Leo Strauss' ten essays on political philosophy is a great way to start to learn about "classical political philosophy." Strauss goes into detail about early Greek classical philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. These men believed that an educated ruling elite would make the best politicians. Men of "good virtue" and character would protect the rights of their citizens. Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

Strauss goes into the idea of "liberal education". Men who rely on education and modern philosophical principles alone to build a better society wind up following the path of Marx, i.e. Communism, and Nietzsche and Heidegger, i.e. Fascism. Strauss, in the aftermath of WWII, spends his life touting the virtues of classical philosophy as a way to turn back some of the harm done by modern philosophers. The reader comes away realizing that you need a mixture of both "rule of law" and "men of character" to build a good society. As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to start one's journey into political philosophy.

At first Liberalism and Ancient and Modern square off against one another in the dusty city square. They circle, making faints, looking for an opening in their opponent's defenses. Ancient Liberalism strikes first, grappling with Modern. They strain, the sweat beeding on their brows as they try to gain advantage. Who will come out the victor? Will Ancient apply its fearsome sleeper hold? Will Ancient cheat, ignoring the rules of battle? Read Strauss' excellent, action packed novel in order to find out!

While written as a textbook, this is a good guidebook for the person who needs an introduction to western political thought. It is a most effective tool if you actually have access to the writings of the philosophers discussed in the book. I followed the footnotes to the original writings, and it helped me understand the topic more thoroughly. For someone who lacks a formal education in philosophy or political science, this book offers such a strong foundation that a thorough "self-education" is quite possible.

I red this book following the advice of a friend who was a philosophy major. My interest in politics and in the formation of the political ideas in the ancient and in the medieval world led me to this book. I think that the chapters on Aristotle and Plato are excellent. I am sure that we can't substitute or even avoid reading the original works (in the original language or in the best possible translations) but this book can help introduce and clarify some parts of the most important works. For the person who wants to read about a larger number of thinkers this is not the book. But for the person who wants to follow a tested textbook and it's basic material it is very good.

This is the source. Strauss and Cropsey certainly have compiled the authoritative reference for political philosophy. This is great for beginners and also seasoned scholars. There is a chapter on just about any philosopher you could imagine in here. Clearly-written essays provide for a greater understanding of each one.

In having Dr. Ted V. McAllister as my Western and American Heritage Professor at Hillsdale College,I was able to fully appreciate his historical views on a personal basis. His knowledge of Niccolo Machiavelli and modernity, and the philosophy of Plato relating to Western history is unparalled. His views in his book are presented in a true and indepth fashion. After being his student for two semesters, I will truely miss his insight and knowledge pertaining to historical matters.

McAllister really seems to understand Strauss, which is more than can be said about many who write about Strauss (scholars and otherwise). This will serve as a useful antidote. And of course, Voegelin has long been neglected, so any work treating him seriously is a welcome addition. This should be in the library of serious political theorists.

This is what happens when you take esotericism too far. Lampert should have better heeded Strauss' warning that textual clues must be supportable in some measure by the text itelf--or else pondered Strauss' argument that "the problem inherent in the surface of things . . . is the heart of things."

I spent some time checking out the claims of this book--which, in brief, are that the mature Strauss was a covert Nietzschean nihilist who believed in a politically significant order of rank among men--and I was totally unconvinced. If you're going to argue that a man secretly harbored beliefs directly at odds with ideas he dedicated 30 years of his life to advancing, you have to make a better case than this.

Similar things have been written about Strauss and Machiavelli, and they are similarly unbelievable. Memo to would-be esotericists: the device is almost never used directly to contradict a surface argument. Rather, it is used to conceal, while at the same pointing to, the deepest implications of that argument.

Nonetheless, I give this book two stars because it is not deviod of insight into Nietszche.

Despite the disputations of many Straussians, the connections between Strauss and Nietzsche are clear and, to the reader of both, undeniable. As Lampert points out on several occasions with a quote from Strauss in a letter to Karl Lowith, Nietzsche was to say the least indespensible to Strauss's early development. "Nietzsche so dominated and charmed me between my 22nd and 30th years that I literally believed everything I understood of him." (p 5) Thus considering the not so veiled attempt of most Straussians to distance their man from Nietzsche it is not surprising they would claim that Strauss himself should not be read esoterically (least of all by someone seeking to 'blow his cover'). A cursory review of two prominent but very different Straussians, Stanley Rosen (who is not so concerned with protecting Strauss's image) and Harvey Clafin Mansfield (who is), is enough to lend credence to Lampert's thesis. Rosen states plainly the connection between Strauss and Nietzsche in his 'Hermeneutics as Politics': "...Strauss is almost Nietzschean but not quite.." (p 125). As for Mansfield, his studies of Machiavelli are more Nietzschean than Strauss himself. Just try this on for size as a Nietzschean quote: "To us, Machiavelli contributes a clear view of politics unobstructed by abtract claims for equality and unreasonable demands for justice." 'Machiavelli's Virture,' University of Chicago Press, 1996. p. xiv

