Posted on 02/22/2016 3:43:51 PM PST by Kaslin
Russell Kirk was a great American thinker of the last century - and giant of conservative thought. He was a student of the Founding Fathers, but also of their fathers, and of their mentors' mentors. He knew Edmund Burke's philosophy cold, and history's big lessons all the way back to Plato. Kirk hated "ruinous taxation," like Lecky, who wrote "Democracy and Liberty." Kirk hated "corrupt Washington," as Henry James, who wrote "Democracy." Kirk loved individual liberty and was a scholar of our Constitution's roots, including its "natural law" origins. Kirk was effectively the Father, or wise man, of modern conservatism.
So, what would this Father of modern conservatism - and a man who feared for America's future already in the 1950s - say about our current presidential primary race? He would celebrate our public concern, suspicions of power, and voting participation. But he would also shake his head at our impetuous behavior. He would worry aloud for us, as a society and as individuals. And he would warn us to stop and think.
This sage would ask us, before we cast our vote: 'Are you thinking hard about what you are doing, not just feeling the satisfaction of slashing at what is despised? Are you thinking about who can work within our complex constitutional system, to thoughtfully change what we do not like? Are you thinking about who personifies prudence - not the mad dash to a seemingly simple answer? Are you a real conservative, drawing your convictions from faith and duty, patience and history? Or are you just another French Revolutionary, willing to take the boat over the falls, destroying what we all value in the process? In short, are you thinking about who may lead wisely, not just with passion?'
If only this paragon of conservatism was alive today! Would he prefer indignant, irreverent, proudly outspoken and unapologetic Trump, or a patient, practiced, constitutionally-guided, but principled mover-and-shaker like Cruz? Would he prefer Rubio's fast-moving, ambitious, speed-skating - that rocket rise to power by someone young in nature? If we are true to our history, true to those who fought for it, true to the Founders and those who made today possible, what should we do?
To say what Kirk would advise right now is impossible. But there are hints. Actually, the billions of former Americans - and yes, there are now billions - who lived before us, left us hints. They were sometimes outspoken, more often kept their own counsel, did not opine on things they knew little about, were generally more quiet and judicious. They knew how to speak well, but also how to listen. They might have been entertained - if briefly - by Trump's style, but not for long. They preferred the workhorse to the show horse. They might have asked merriment of Cruz, but they would have appreciated his style, preparation and tempered personality. They were also young, like Rubio and Cruz, when they lived, when they wrote, when the fought, and often when they died.
What else do we know? The great American conservative thinkers of our past were respectful of THEIR past, and of the sacrifices made for them. They did generally NOT fling baseless insults. They were NOT generally arrogant. They did NOT pretend life's complexities, or fixing government's failures, was usually simple, quick or easy. They were NOT imprudent. Instead, they had the courage to speak, courage to listen, and embodied responsibility - that is, prudent thinking.
So, back to Kirk. If Kirk were our guide, what would he say today? Maybe these words - his own words - give us the best hint: "Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence ... Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues." Why? Because national security, national survival, the economy and respect for each other all depend on good judgment, prudence.
What other hints did Kirk leave? He said: Keep your eyes on "long run consequences" and not just "temporary advantage or popularity." Why? Because "liberals and radicals ... are imprudent." You will know their nature because "they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away." Interesting point, cautionary.
To this, he added: "Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be effective." So, maybe we need more strategy and depth, complexity and thinking, not so many simple promises. Maybe we should wonder about a feel-good pledge of walls built and paid for by others, indefinite bans on people from away, the odd contradiction of support and opposition to groups and causes. Perhaps we need to stop and ask what lies behind the words. What is the meaning of these words? If unclear, maybe we should dare to doubt.
The great American conservative ended a section of one relevant book this way: "The conservative ... acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences...Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery... The march of providence is slow; it is the devil who always hurries." And so, from our past, we get a guide to our future. We are warned to be prudent, unhurried, look for depth and mastery of complex, constitutional and inherently unsettled events. Beware the glad-hander with simple answers to hard questions. Walk a wide circle around those who pledge easy ways to get up a steep hill, or who slap your back and berate others, always boasting.
It's time for American Conservative voters - indeed for all Americans - to stop laughing, slapping backs, and start thinking - hard now. We must navigate these treacherous times, around these treacherous falls, not go over them. That might be Kirk's counsel to us, and the word of caution from all who brought us painfully, slowly, prudently here. The pumped-fist of populism is never prudence. Sometimes an American leader must have mastery of the Constitution, of the Congress and Supreme Court, of the complex - in order to succeed. I leave it to the reader to assess who that candidate this year may be - but in all events, think about it. The stakes are high. From some distant and ethereal ridge, around some far and unfathomable bend, our ancestors may yet be watching. It is all on us now.
