Thomas West on Strauss and foreign policy

Thomas West’s excellent article on Leo Strauss’s views of foreign policy, which he sent to me earlier this week, puts to rest the overheated charge, made by Claes Ryn and others on the paleo right, that Strauss is the father of Bushism-Podhoretzism. To the contrary, Strauss had a traditional view of the self-interest and well-being of particular societies. I make no claim to understanding the Straussians. West identifies himself as a follower of the Straussian thinker Harry Jaffa, who in turn is the guiding spirit of the Claremont Institute where West’s article was published, but I see nothing Jaffa-like about this article, no invocations to “all men are created equal” as the ultimate and comprehensive truth of the universe. Indeed, when the question of self-evident natural rights comes up near the end of the article, it is in reference to the rights of sovereign states, not of persons.

—end of initial entry—

Spencer Warren quotes me quoting Thomas West quoting Strauss:

“Hence classical political philosophy is not guided by questions concerning the external relations of the political community. It is concerned primarily with the inner structure of the political community….”

I am delighted you are as impressed as I was by West’s article. With regard to his quote above, neocons basically don’t care about the inner structure of our political community any longer, only about external issues.

FYI, West wrote a review several years back of Jaffa’s second volume on Lincoln which, to my surprise, was rather critical of Jaffa’s first volume, which had been published decades earlier, I think.

LA replies:

Yes, isn’t that great? In fact, it was that language, in Strauss’s Natural Right and History, that got me interested in Plato. The idea of a structure of being and the analogous structure of a polis. And, ironically, I’ve used that idea of Strauss’s to introduce the idea that part of the structure of a community is its ethnocultural aspect, which deserves to be protected as much as any other basic aspect of a community. Whether or not Strauss would go along with that argument, his whole way of talking, his interest in the inner essence of a society rather than in sweeping generalities and “ideas,” is utterly different from the neocons. The notion that he is the source of the universal democratism seems ridiculous to me. Yet many people believe it.

Thomas West writes:

Thanks for the post praising my article on Strauss.

My only disagreement with you is on the usefulness of the founding principles. While I would never say that “all men are created equal” is “the ultimate and comprehensive truth of the universe,” I do think that the equality principle, understood as the Founders understood it, is very useful as a guide to political life, including foreign policy.

One of its implications, as I mentioned in the article on Strauss, is that once a people forms itself into a nation, that nation has the right to be sovereign over its own affairs. That includes the right to decide who should be admitted to citizenship in the future.

Another implication is that the main responsibilty of the government of a nation is to defend the equal rights of the citizens of the nation (i.e., their rights to life and liberty) against foreign conquest. That should be the purpose of foreign policy.

In The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration, just published, I show how the Founders’ view of the equality principle leads (especially today) to an immigration policy that takes into account (1) the quantity of immigrants (not too many to assimilate), and (2) the character of immigrants. Government ought to prefer immigrants from nations whose religion, customs, and traditions are favorable to the qualities needed for citizenship in a republic, such as self-restraint, vigilance against those who would threaten liberty, belief in government that serves the good of all and not just the good of those with connections, and respect for the equal rights of others.

So although equality is not the “ultimate and comprehensive truth,” it is an excellent guide for the structure of government as well as the content of government policy.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 13, 2007 02:00 PM | Send