How does the film contradict itself, in your opinion?
In the original context I was referring to Drury and Norton, who though not the first, were certainly some of the more prominent anti-Straussian authors of the past 20 years. That being said, if one knew the context of much of the film's subjects, it was a really sloppy work. It, like others before it, relies upon some sort of unified theory of Leo Strauss being the Neoconservative philosopher galore who will show the key of neoconservative agendas. In reality, the authors of such viewpoints have to completely obscure the sources they are using as evidence in order to prove some plot exists, suckering people who like to believe in the small having too much power over the many.
First off, one reason why Power of Nightmares had a difficult time having an official US DVD release was because of its use of copyrighted material. One such use was a clip from
Arguing the World. In the original context, Irving Kristol was explaining in his polemic fashion why 20th century liberalism failed to bring about the promise which it had argued in terms of
social policy, via his reflections of
The Public Interest: a journal purely dedicated to social public policy in the vein of Bell's
End of Ideology. Power of Nightmares mostly focused on a foreign policy aspect, albeit, with a broad view of attention to nihilism and materialism of the 20th century. The majority of the time, the
Public Interest had no such interest, though it would sometimes approach a
Closing of the American Mind-esque vain, but mostly because a many contributors were professors themselves. Now, Irving had met Leo Strauss for a short time during the later portion of Strauss's life (and coincidently, some of his most important work), and professed to believe that Strauss had an impact upon him. What they talked about, to my knowledge was not relayed to the public record, but let's consider some of this use of
Arguing the World.
Why are neoconservatives connected with Strauss? Well, some of the famous so-called Neoconservatives are Straussians, or have studied with Strauss, Straussians, or are friends with them. But the truth is, not many of the prominent neoconservatives are Straussians or former students of Strauss. Former students of Strauss or Straussians, or professed Straussians further split the record of what is to be believed. Let's take Irving Kristol and his son William Kristol. We know Irving wrote about the United States finding itself in a more imperial moment, relying upon imperialistic rhetoric to deal with (his era's) current foreign policy issues. Nevertheless, many liberals have seized upon Irving's writing at the close of the Cold War of skepticism of spreading democracy, not just philosophically, but practically (pointing to the limited number of times it has been accomplished). William, on the other hand, takes a much different approach to the problem of foreign policy. Taught by Harvey Mansfield, he has a certain degree of Straussian pedigree, but William fully embraces the notion that in certain situations (like Iraq) it was indeed possible, desirable, and recommended that US policymakers remove the regime and democratize Iraq.
Francis Fukuyama, a prominent neoconservative, or perhaps, if you will wish to believe it, a former neoconservative, still holds highly the lessons he grabbed from Strauss. And yet, Fukuyama is skeptical of Iraq democratization because of its complexity. Among the fact that he disagreed with the Iraq war, he grabbed on to Strauss's introduction of
City and Man in which Strauss explicitly states that westernizing cultures without (I believe) 3 prior requirements was likely to be folly.
If we are using neoconservatives as they exist, may we ask why we are using Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and the neoconservative label itself to prop up Strauss? Richard Perle was not a student of Strauss, he was a student and friend of Albert Wohlstetter before loyally serving Senator Henry Jackson. His passion was defense policy, negotiation, and nuclear defense, not philosophy. Wohlstetter was oddly considered by people like Norton as some kind of foot soldier for Strauss because he was a professor at the University of Chicago. Michael Ledeen is a keen follower of Machiavelli, propping up Machiavelli as much as he can, which is incredibly odd for a Straussian, considering Strauss distasted Machiavelli, and even a good Straussian conspiracy theorist knows that Straussians supposedly conceal the truth to the masses to only give the true teachings to the few who can handle it. Why prop up Machiavelli all the time if Strauss was covering his tracks by
esoterically supporting Machiavelli? Aren't all Straussians apart of a cult, unable to break the party line? Then again, I suppose Drury and Norton told us exactly that, while at the same time continuing to suggest Straussians as some sort of uncompromising cult.
What about William Kristol's good friend and colleague (supposedly neoconservative) Robert Kagan? Surely he must be a Straussian. Well, not so, according to him. Firstly, he could not really understand Strauss, as is a common problem. Second, he views Straussian interpretations of Plato and History to be sorely lacking in reality. Plato was not kidding, and History is not an everlasting dialog between writer, past writers, and a philosopher's future readers. That, and Donald Kagan (his father) had a great many arguments with Allan Bloom over
The Republic.
What about Donald Rumseld? Well, he was always a conservative, but never a keen reader of any political philosopher. The man uses a standing desk, can't stop becoming involved in governmental affairs, and loves calculating technologically. He never struck anyone as the contemplative type. But his under secretary was. There's Paul Wolfowitz, the perfect example of the conspiracy theory of Straussians come to life. A brief student of Leo Strauss, further educated closely by Allan Bloom and raised into defense policy by Albert Wohlstetter. It seems like a shoe-in. Perhaps it was, but let's be honest. An account by Bloom's friend, Saul Bellow, relayed the information that Bloom loved to brag, loved office drama, and loved to feel connected. Bloom was a bit of a blabber mouth, so Wolfowitz could never talk much about what was going on behind the scenes. Tim Robbins, though gifted as he was in Hollywood, was too idiotic to know what a liability a drama-fed political philosophy professor could be for a young and talented Pentagon official.....nevermind the fact that in Strauss's writing, it seems all too obvious that the man was deeply skeptical about the usefulness of a philosopher in public life if it could bring the public to ruin, and perhaps endanger the life of the philosopher himself for merely looking at
truth and daring to say his findings in public.
What about the neoconservatives of Irving Kristol's time. Surely since they were alive during Strauss's era, Strauss really had an influence upon them. Well, actually, not really. Most of the prominent figures of neoconservatism had no need of Strauss, they were looking into matters of specific domestic policy programs and perhaps socialist intellectuals of the time and past. Strauss rarely ever comes up. Strauss rarely comes up into the matter of neoconservatives now. How could so many neoconservatives simply not read Strauss or disagree with Strauss become a part of the supposedly elitist agenda of a one political philosopher at the University of Chicago? Imagination and a creative desire to explain any political impulse deemed strange.