|
Eliot, who is mentioned in title of later editions (The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot), were European citizens (Eliot became a British subject later in his life). 8-9). It is interesting to note that both of the writers mentioned in the title of the original 1953 publication, Edmund Burke and George Santayana, as well as T. S.
Whether he is liked or disliked, Russell Kirk's intellectual influence in the twentieth century cannot be disputed. Many of the thinkers discussed in the work, such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge and John Henry Newman, were similarly European. S. Many have credited him, along with William Buckley, as a founder of the contemporary American conservative movement.
Eliot in their favor. Is the conservative mind American or European. Whereas Buckley has traditionally been considered the movement's organizer and engineer, Russell Kirk, with his classics The Conservative Mind (1953) and The Roots of American Order, has been seen as the mind behind the movement.In The Conservative Mind, Kirk makes the case for the six canons of conservative thought: (1) "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience"; (2) "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrow uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems"; (3) "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a `classless society'"; (4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked"; (5) "Faith in prescription and distrust of `sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs"; and (6) "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress" (pp. Having defined the conservative movement with these canons, Kirk proceeds to critique those notions that oppose them, such as economic egalitarianism, and presents the thoughts of writers such as Edmund Burke and T.
14, 2008).A great achievement. By examining the works of numerous English and American (and one French) thinkers, some well known and some forgotten, Kirk offers a worldview significantly different from modern liberal conventional wisdom. I really can't improve upon what some of the other reviewers have said, particular Bibliophile (Dec. First, regarding the Kindle edition: On the plus side, it is well formatted, with almost no typos and a linked table of contents (including links to the chapter sub-parts). At a minimum, anyone with an interest in modern politics should read this book. On the minus side, the source notes are not linked, and two or three of the substantive notes appear to be cut off in midstream (e.g., there's one in the discussion of Cardinal Newman that says, in effect, "here are some other relevant observations:" with nothing after the colon).Regarding the book itself: It's easy to see why "The Conservative Mind" caused a stir when it first came out and why it's become a classic. Also a positive is that this is the last edition before Kirk's death. To borrow Kirk's own term, it's an "extended essay" in intellectual history, dealing with a particular thread of thought running through Anglo-American history from the late eighteenth century to the 1980s, when the last edition appeared.
Hamilton as a strong proponent of a central government and the federal government compromise.Sadly the top notch book that describes the liberal worldview or the intellectual history of liberalism as well I have not found. Itis fascinating to see we are revisiting certain debates and the important wellthought out points that were raised two centuries ago, i.e. I would recommend this to conservative and liberals so they are well rounded.I particularly enjoyed John C Calhoun on minorities and the Disraeli material.I re-read chapter three on the John Adams-Hamilton-Jefferson period becauseit is so interesting historically and also when viewing present day politics.
It stands head and shoulders above the offering that will serve up 'why this country is in the handbasket' or 'why the liberals are ruining our country' soundbytes. It may serve to point out what in the presentday is labelled as conservatism and yet sharply departs from it.That said this is not light reading. Regardless of what you believe politically, this book is worth your time.
Some material is worthy of several revisits. Yet. It is important to understand WHAT the conservative worldview is, and how it is has evolved.
Many people do not understandwhat conservative, liberal, communist, socialist and fascist really MEAN.This clarifies conservativism.
And, as others have noted, he is quite mistaken in the thought that his attempts at literary turn of phrase make for a tedioius read. Neither can I be sure that Kirk intends to argue for the consevative position becuase, if this was his intent, he does about as bad a job as anyone could possibly do. It is better written and argued than Kirk. I came to this book with very high hopes of hearing a well-presented literary history, and argument for, what Kirk calls the "conservative mind." Unfortunately, the book proved to be neither a good argument (Kirk hardly argues for anything, rhetoricizing not being the same as argument). Sowell not only presents many of the same ideas as Kirk more clearly and convincingly, but his grasp of what is and is not a fact is much better than Kirk. Unfortunately, Kirk readily ignores this, which makes him quite the revisionist historian. If your goal is to learn about, or hear a defense of, the conservative viewpoint, don't spend money on this volume because it will be money lost.
He suggests that the American revolution was a conservative revolution. (So that everyone knows, I am not saying that there are not good arguments against Rousseau, Condorect and the like; just that Kirk provides none).Anyway, rather than read this muddled piece in order to understand the conservative view, I would highly reccomend that one read Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. I dare anyone who doubts this to read his redundant chapters on Burke and find one ARGUMENT againt one of Burke's detractors. To do this, of course, he ignores such facts as that, for the first time, a nation was premised on the absence of royalty, feudalism was quite abolished, and a written constitution that only slightly resembled the Magna Carta was produced. If he ever does tackle objections, he does little more than dismiss them out of hand without argument.
