Why do we need counter-arguements? All my friends give me the same look.
Because Strauss's views, his general outlook toward modern mass society, and its relationship to the history of ideas, has found a deep concordance with a lot of conservative social and political academics who are the current teachers for the new power elite---rather several generations of students who reacted to the wild and wooly 60s with a kind of dread and hostility.
Because the old liberalism of our day, was discredited by the left and progressives during the era, and conservatives took up a version of that critique and re-forged their own system of ideas against it. The consequence was that traditional liberalism was profoundly discredited.
This both ends against the middle ground has managed to effectively erase the central tradition of liberalism. Now from my point of view that doesn't seem that much of a loss, since I always thought it was too namby-pamby for my taste---not nearly liberal enough, as in opened down to the base. But those times and attitudes are long dead.
So in my view, we are not going to get to the progressive view of the world, until we manage to resusciate the old liberalism and argue it from the left. Popper provides a pretty damned substantial battering ram against the exclusive and elitist views of people like Strauss.
Anyway, that's why.
In constrast do you really think that the current left has more creditability arguing its case, than a liberalism revival---with some marxist touchs of color about the neoliberalism and the economy?
Hell, I am for moving directly into work councils, backed up by the people's army, but that seems a little unrealistic...
CG