Lol! Well done. ☺
I know, but there is a meaningful difference when it comes to judicial appointments - which are for a lifetime. Liberal judges/justices are far more willing to use their positions for social change than are conservatives.
There is some difference in terms of policy - just look at the damage Obama has brought - far, far worse than any Republican.
I live in CA - my vote doesn’t count, except for a national total. I refuse to give up, even if the deck is stacked. Not voting is like eating a pistol.
On the national news tonight, I heard that Republican leaders are beginning to worry that Donald Trump may not be stoppable. It’s said that they’re fearful that neither Trump or Cruz are liked well enough in Congress. They said that would make it difficult to work with either of them.
Here’s where the absolute ridiculousness of that statement lies. How arrogant and absolutely indifferent to the American people our political stiffs have become! They speak as if the wants and needs of Americans and the things they see as important are irrelevant! Only their circle of pompous, career, Washington elite can possibly know who needs to be our President!
Pay attention! There is a huge number of Americans that want a wall. There are a huge number of Americans that are sick of the song and dance of do nothing politics. There is a huge number of Americans who want our jobs and tax revenue to benefit Americans, not foreign invaders. There are a huge number of Americans who think Donald Trump can bring about the changes that are needed.
It’s about time that the high blown political class realizes that We, the People are their employers, not the reverse. If We the People want a man who has never been one of the Political Royalty to have a chance to lead us, then it is for them, who we put where they are, to get along and work with our choice, not sabotage him at every turn. It’s attitudes like those of our present Congressmen against a popular candidate that let me know just how little they care what mainstream Americans think. It’s time they got an attitude adjustment from their bosses.
Thanks for posting Russell Kirk, one of the fathers of conservative thought. Kirk says that the essence of conservatism lies in six canons:
1. A divine intent rules society as well as conscience-”political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems”.
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery, while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes-”the only true equality is moral equality.”
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than reason.
6. Change and reform are not identical”-society must alter slowly.
This is not Hannity-spew but thought-provoking philosophy. I believe Donald Trump’s answer to “define conservatism” was much more accurate than he was given credit for because it very closely paralleled Kirk’s belief that property and freedom are interdependent, and Trump is proof of how freedom to achive has led to wealth and prosperity. Nor do I see where his solutions to political problems (immigration, defense, trade, education, etc) deviate from the principle that these are moral problems, and he proposes moral solutions.
Bring out the clowns. Don’t bother they’re here.
>It’s said that they’re fearful that neither Trump or Cruz are liked well enough in Congress
Most bums in congress follow some leaders. Throat punch the misled leaders and get the lemming to follow the Constitutional lead.
Excuse me ,but you are quite mistalen anout Kirk and George being of same mind.
George is one trying to formulate a Natural Law theory in his own making.
Kirk respected the Natural Law of the ages.
I do not believe for one second Kirk would approve of Cruz’disdain for his fellow Americans by supporting the trade deals and the immigration policies he does. Nor would Kirk like the Goldman Sachs globalization connection.
Well said.
I would just add that if any of you reading are represented by a multi-national politician,
CANTORIZE YOUR WEASELS, AMERICA!
Another example - many people would feel uncomfortable to learn that according to Kirk, “Civilized society requires orders and classes”. How awful the liberals would say!
But look at our problems today...one is the result of a class called “Terrorists” and another a class called “Illegal Immigrants”. Trump was the one to name the enemy and to relentless stand by his proposals to deal with them. Imposing order by separating the class calleed “Citizens” from these others is perfectly in line with Kirk’s canons of conservative thought.
Furthermore, writers of fifty years ago would have scoffed at the idea of gay pride parades, on demand abortions, open borders, LGBT rights or sex change operations. It’s kind of hard to tell what they might think or say if faced with today’s America.
Eating my pistol...does.
I've other plans..these days.
One thing for sure, Kirk would vote for a Republican and not stay home.
Trump is the only one who is hard enough on Muslims(even though i dont think he goes far enough)
Trump echos my view that removing Saddam was pointless ? What was the point of removing Saddam from power ? To bring “democracy” to muslims ? Why ?
Vote CRUZ!
The America we Deserve Donald Trump 2000
Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers-more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.
Exactly. To the Trump supporters here, merely having conservative principles means one is GOPe. And heaven forbid one should have social conservative or traditional religious principles!
Welcome to Cruz Country!
I don't understand what you are saying. I have read books plus journal articles written by both men and I do not find Robert George trying to make up his own version of natural law.
“Trump echos my view that removing Saddam was pointless ?”
And, yet, the Donald supported the Iraq invasion. He was for it back then and is against it now. In between, he flipped and flopped a couple of times. Classic.
For Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.