing an intellectual alternative to those ideologies raised the ire of left-wing intellectuals. They heaped scorn and criticism upon Strauss, giving him the worst epithet they could imagine: Being of the Far Right. The really energetic ones accused him of being a fascist.
Havers’ book offers an uncompromising critique of Strauss. Being from Havers, though, it is hardly a crabby left-wing diatribe. He accepts that Strauss was a sincere and thoughtful defender of liberal democracy.
His objection is that Strauss’s defence of liberal democracy “may actually do the cause more harm than good”
Strauss starts from the view that Anglo-American liberal democracy rests on philosophically eternal tenets dating to Plato and Aristotle. Moreover, these principles are accessible to all people through reason, regardless of their religious or cultural background. The great principles of liberal democracy in the English-speaking countries, Strauss argued, are not particular to the culture of those countries.
This is where Havers parts company: Anglo-American liberal democracy arose within a specific religious and cultural context, namely, Christianity. If the principles of liberal democracy are equally accessible to all people regardless of their religion, then Christianity was incidental to its emergence in the English-speaking countries. And if Christianity was simply incidental, then it is not a necessary precondition for liberal democracy. As a result, Strauss “was just as opposed as any post war liberal to any attempt to ground the Western tradition of political philosophy in a Christian foundation.”
In reality, however, Christianity was an essential factor in the development of liberal democracy. “It is Strauss’s leftist dismissal of Christian theology that may compromise his overall defence of Anglo-American democracy, whose ideas have been historically shaped by the Christian tradition.”
According to Havers, Strauss and his students rely on a romanticized view of the ancient Greeks in order to present the principles of liberal democracy as universal. They also overemphasize the influence of ancient Greek thought on the American Founding. Havers points out that “the Christian tradition, particularly its Protestant manifestation, deserves far more credit for the philosophy of natural rights in America than anything remotely Hellenic.” The Straussian account of the American Founding is factually incorrect.
One of Strauss’ real life heroes was Winston Churchill. Churchill, of course, led the defence of Britain and liberal democracy against the Nazi threat. He is an example of the type of leadership Straussians consider necessary for the defence of liberal democracy. But Havers rightly asks, did Churchill consider himself the champion of universal principles of democracy, or the champion of the particular Anglo-American version of democracy? The evidence weighs heavily to the latter view. Churchill’s true beliefs do not actually support the case Strauss was trying to make.
Strauss’ views benefited greatly from circumstance. The post-war period offered a perfect climate for them to thrive. There was a desperate need to “universalize” the ideals of America. “Caught in a mortal struggle with the Soviet Union, whose own brand of universalism was appealing to developing nations, it was convenient to downplay the historical relativity of American values.” If Anglo-American liberal democracy was particular to the English-speaking countries, it could not reasonably be seen as a global alternative for the impoverished multitudes (of many different cultures and religions) attracted to the seduction of Communism. It was therefore necessary to present the case for liberal democracy as the answer for all of mankind.
There’s an important foreign policy implication to the Straussian view. If liberal democracy is a universal desire of all people, then there may be situations where Western countries can help those people achieve it by overthrowing tyrannical governments. In other words, foreign intervention for the purpose of regime change can be justified.
Havers stresses that Strauss himself did not advocate foreign intervention, but it is an implication of his position that has been advanced by some of his students. The contrary view, that the Anglo-American version of democracy is particular to the English-speaking countries, does not lend itself to such interventionist sentiments.
Havers has identified a significant weakness in Straussian thinking. This makes his book important and deserving of wide attention. It’s worth emphasizing that Havers’ purpose is to strengthen conservatism by highlighting philosophical weaknesses in our own camp; this is not a nasty critique along the lines of most other Strauss criticism.
Altogether Havers’ book serves a very valuable purpose. It cuts across the tribal lines that political thinkers and activists often draw for themselves, at the cost of clarity and ultimately credibility. Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy rinses and refreshes conservative thinking with a dose of self-awareness, and for that it is very important reading.
