WASHINGTON: Is US foreign policy being run by followers of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to democratic government?

Suddenly, political Washington is abuzz about Leo Strauss, who arrived in the United States in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.

Thanks to the “Week in Review” section of last Sunday’s ‘New York Times’ and another investigative article in this week’s ‘New Yorker’ magazine, the cognoscenti have suddenly been made aware that key neo-conservative strategists behind the Bush administration’s policies consider themselves to be followers of Strauss, although the philosopher — an expert on Plato and Aristotle — rarely addressed current events in his writings.

The most prominent is Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, now widely known as “Wolfowitz of Arabia” for his obsession with ousting Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire Arab Middle East. Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington’s post-Sept 11 global strategy, including its controversial pre-emption policy.

Two other very influential Straussians include ‘Weekly Standard’ Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neo-conservative group whose alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.

PNAC’s early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W. Bush on how to fight the ‘war on terrorism’ have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.

Kristol’s father Irving, the godfather of neo-conservatism who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where a number of prominent hawks, including former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, are based, has also credited Strauss with being one of the main influences on his thinking.

While the Times article introduced readers to Strauss and his disciples in Washington, interest was further piqued this week by a lengthy article by The New Yorker’s legendary investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, who noted that Abram Shulsky, a close Perle associate who has run a special intelligence unit in Rumsfeld’s office, is also a Straussian.

His unit, according to Hersh, re-interpreted evidence of Iraq’s alleged links to Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist network and possession of weapons of mass destruction to support those in the administration determined to go to war with Baghdad. The article also identified Stephen Cambone, one of Rumsfeld’s closest aides who heads the new post of undersecretary of defence for intelligence, as a Strauss follower.

In his article, Hersh wrote that Strauss believed the world to be a place where “isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad”, and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries.

Shadia Drury, author of 1999’s ‘Leo Strauss and the American Right’, says Hersh is right on the second count but dead wrong on the first.

“Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat,” she said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. “Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss’s view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.”

“The Weimar Republic (in Germany) was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt,” added Drury. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss’s view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, “some are fit to lead, and others to be led”, according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that “those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior”.

For Strauss, “religion is the glue that holds society together”, said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the US republic.

“Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing”, because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty,” according to Drury.

Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,” he once wrote. “Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united — and they can only be united against other people”.

“Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,” Drury wrote in her book. “Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the ‘evil empire’ poses a threat to America’s inner stability.”

“In Strauss’ view, you have to fight all the time (to survive),” said Drury. “In that respect, it’s very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” Such views naturally lead to an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy”, she added.

As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often talked about Jonathan Swift’s story of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. “When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.”

For Strauss, the act demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss’ ideas about the necessity for elites to deceive their citizens, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. “They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy,” she said.—Dawn/InterPress News Service.

THE Quran is not only a Book of guidance (2:2) and wisdom (36:2) but is also an effective code of human development. It not only shows the right way but also helps one go on the right way. It not only points out the destination but also enables one to reach the destination.

And it not only guides the human beings but also helps them develop. Development in this context implies bringing up a person gradually to a state or level where he can be in a position to play his role as Allah’s vicegerent in a befitting manner.

When Allah told the angels that He was going to place His vicegerent on earth (the reference was to the creation of Adam) they got astonished and said “Will you set up one who will create disorder and cause bloodshed on earth when we are engaged ceaselessly in Your service and glorify your Name.” Allah said “I know all that which you do not know” (2:30).

The angels could only visualise the negative inclination of human soul. They could not foresee or conceive the strength and potential of the positive inclinations of human soul and the capability of human beings to overpower the negative inclination when properly guided and developed. Nor could they visualise the ingenuity and imaginative qualities of human mind.

From the above dialogue it appears that Allah had a definite plan for the development of human beings which has been summed up by the Quran thus “Who has created and then proportioned: Who has measured and then guided” (87:2,3). The word measured in the verse implies that Allah took calculated account of both the capabilities and frailties with which the human beings to overpower the negative inclination when properly guided and developed. Nor could they visualise the ingenuity and imaginative qualities of human mind.

From the above dialogue it appears that Allah had a definite plan for the development of human beings which has been summed up by the Quran thus “Who has created and then proportioned: Who has measured and then guided” (87:2,3). The word measured in the verse implies that Allah took calculated account of both the capabilities and frailties with which the human are born so as to devise proper plan for their development the implementation of which started simultaneously with the creation of Adam.

When Adam was created, Allah taught him the names of certain things and then asked the angels “Now if you are right tell Me the names of these things” (2:31). The angels said “O Lord, we know only that which you have taught us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise” (2:32). Allah then turned to Adam and said “Tell me of their names.” When Adam told their names, Allah said “Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heavens and earth? I know all that you reveal or conceal” (2:33). Then Allah ordered the angels to fall prostrate before Adam. All the angels fell prostrate except iblees (satan).

The above exercise had a fourfold object. One was to give knowledge to Adam as a first step in the process of his development. The other was to show to the world the importance of knowledge and how much it was valued by Allah. Knowledge was the secret of Adam’s success and it was knowledge that gave an edge to Adam over the angels. The third was to motivate Adam to strive for acquiring more and more knowledge. If knowledge was so important a thing as to give an edge over the angels then why should he not acquire more of it.

The fourth was to let the mankind know that the process of questioning and competing could be the best way of acquiring knowledge as well as testing one’s knowledge. About the knowledge given to Adam initially, it is often said that can merely knowing the names of certain things be termed as knowledge. The answer is that it was not the level of knowledge but the importance of knowledge, however small, that mattered in that context. Moreover, even now the process of human development starts with knowing the names of things.

After the above test, another phase of development started. It is generally being asked that if Adam was created to serve as Allah’s vicegerent on earth, then why was he kept in the gardens above and then expelled from there. In fact, there was a definite purpose in keeping Adam ad Eve in the gardens above and that was to have them undergo another series of tests and exercises as a part of the development process. A development process does not involve merely telling or advising a person about what he should do or not do. One can learn a lot from certain mishaps, reversals, failures and setbacks in life.

In the gardens, Adam and Eve were told to eat from whatever they liked but not to go near a particular tree. They were, however, misled by satan and were made to do what they were forbidden to do. As a result they were turned out of gardens. The object was to impress upon them through a practical demonstration as to what could be the outcome of doing what satan tells one to do. This was, in fact, the lesson of Taqwa which means the fear of Allah manifested, among other things, in abstaining from doing all those things that are forbidden by Allah. They were taught this lesson so that they should abstain from committing sins and doing evil acts when they settle down on earth.

During the same process, Adam and Eve were provided necessary guidance in respect of certain other important elements. They were made aware of the outcome of self-centred pride and arrogance on the one hand and of repentance and submission on the other. Satan was so proud of his false superiority (he claimed superiority over Adam on the ground that he was made of fire while Adam was made of clay) that he not only refused to fall prostrate before Adam but also did not care to beg pardon for his disobedience. Hence he was condemned for ever. On the other hand, Adam and Eve, after realising that what they had done was wrong, immediately admitted their guilt and prayed for pardon (7:23). And they were pardoned.