His historical recounting is appalingly bad. Most of his arguments consist of quoting a figure who said what he wants to argue, and recapitulating the position in his own words. Kirk calls Alexander Hamilton the "most vigorous organizer" for "a federal government." The rest of us, of course, see this distinction as belonging to Madison, the primary author of the constitution and Federalist Papers, and president. As history, the chapters focusing on early American history are scorchingly bad. (For a great argument that the American revolution was radical rather than conservative, one can consult any number of books like The Radicalism of the American Revolution).
I would not be surprised if the time comes that these misgivings again become prominent in the face of some new onslaught upon liberal democratic society. 9) This depiction of our government simply pulls no weight with most voters, who lived in Europe, Africa, or Asia when the Founding Fathers did their work, and patriots galore sacrificed and died to secure our freedom. A hearty political philosophy may require that citizens spend some time becoming political and socially aware, but like a good financial investment, the cost should be borne early and the payout, in the form of simplified decision-making, should be valuable and enduring.I picked up Russell Kirk's book because it is a classic written in an era before the influence of Milton Friedman on conservative thought would become pervasive. The second major change is that the United States, Britain, and most other liberal democratic capitalist countries no longer consist of a hegemonic ethnic/national group with either no significant minority/immigrant presence, or a situation in which minorities and immigrants are effectively disenfranchised and rendered powerless. We certainly cannot expect the average voter, who is interested in being a good citizen but is otherwise not overly devoted to the study of social issues, to spend more than a small portion of his time in evaluating the alternatives. There are two major conditions today that are very different from the period in which these men wrote. Some have objected that if property is unequally distributed, which it ineluctably will be in capitalist market societies, that freedom will also be unequally distributed, in which case it is not truly freedom at all. Russell Kirk, an American political theorist and social critic, published this book in 1953.
The first is that there is no longer a pretense that there is a viable alternative to liberal democratic capitalism for countries that have evolved in the Anglo-American tradition. "Belief that a divine intent rules society," asserts Kirk, as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead." (p. 8) This connection was stressed by Milton Friedman, and is probably the most cogent point in the critique of socialism. Perhaps the strongest of classical conservative principle is the notion that "property and freedom are inseparably connected." (p. Therefore, the emphasis on the value of tradition in conservative thought, and the characterization of "the enemy" as radicals attempting Utopian transformation of society on the basis of Reason and Science, no longer rings true. The first chapter is a succinct and almost eloquent statement of his political philosophy, and the remainder of the book is his account of the life, times, and political philosophies of great Anglo-American conservatives in the tradition of Edmund Burke, including John Adams (who supplied conservatism its theory of the naturality of ruling elites), Walter Scott, George Canning, Samuel Coleridge, John C. Calhoun, Fenimore Cooper, de Tocqueville, Santayana, and several others.I am not a liberal or a conservative, and generally (but not invariably) I find individuals who take on such labels to be unimaginative and opinionated. However, it is reasonable to say that a certain level of material security is a prerequisite of freedom, so liberal democratic capitalism cannot be fully defended as long as there is real material poverty.
We have a duty to recognize their sacrifices and recognize their contributions, but contemporary politics is, and always will be, rooted in the here and now.Some of Kirk's cherished principles appear to be true, but they are no longer widely contested. 7) Appeal to the weight of tradition and the obligation of the living to the dead, Kirk alludes approvingly to Burke's "description of the state as a divinely ordained moral essence, a spiritual union of the dead, the living and those yet unborn." (p. 7). Curiously, conservatives, who stress so strongly the link between property and freedom, are rarely concerned with the amelioration of poverty.I come away from The Conservative Mind with an appreciation of many conservative insights concerning the opposition to Utopian and state socialism, including Communism in all its forms.
The fact that water and enjoyment of life are inseparably connected does not entail that the unequal distribution of water implies unequal enjoyment of life. But these concerns do not speak to the current situation either in the United States and other advanced technological societies, or in currently developing societies. This is, however, a specious critique. Nevertheless, it should be possible to put together a political philosophy that generally gives acceptable answers to political and policy questions without the need of going into intricate and detailed particularities of the issues.
Kirk celebrates conservatives' "affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." (p.8) We all now appreciate diversity and abhor uniformity, but it is worth recalling that this is a central aspect of freedom that people have fought and died for (and continue to fight and die for in contemporary despotic societies). This may have some reverberation in the modern conservative notion of strict construction in the Supreme Court, but not elsewhere in the modern American conservative agenda. I think it is valuable to become acquainted with these writings, if only to discover how alien some of the ideas now appear, as well as to find that some ancient truths remain truths today. "The essence of of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity," says Kirk (p.
|
