A tendentious question, yes. And one that suggests its own answer.
It occurs to me as a result of quickly reading this review of Charles Kesler's book on Obama, which sounds both awful and delusional (though in a more measured and intellectual way than, e.g., Dinesh D'Souza, who borders on being clinically insane).
Mark Lilla, the NYT Book Review's reviewer of Kesler's I Am the Change, describes Kesler as a "Harvard-educated disciple of the conservative philosopher Leo Strauss,
an admirer of Cicero and the founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln and
Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan... [who] teaches at Claremont
McKenna College [something of a hotbed of Straussianism--LFC] and is the editor of The Claremont Review of Books...."
So what is the overriding problem here? If you guessed "disciple of the conservative philosopher Leo Strauss," you're right!! Ding, ding, ding!! Go to the head of the class.
Strauss is polarizing (disciples adore him, others don't), and I hesitate to even suggest something to read for those who want to find out about him (though a piece by Myles Burnyeat in the New York Review of Books many years ago remains a good statement of the 'anti' case, I think). Also, Alan Gilbert at the Democratic Individuality blog has much to say about Strauss (none of it positive) in an erudite vein.
P.s. For a recent post by Ben Alpers about Strauss and one of the lesser-known of his works, see here.
P.p.s. Of course there's always the option of trying to read Strauss himself. (But life may be too short for that.)
P.p.p.s. About the only good thing I can say about Strauss is that, unlike some people, I do not hold him posthumously responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
Update: Strauss's colleague and collaborator Joseph Cropsey died this past summer. Obituary from U. of Chicago site here.