Customer comments on this selection.
 Man, God, and Law
This is a very readable book of political theory, as Russell Kirk, the Scholar of Mecosta, Michigan, presents us with the great conservative thinkers since Edmund Burke and their ideas. Don't call Kirk an intellectual, which is a Marxist word; call him a cleric or a scholar.
br /
br /What defines the historical conservative? I must say this conservative is different from a reactionary such Julius Evola who advocated an absolute monarchy who would be a representative of god on earth and closely connected to God to preserve the union of the state. From what I gather from this book, the conservative is for a democracy, but in a limited way, and is for change, as long as it does rock the foundations of tradition. Change is thought to be providential, although I have my doubts. The struggle for conservatives since Burke's time, around 1789, the year of the French Revolution, is to slow down change so that it reforms institutions, but does not destroy them by radical revolution. The main trouble has been that the conservatives were unable to control democracy, this bucking bronco, so that it would be limited within the boundaries of wisdom of tradition and custom, which Burke called "prejudice and prescription".
br /
br /To get down to the details, arguments about who should be voting are covered. The ever expanding franchise of voting has dismayed conservatives who would rather have men of wealth, ability, and qualification voting in elections for various interests in society. These representatives are not delegates, so once they are voted in to office, do not call them with your opinion, they know better than you how to govern and you should show deference to their authority. The one man-one vote system today does not distinguish between an informed vote and an uninformed one. By limiting democracy to its best representatives, society will not be leveled down to grey uniformity of the envious proletariat who wish that no man be better than another and vote to have income stolen from the rich to give to the poor. It would be better for society not to tax the creative class, the natural aristocracy, who produce the enterprises which give the proletariat their jobs. This creative class is largely responsible for robustness of the economy, not labor. However, those who become rich should make their money in an honorable way.
br /
br /Conservatives were against such intellectuals as Jefferson, Rousseau, Bentham, J.S. Mill, and Marx. One fault they found with Bentham and Mill were their tendencies to treat society like a machine; by calculating the greatest good for the greatest number, they would atomize society into making everyone just cogs in a machine. But a man is actually supposed to be more than just an unconnected individual; he must have ties to a certain class, guild, church, place, and community to be happy. The philosophies of the radicals have a dehumanizing effect on society. The argument against Rousseau and Marx is that they dream of unworkable utopias and deny the doctrine of original sin which makes it impossible and inhumane to perfect forever fallible human beings. Without taking sin and limitation into account, social policies will not work. These secular philosophers do not realize that morality is severely weakened when it has no transcendent reference to religion.
br /
br /Such idealists like to talk about giving power to the people. But referring to the people as homogeneous whole is absurd. Which people are you talking about? Government can only serve people as they are grouped in different categories with differing interests. And idealists should not refer to people's rights when they are actually just aspirations or desires. The conservative wants God to save the King, the aristocracy, the country gentlemen, the middle and working classes. Each level should be granted their appropriate rights and privileges. But if we keep following the footsteps of radical democracy, we will find ourselves less free, more equal, and more miserable because we have denied the differences between men.
br /
br /Another complaint from conservatives is that democratic societies have a lust for innovation by passing an overabundance of laws when it would be better not to pass any at all. In this democratic age, people suffer from impatience and will not wait for prudent reforms. Some radicals throughout history have reduced their arguments down to "Pass this law or I will slit your throat!" But this foot dragging of the conservative amuses me sometimes: As for slavery reform, a conservative before 1860 could have said "Give us more time!" Kirk mentions the joke from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary about how the conservative is comfortable with existing evils and the liberal wants to replace existing evils with new ones. And I think sometimes a conservative may place too much faith is the wisdom of tradition, as if the tradition had some pure, infallible beginning.
br /
br /
 Good writer, bad communicator
Kirk is a "good writer" but an appalling communicator. Instead of just saying what he has to say, clearly and simply, his passages read as if they were a puzzle to be solved. Fancy words, obscure references, half-made hints and suggestions - it quickly becomes irritating.
br /
br /I get the feeling that Kirk wants to impress us with his intellect. But any writer that leads with his ego is in trouble, and this is a fine example.
The Definitive Volume for Conservatives
~The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot~ by the late Russell Kirk is arguably one of the greatest contributions to twentieth-century American conservatism. This is real conservatism, not the typical neocon tripe by David Frum or Sean Hannity that masquerades behind the appellation of 'conservative.' Kirk presents a rock-solid historical journey through the conservative mind. Conservatives are of course more sober-minded than the assorted radicals and progressives of the Left. Conservatives have a sound doctrine of anthropology, because they grasp man's nature, and are realistic about the implications of it. Whereas, the political Left has a positive view of man, and from that emanates romantic quixotic fixations that manifest themselves in repugnant ideology that seldom meshes with reality.
br /
br /The vignette sketches of Edmund Burke, John Adams, John Randolph, John Calhoun, Thomas Macauley, James Fennimore Cooper, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Disreali, Irving Babbitt, George Santayana, and other luminaries represent insightful overview of the conservative movement in all its stripes. The essence of conservatism always lingered in the American mind, but when Russell Kirk distilled its core principles in his erudite works, he reinvigorated the intellectual groundwork for its defense and continuance. "People will not look forward to posterity", Burke wrote, "who never look backward to their ancestors."
br /
br /"As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From... Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization."
br /--Ronald Reagan
History of conservative ideas
This widely embraced overview of the history of conservativism gives readers a peek into the thoughts of the main conservative thinkers who have significantly influenced its contemporary form. Alexis de Tocqueville said that, "The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through." Kirk shows us the pallet to which de Tocqueville is referring.
illumination on every page
This book gave greater breadth and depth to my knowledge of conservative history and philosophy than any other book.
br /
br /What I found to be most enjoyable about this book is its examination of the nature of many conservative thinkers, showing similarities and differences in the thinking of those who made the greatest impact on conservative philosophy. While the specifics of each thinker often differed, the "permenant things" remained in agreement and are the subject of our conservation.
br /
br /I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in an overview of conservativism in politics or philosophy, and just as highly recommend it to liberals as a wonderful "come from"; that they may understand the nature and history of conservativism.
|
