Seems the conspiracy theorists may need to find a new bogeyman. I've lost count of the times Leo Strauss has been portrayed as some sort of neocon Bond villain. "Award-winning" documentary-maker Adam Curtis managed to make him a central figure of The Power of Nightmares while conveniently omitting to mention that the Chicago academic was a refugee from Nazi Germany, and thus had good reason to be worried about the fragility of liberal democracy. Now why did Curtis do that, I wonder?
The NY Times Book Review offers a more reality-based account:
"Throughout his writings," Smith concludes, "Strauss remained deeply skeptical of whether political theory had any substantive advice or direction to offer statesmen." This view was shaped by his wary observation of the systems of totalitarianism that dominated two major European nations in the 1930's, Nazism in Germany and Communism in the Soviet Union...
The other general point that Smith makes about Strauss's alleged paternity of neoconservatism is that a considerable part of his work has nothing to do with politics of any sort.
Very interesting, but I don't suppose it would make good TV. We wouldn't want a cutting-edge programme weighed down with boring old facts, would we?
Power Line isn't entirely happy with some aspects of the review, and links to more analysis from Scott Knippenberg.
PS: Knippenberg also has a good response to Anne Norton's hatchet-job, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. Clifford Orwin's review is here:
Norton's strategy for attacking Straussians isn't new; it was pioneered by European journalists. Here's how it works. Rather than take on Leo Strauss (bigger game than you can handle!), pay him some measure of lip service. You may even distinguish between his "students" (few and good) and his "disciples" (many and bad). Having thus established your fair-mindedness, you blast the "disciples" (the Straussians) for not living up to the standards of the Master.