Lampert's work is a thorough and insightful reading of Strauss's essay "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil'." Lampert's approach is definitely more Nietzchean than Straussian, which is to say it is not as nuanced or sufficiently ambiguous as Straussians--especially of the theistic flavor--like. But it is in a word outstanding and will hopefully embolden a few of Struass's more reticent students to step out of the shadows and into the Noon sunlight, in more Zarathustrian fashion.

"Leo Strauss and Nietzsche" is the 3rd book from the great Laurence Lampert, who is probably the greatest living Nietzsche scholar in the English speaking world. It seeks to examine the following possibility: that Strauss, himself the rediscoverer of the art of "esoteric" writing, whereby one produces philosophical works in a subtle way that masks one's real teachings so as to not arouse the fury of established ideology, may himself have been an esoteric writer, and more specifically, an advocate of Nietzscheanism. At first glance, nothing would seem to be further from the truth - Strauss is widely thought of as being a sort of Platonist, at least in political philosophy. But the question needs to be asked - would he have ignored the tool he himself rediscovered? What might be found if he was subjected to the very analysis he performed on others?

This is what Lampert does, using a 17 page essay called "Not on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil", in Strauss' "Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy". Lampert eventually accumulates a significant argument in favor of his two theses, namely, that Strauss was a covert Nietzschean who felt that he could not speak aloud what he himself believed and who therefore took cover under the traditional garb of a philosopher (which both Nietzsche and Strauss took to be the cassock of a priest); and that Strauss himself is the best interpreter of Nietzsche the world has yet seen. Anyone who is interested in either man should read this book. It will provide a powerful incentive to rethink stereotypes about both men and their works, and it gives a fine summary of what Nietzsche actually was trying to communicate.

This book will only be of interest to individuals who are knowledgeable of Judaism. It is a brief rehashing of old ideas, etc. I would summarize it as a broad brush watercolor with a lot of water and not too much pigment.

This book of essays by Leo Strauss is an invaluable collection of works on Jewish thought. Each of the essays are gems in themselves. The introduction to the book by Kenneth Hart Green is particularly enlightening and is a penetrating overview of Strauss' approach to Judaism. In fact, the book provides an excellent source book for anyone searching for a Jewish philosophy for our time.

The film of the X-Men begins with a horrific sequence where the young Eric Lenscher is separated from his parents. He's in Auschwitz and the Nazi goons are wiping out Jews. Lenscher survives and goes on to become Magneto, a leading mutant with super powers. He is an elitist and believes that mutants are the true inheritors of the Earth and that humans, all of whom lack super powers, should lick the boots of mutant kind. His reasoning is that humans will try to wipe out mutants, just like the Nazis tried to wipe out the Jews, so mutants had best try to wipe out humans.

I found his reasoning to be rather bizarre. It seemed to be that he was using Nazism agains Nazis, which, as far as the bottom line goes, is still Nazism. That the movie and the comic book are seriously popular I chocked up to people liking far-out stories without much intellectual foundation.

Then I heard about Strauss. I haven't read the man. I probably never will. There's too many other esoteric philosophers influenced by Heidegger for me to read that I find more congenial to my tastes. But he literally is Magneto. What was the lesson Strauss learned from Nazi death camps? That they were run by the wrong people. If the Nazi party had been run by Jews who love ancient Greek philosophy more than they love the Bible, Nazi Germany would have been A-OK.

And that seriously begs credulity.

I have always been interested in American History and Political Philosophy. I never imagined that there could be a book more important for recapturing the lost soul of America than Bernard Bailyn's _Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_, but I a can honestly say that this is the book. Quite simply, I was blown away. It put natural right into perfect perspective for me.

