Leo Strauss and American Democracy: A Response to Wood and Holmes

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lewis Schaefer

Although Leo Strauss spent the better part of his scholarly career in the United States, his name remained essentially unknown in this country during his lifetime outside the rather restricted academic circles of political science and Judaic studies. Only in recent years — owing, positively, to the best-selling status achieved by a book by one of his students, Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; and negatively, to several critical reviews of his thought and influence in the semi-popular media —has Strauss's name been publicized to a somewhat wider audience. This article is a response to two of the critiques: Gordon Wood's relatively moderate “The Fundamentalists and the Constitution,” published in the New York Review of Books (18 February 1988), and Stephen Taylor Holmes's less restrained “Truths for Philosophers Alone?”, which appeared in the Times Literary Supplement (1–7 December 1989)

1988 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Susser

Although his approach to politics and philosophy were relatively little known outside the United States, Leo Strauss was perhaps the most revered and the most controversial figure in post-war American political science. His followers today form what is arguably the most cohesive intellectual fraternity in the discipline. They constitute a highly influential opposition to the empirical–quantitative course taken by political science and political philosophy. This study explores Strauss's ideas highlighting the unconventional mixture of substance and style that gives them an arrestingly idiosyncratic character. Substantively, Strauss belonged to the pre-modern intellectual tradition that understood Truth as accessible and knowable through philosophical contemplation. The form of his argumentation, however, his relentless critique of modernity and the moderns, is conducted with all the cognitive weaponry provided for by the modernist intellectual style.


1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-137
Author(s):  
Yehezkel Dror

Benjamin Akzin is distinguished by a unique combination of qualities, qualifications and experiences—on the basis of which he has made and continues to make unusual contributions both to scientific knowledge and to murky political realities.A short resumé of his career may give some indication of its wide scope and variety. But no such list can do justice to a man of Professor Akzin's stature whose personality has so many facets. He has lived for extended periods in a number of countries, including Israel, Poland, France, Austria, England and the United States. He studied at the University of Vienna, the Sorbonne and Harvard University, receiving three doctorates in law and political science. He has combined an academic life with a life of active politics. His political activities have included serving as Foreign Secretary of the Revisionist movement under Jabotinsky, and in senior professional staff positions, such as in the service of the United States Congress, political functions in the Zionist movement, both in Washington and New York. His academic positions range from being an assistant to Hans Kelsen, to building up the Faculty of Law and the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University, as Dean and Department Head of these faculties respectively, and Haifa University, as its President.


2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Rood

The main aim of this paper is to discuss some influential approaches to political thought in Xenophon’s Anabasis within the field of Political Science, especially within the United States, where the influence of Leo Strauss’ writings on Xenophon has been powerful. It starts by discussing a number of features shared by these discussions, notably a strong idealisation of Xenophon’s wisdom and accuracy; a lack of interest in the conditions under which Xenophon wrote; a pro-Hellenic perspective; and a tendency to innovative (and often allegorical) literary explication. It then discusses the two most important themes treated by Strauss and his followers, Xenophon’s piety and philosophy and politics. It argues that Straussian exegesis introduces anachronistic conceptions while neglecting the narrative dynamics of the text. The final section sets out briefly some ways of exploring Xenophon’s relationship to other currents in Greek political thought.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document