dramatized the fragility of modern civilization and attacked those who
sought to expand tolerance, extend cultural pluralism, and legitimize new
social movements. It is illuminating to see how the labels given by Straussian
publicists to ‘‘postmodernists’’ today echo those Strauss gave to a 1950 s liberal
named Eric Havelock. Havelock ( 1957 ), seeking to draw sustenance for
liberalism from ancient Greek thought, dramatized the contingent character
of the universe and sought to extend tolerance. Strauss framed him sharply:
the greatest enemies of civilization in civilized countries are those who squander the
heritage... ; civilization is much less endangered by narrow but loyal preservers
than by the shallow and glib futurists, who, being themselves rootless, try to destroy
all roots and thus do everything in their power in order bring back the initial chaos
and promiscuity. (Strauss 1968 , 40 – 1 )
Through that philosophy the humane desire for tolerance is pushed to the extreme
where tolerance becomes perverted into abandonment of all standard and hence all
discipline.... But absolute tolerance is altogether impossible; the allegedly absolute
tolerance turns into ferocious hatred of those who have stated most clearly... that
there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of
things. (Strauss 1968 , 63 )
Strauss’s use of phrases such as ‘‘enemies of civilization,’’ ‘‘squander,’’ ‘‘per-
verted,’’ ‘‘shallow and glib futurists,’’ ‘‘rootless,’’ ‘‘abandonment of all stand-
ards,’’ and ‘‘ferocious hatred’’ to characterize the ideas of Havelock set an
agenda through which later Straussian publicists characterize advocates of
democratic pluralism and postmodernism.
It may be pertinent to note that deep pluralists today actively support civic
virtues and seek to limit the power of those who would curtail diversity in
religious faith, household arrangement, ethnic performance, gender practice,
sexual aYliation, and artistic styles (Coles 1997 ). One side in the debate over
the essence of civilization (not well represented on electronic news and talk-
shows) argues that the acceleration of pace in late-modern life ampliWes
pressures and possibilities for pluralization that could be blocked only
through massive repression; the other advances a vision of moral order
that seems to require a pace of life slower than that operative in late-
modernity.
As the 1990 s unfolded, many political theorists, particularly in the Arendtian,
Habermasian, Foucauldian, and Derridian camps, addressed cosmopolitan-
ism and cross-state citizen movements to defend old rights or put new rights
on the agenda. These inquiries were motivated by the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the contraction of distance by the late-modern acceleration of pace,
participant-observationinpoliticaltheory 835