The first time I heard of Leo Strauss, it was while reading Dionne's _Why Americans Hate Politics_. Strauss was mentioned as a major philosophical influence behind neoconservatism (the anti-communist liberals who believed in virtue and rebelled against the new left in the 1960s). Dionne mentioned Alan Bloom's _Closing of the American Mind_ as an important work directly influenced by Strauss. After reading _Closing_ (and I must say, being blown away by the truth of it) I knew that I had to read Strauss for myself.

Natural Right and History is everything I wanted it to be. It starts with the modern day rejection of natural right, and it's consequences. Historicism (as well as the value relativism inherent in the social sciences) are exposed for what they are; self contradictory. The book goes on to trace the origin of natural right, and even philosophy itself, by examining the moment that the first philosopher questioned authority and asked the question "what is good?" by nature, as opposed to "what is good?" by convention. From the ancients to the moderns, every step in the development of natural right is traced, and the crisis of modern natural right is analyzed in fine detail.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It should appeal to anyone with a vested interest in America, particularly those with an interest in political philosophy. Dionne, and others, may give credit to Strauss for giving conservatives credibility in intellectual circles, but make no mistake; Strauss himself rises far above partisanship. He is a philosopher in the truest sense.

I first encountered this book in high school, spurred by my american history and american government teachers. It is therefore somewhat elitist to state that this will go over anyone's head. The ideas and the prose may be complex, but it just requires some patience. If it's worth it to you, you'll be able to read it.

Strauss gave these lectures to counter what then was called historicism, the position that, because conceptions of such things as freedom and right have been so varied throughout time, that because nobody has been able to agree on what right is, that right is relative to the time. The upshod of the arguement is then, since nothing can count as right definitively, there is no right. Strauss argues that historicism, by being another appearance in history, is subject to the same criticism (therefore interally inconsistent) and that even if nobody has been able to agree on "right" doesn't mean that there isn't any such thing, but because debate has been so heated on the subject, it is only all the more evident that there is such a thing such as right.

I may be a slightly biased source, but i've read my share of Levi-Strauss and Foucault. Sure, Strauss confines himself to political philosophy, but the larger issues are there. Postmodern thought is showing strains of its own now, and Strauss pointed them out before they realized they were postmodern. Essential reading for both camps.

The book might serve as an interesting springboard for truly substantial Strauss scholarship, but it is in large part an unfortunately simplistic portrayal of a man and a philosophy whose "true" message is hotly debated even by its students. Drury presents a layman's view of Strauss, Nietzsche and Plato that never manages to overcome itself or reveal the true subtlety and nuance Strauss possessed. Somewhat disingenuously, Drury relies on the very Strauss-mysticism she decries to cover up the fact that the book is really not terribly profound.

This survey book is not nearly the slanderous piece that many of the reviewers of this site would have you to believe. Instead, Professor Shadia Drury, who is a Canadian political theorist of a liberal democratic stripe, admittedly sets out to demonstrate the differences between two ostensibly related ideologies: "neo-conservatism" and "classical liberal democracy." According to Drury, the former is the logical "American" manifestation of Leo Strauss's philosophy and the latter is the worldly stalwart & hegemonic target of Strauss's attack. It must be said that Drury seems to spare, on the whole, the tradition of European Conservatism from analysis, although Drury does reference this tradition in order to contrast it with neo-conservatism. This absence is the weakness of an otherwise fine survey.

Drury may be called a popular corrupter by some (indeed, the repetitious writing leaves a thing to be desired), but this book is an honest survey of Straussian Philosophy and Classical Liberal Democracy, in the sense that the book contrasts Strauss's ideas against the backdrop of his enemy, classical liberal democracy. It is true that many modern conservatives (but usually not libertarians) may take offense to Classical Liberal Democracy, but so do modern liberal democrats. To illustrate this, allow me to give two examples and one comment: (1) Modern Liberals may be disturbed that the source of MODERN governmental welfare may not be Marx or, even, Enlightenment Liberalism, but the European conservative political ideologues of the 19th century--for example, Bismarck. (2) Likewise, American Conservatives may wince at the idea that they are really a new breed of ideologue who are only distantly related to the European Conservative Tradition and who have, instead, adopted the ideas of late 19th Century Social Darwinism and 20th Century nationalism. Modern Libertarians, on the other hand, may nod their heads to Drury acknowledging the bastardized lineage of both modern liberals and neo-conservatives, although ultimately Drury drops hints of an affinity for modern liberalism.

As one may see, Drury's descriptions and conclusions may disturb many modern political ideologues. Consequently, Drury's book is a valuable, although not unprecedented, contribution to the American canon; however, it may face opposition from modern liberals and neo-conservatives.

