Before there was Goldwater, and before William F. Buckley became a major national influence, there was the writer and scholar Russell Kirk, who wrote The Conservative Mind, one of the intellectual foundations of modern conservatism.
The book was first published in 1953 and went through seven editions. It's no lightweight tome even literally, ranging from the 1700s to the twentieth century over 500 or so pages. Buckley gave the book a great deal of credit for the conservative revival, noting that it "is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in American without [Kirk's] labor." (That was from the jacket.)
Although I'm not a member of the tribe, I'd have to say it's worth reading not only for its intelligent presentation of intellectual conservatism but also for the contrast it provides to what passes for conservatism today. Chapters range from a good one on Edmund Burke (who deserves his own post) to the Adams family to Randolph and Calhoun to various cranky old Englishmen to Disraeli and Newman to intellectuals like Irving Babbitt, Paul Elmer Moore and George Santayana. (NOTE: I hope you can see I'm really trying to be polite here.)
He stated his reasons for writing (a little melodramatically) it as such:
If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so that we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.
(Note: He's not much help on how to rebuild society from the ashes of neoconservatism.)
Kirk identifies six key elements that comprise the "canon of conservative thought." Here they are, with commentary by yours truly. Please chip in...
- "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience."
Comment: I wouldn't necessarily disagree. The problem arises when different more or less bloodthirsty groups fight over exactly what that transcendent order consists of (sorry about the preposition thing) and impose their vision on others. This is one huge advantage of the American system as opposed to theocracy.
- "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems..."
Comment: I don't have the problem with egalitarianism that Mr. Kirk and his allies do but I'm with him at least part way on resisting uniformity and utilitarianism.
The irony of modern conservatism is that a lot of the uniformity and dissolution of old values comes from an amoral and cut-throat capitalism, which for many is at least as sacred as any transcendent order. Personally, I neither worship capitalism nor plan to destroy it; I'd just be happy if it used the bathroom in the right places. I wonder what he'd think of a Wal-Mart world and a fast food nation?
- "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes as against the notion of a 'classless' society."
Comment: OK, I admit that complete arithmetical equality in terms of income, wealth, etc. is neither possible nor desirable. But that doesn't mean there is any virtue in extreme inequality or a hereditary class system either. And its no excuse for people in a country and world as wealthy as this one for millions of people to live in poverty, do without health care, earn a sub-living wage, etc. Smart conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt knew that.
- "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked..."
Comment: I wouldn't necessarily disagree, which I why I'd like to see property more widely distributed. One problem conservatives sometimes miss is that if sacred Property is concentrated into a few hands at the expense of the vast majority of people, the same is true of freedom. A persistent danger to principled conservatism is a de facto embrace of oligarchy.
In practice for most of history, as E.P. Thompson noted in his The Making of the English Working Class, "the greatest offence against property was to have none."
- "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."
Comment: I'm OK with parts of that one too, especially if it includes neocon sophisters, calculators and market god cultist economists. By the way, by "prescription," he means tradition or custom. Of course, the problem with custom is that it can include things like burning witches, female genital mutilation, and the periodic pogrom...
and
- "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."
Comment: He must have been talking about our adventure in Iraq, huh? I'm with him on this one too. Change is inevitable. Sometimes you have to try to speed it up, slow it down, or direct its course but I would agree with Kirk that "a statesman's chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence."
So like, where are the prudent statesmen or stateswomen? We could use some. But seriously, all in all it's not a bad list and has some items of merit even if one can't swallow the whole thing. But what he's talking about is a far cry from the current fare.
(This is the second in a series about conservatism. Here’s the first. This was adapted from an earlier series in The Goat Rope, a social and economic justice blog with gratuitous animal pictures.)
Next time: Edmund Burke, the best conservative.