tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post7708410749706869546..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Leo Strauss's 1933 Letter to Lowith: Was He Devoted to "Fascistic, Authoritarian, Imperial Principles"?Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-9376755607162433902014-05-11T17:58:09.968+01:002014-05-11T17:58:09.968+01:00Larry,
I think Xenophon might be on to something ...Larry,<br /><br />I think Xenophon might be on to something here. Also we need to see how shameful liberal regimes were behaving in 1933-39 were behaving toward Hitler. One did not see from liberal state a firm resistance to him or what he had in store for the Jews. Rather in 34-36 it was the Italian and Austrian Fascists who were the most strong against the Hitler regime and the Nazis. Also the Polish regime rule by PiĆsudski (no liberal democrat he), who with the Italians turned to France to Crush Hitler early, but liberal France was not interested.. and so went history.Clifford Batesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-76528916644328776992014-03-27T18:56:14.839+00:002014-03-27T18:56:14.839+00:00Interesting question on Strauss and the "shab...Interesting question on Strauss and the "shabby monster". Yet I think we ought to be careful about what the "shabby monster" might be, and it could very well be liberal democracy as a whole. After all, it was liberal democracy which brought the Nazis to power. Whatever appeal the social democrats had in Germany in 1928 had eroded by 1932. If such radical change can happen in four years, it could shift again just as easily. I think it is important, here, to be mindful that the spring of 1933 was a time of radical changes...nobody during that time would have known that the Nazis would devolve into some 12 year long rump. For all Strauss and Lowith knew, all of the changes that the Nazis imposed could be gone by summer.<br /><br />This is, of course, the weakness of liberal democracy; it is fickle. It changes with whatever passing fancy takes hold of the times. This is why, I suspect, the right-wing shift "says nothing against the principles of the right," because the right Strauss is referring to seems to be a kind of monarchist, old-Junker right, not a fascistic right.<br /><br />I tend to think that this early Strauss needs to be understood as having European bearings with respect to conservatism, and conservatism in Europe is all about maintaining hierarchical, monarchic values in defiance of economic and political liberalism. Isn't that what Strauss is referring to, when he refers to Caesar and "debellare superbos"?<br /><br />The "proud" here seem to be Hitler and the Nazis, but who is the emperor? Well, we already have an emperor in exile (Kaiser Wilhelm II). We also have a president (von Hindenberg), a good old fashioned Prussian Junker who embodies the kind of authoritative, aristocratic, patrician values that seem to have gone missing in Weimar. Strauss seems, to me at least, to be saying (in a delicate way) that these aristocratic forces need to assert some control over "the shabby monster" (be it in its Nazi or social-democratic form).<br /><br />What does this all mean? Well, I have difficulty seeing this letter as a call for Weimar, limited government and capitalism. Instead, I see it as a call for the Junkers to say, "Okay kids, you've had your fun with liberal constitutionalism and elections. Time to go back to your farms and workshops, and leave the governing to us, like you used to do."<br /><br />That's my take on it.Alcibiadesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-74693811699069952172014-03-17T11:26:34.863+00:002014-03-17T11:26:34.863+00:00Xenophon,
Thanks for this. This is a good statem...Xenophon,<br /><br />Thanks for this. This is a good statement of what is probably the best reading of this letter in the context of Strauss's later development.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-43754217814151829242014-03-17T04:56:13.469+00:002014-03-17T04:56:13.469+00:00A good analysis of the much-discussed letter of 19...A good analysis of the much-discussed letter of 1933 and its complete misinterpretation by Altman. Strauss may have been reading Caesar and Virgil in 1933 with some vague idea of a "new" Roman-like imperial regime. Perhaps he saw Italian fascism- which at that time did not yet show anti-Semitic tendencies- as the better embodiment of "fascist, authoritarian, imperial principles." If he did hold that view for a brief period in the 1930s- it's hard to be sure- he surely came to abandon it, preferring the classic polis (which could include elements of democracy in a mixed regime) to the imperialistic empire. He could have learned from studying ancient writers such as Aristotle, Xenophon, Thucydides and Herodotus about the limits and defects of such imperialistic empires. But as he later wrote to Lowith after the war, he saw it as unlikely that the classic polis could be restored in the modern world. So perhaps modern liberalism could perhaps merit more consideration. Xenophonnoreply@blogger.com