This book is stuck somewhere between authentic scholarship and a popular television-type investigative report. I cannot help but thinking Shahida Drury was duped into updating her earlier, more scholarly executed work on Leo Strauss, by the publisher who wanted to cash in on contemporary, and now out of date, political moods. The book is very short (included in the total page count is her Notes section and her Index), skimming the surface and regurgitating thread-bare arguments; however, I think she truly believes what she writes. The good professor is the 'city' and she comes up against 'the philosopher' and accuses him of unjust things in a more sophisticated and learned way than the political men ever could. She is Thraymachus, her anger at Strauss is honest and not totally without cause, for Leo Strauss, the little old, refugee Jew, really was a dangerous man. He was dangerous because philosophy is dangerous and this book testifies to how constant and true or perrenial that fact remains. I encourage anyone to read this book to see that I am not simplifying or rationalizing the text. Here is the clash that has marked civilization since the death of Socrates.

The chief insight offered by Shadia Drury in LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT is that Leo Strauss's political philosophy is a radical variant of conservatism whose assumptions and strategies are at odds with traditional conservatism. While both Straussian and Burkean philosophy appear similar in that they both make the assumption that the only choice is between a beneficent plutocracy and anarchy, the Straussians are unsentimental about the past, rejecting the older conservative view that naturalizes pre-modern hierarchy and the inequalities preserved therein as intrinsic to and representative of mankind. Straussians are instead post-modern activists, who use the past as repository from which to cull whatever elements are necessary to build whatever institutional machine is necessary to regulate lesser mortals. They imagine themselves as an intellectual pastorate who must defend society against the depredations of liberalism - that socially disruptive idea which insists on equality of opportunity and justice.

According to Drury, Strauss's philosophy accepts the death of God, (unlike traditional conservatism) and then moves positivistically (unlike traditional conservatism) to fill the vacuum with elite group of self-elected philosopher kings. This elite, alive to the nihilism of the liberal ethos and its potentially anarchic consequences, believes it must act forcefully to paper over the hole left by His demise. Their esoteric/exoteric readings of philosophy tell them they must forge from the ashes a seamless, monocultural machine to encourage obedience and staunch chaos. This nationalistic machine must be equipped with a religion (any religion) and a mythic culture based on flag-reverence and knee-jerk patriotism. This is necessary because pluralistic, liberal societies cannot meet the challenge posed by well-organized, culturally cohesive states. Because the mass of men are primitive, credulous, prone to error and evil, the state with the best machine necessarily will win. Straussians, unlike traditional conservatives who see the state as malevolent, justify their activism by insisting that as philosophers they are immune to temptations of power.

According to Drury, a particularly striking strategy of Straussian conservatives is their struggle to identify and mythologize American traditions. She points out that while Burke had the last remnants of feudalism to extol as a naturally just system, American conservatives have been forced to create a "traditional" America out of whole cloth. To do so, according the Drury, Strauss's followers have invaded history departments across the US where they have been working hard to uncover "tradition" in the beginnings of America - a difficult task given that America was the first truly modernist state. Nevertheless, these historians, depending upon which ax they are grinding, rewrite American history either to prove that colonial America was feudal, or to prove the Founding Fathers were not Deists and creatures of the (Liberal) Enlightenment, but rather Platonists. Drury notes that like postmodernists on the left, Straussians believe there is no ultimate truth, but that instead there are only discourses of power and that whoever controls the discourse wins. She notes that this is what makes American politics so narrow and so tedious -- the right and the left both operate from the same morally bankrupt premise.

This goes a long way toward explaining the bizarre combination of libertarianism and fundamentalism in neo-conservative thought. Like other dogmas which have been used to support those in power -- Social Darwinism and eugenics come to mind -- neoconservatism is just the latest apologia for the up-to-date reactionary. Notably, its adherents are generally unaware of the contradiction. This does not deter them from defending this instrumental hodgepodge of Ayn Rand "objectivism" and millenarian "revivalism" however. Such a philosophy is, of course, its own best self-satirization.

Well-written, its conclusions careful and amply defended, LEO STRAUSS AND THE AMERICAN RIGHT, is not the ravings of conspiracy theorist. It does not imagine that Straussians have come to run the United States, nor that they form a secret cult which pulls the strings behind the scene. It exposes rather the infiltration of post-modern intellectual cynicism into the once decent, and even honorable, Republican Party.