More than most thinkers of the twentieth century, Leo Strauss polarized his audience. One was either for him or against him, influenced by him, or repelled by him. Thus has arisen the phenomenon, nearly unique among the century's academic thinkers, of a recognized group of followers, called “Straussians.” Where and when the label arose, and what exactly it means, are uncertain. It seems originally to have been a label invented by the opponents of Strauss and applied to individuals who had studied with or were manifestly influenced by him. Over time, and somewhat reluctantly, the label appears to have been accepted by many, if not all, of those to whom it has been applied. The label originally applied to a loosely defined group of academics, but in the early twenty-first century, especially in the moment near the beginning of the Iraq War of 2003, it leaped across the fire line separating the academic world and the world of politics and became attached to a group of political figures identified with the neo-conservative movement and the Bush administration. Strauss was said to be the “guru” or the intellectual father of the neo-conservatives and somehow, thirty years after his death, the inspiration for the Iraq War. Most striking about the wildfire of accusation and denunciation of the political Straussians was how ill-informed and irresponsible this outburst of “Straussian hunting” was. Some but nowhere near as many as those called Straussians had had some contact with Strauss or students of Strauss. But even with regard to them, no real connection between their political action and the thought of Strauss was ever established. These Straussians have about as much to do with Strauss as owners of Levi's, or admirers of the soundtrack of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. They will henceforward be ignored in this essay.