« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatism….Defined

Clarity is the key to Understanding

Promoted from the diaries by Erick

Lately there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what a Conservative is and is not. Some seem to think it has to do with abortion or taxes or national security. Well the truth is that conservatism is not about any given issue, rather conservatism is about principles.

Before we go any further I believe it would behoove us to go over a bit of terminology that is thrown about too often without people understanding thier meanings. the terms I am refering to are Issues, Policies, and Principles.

First let’s deal with Issues.

An Issue, for the purpose of Politics, is something that is a cause of dispute. Issues come and go, some last longer than others, but all issues are fleeting in the long term. Some issues we deal with today are abortion, international terrorism and slowing or failing markets.

Next we have Policies.

Policies are the constructs that we create to deal with any given issue. Policies of today include the ESCR Ban, GWOT, and TARP.

Last but not least we have Principles.

Principles are what guide us in the formation of Policy on any given Issue. All political groups have their set of principles that guide them, but not all principles are equal.


So now we can move on a bit further having defined Issues, Policies, and Principles in their broader sense.

To be a conservative you must follow the Ten Conservative Principles written by Russell Kirk when constructing Policy for any given Issue. Below are the 10 principles.

  • First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order

Moral order is the foundation to self governance as I tried to convey in this diary. Additionally Kirk acknowledges that order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. This moral order does not need to be religous but at the same time it should be irreligious.

  • Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity

Custom, Convention and Continuity provide us with knowledge of our linked histories, the bodies of law which have been agreed upon in our history, and a way to pass both our history and our laws to generations to come. Kirk explains that when we throw off these customs and continuity that we often end up with a new social order which may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

  • Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription

Prescription is those things which are established beyond the limits of memory, tradition, or recorded history. This as Kirk says is the acknowledgement that “modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.” With this acknowledgement it is apparent that our minds should not run to the contrary of these established truths which allow us to better understand why we have government and why we believe it must be limited in order to secure liberty.

  • Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence

Prudence is the act of being wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. As Kirk says “Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.” This principle was shared by Burke and Plato among many others and they believed it to be chief among the virtues of a statesman. If definitions were still pure prudence would be the principle of all foward thinkers.

  • Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety

Variety needs not to be defined, but I will say that it is not the faux diversity of the left that conservatives hold dear. True diversity, or variety, allows for, as Kirk states ” orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality”. Additionally Kirk recognizes, as do conservatives, that “The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation”.

  • Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability

Man is a fallen creature, this holds true regardless of any belief in God. Our imperfectability is not limited to the individual or the collective. I do not presume to be able to describe this better than Kirk himself, so I will provide a larger quote from Kirk on this matter:

To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

  • Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked

Property is sacred to freedom because of what property requires of the individual. Property must be maintained my the owner, and this as noted by Kirk instills in us all a sense of responsibility, not only to ourselves but to the community in which we live. “The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully”, Kirk states. Freedom is strengthened by responsibility.

Property is also the fruit of ones labor, and with that comes the possibility to pass those fruits down to generation after generation, allowing those who come after us to “rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own”.

  • Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism

Here, again, I will quote a full text of Kirk’s writing on this principle for the simple reason that I don’t think I could say it better:

Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

  • Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions

This principle was key in the development of our form of government. The Founders, wisely, understood man’s lust for power and where the passions of man would lead once power was attained. For this reason they created the different branches of government and the checks and balances between those branches. Additionally, the Founders understood that there needed to be a check on the Federal Government as a whole and wrote the Tenth Amendment with that in mind:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is also a balance to be struck on this as Kirk notes in the following passage:

A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy.

The bolded portion is a reminder to our more extreme libertarian brethren. Liberty unchecked leads to anarchy which quicly avails itself to tyranny. We must find the balance between the two, and the conservative believes that “A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty”.

  • Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society

Conservatives understand that with advancements in technology and medicine and science in general we must continually evaluate the status quo, but with that we aslo acknowledge that some things are permanent. Through careful deliberation and adherence to the other nine principles we will embrace progress as long as it is not the cult of Progress (notice the capital P). To better understand this I will provide another quote from Kirk:

The permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that progression, a people stagnate.

These Ten Principles are what guide conservatives in the construction of policies on any given issue.

So now I ask you, are you a conservative?

Aaron Gardner

COMMENTS

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    But Erick already had it FP’ed. Go man, go.

  • Spiral

    Aaron,

    To be a conservative you must follow the Ten Conservative Principles written by Russell Kirk when constructing Policy for any given Issue. Below are the 10 principles.

    This begs the question: Who made Russell Kirk the eternal rulemaker?

    Why does Russell Kirk get to decide who is and who is not a conservative?

    If Jonah Goldberg or George Will were to write a list of 5 or 12 or 19 principles, who’s to say that Goldberg or Will isn’t correct and Russell Kirk wrong?

    • aaronbg

      I can only write about what I know. This strain, from what I understand, is that which most closely matches the classical liberalism of the Founders. To me that is what we need to define conservatism as.

      I would be interested in reviewing any other list of guiding principles that claim to be conservative and seeing how well they match up to the principles listed here. Can you point me to any specific sites or books of interest?

      • aaronbg

        I made him kingmaker because I went through the trouble of reading his list and creating a well informed diary to explain the principles.

        To my knowledge neither George Will or Jonah Goldberg have written a comprehensive list of Conservative Principles. And I have read both of their works and I would presume that they would actually agree with Russell Kirk.

        Now, do you have any specific objections with the Principles put forth or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

        • Spiral

          Aaron,

          I don’t have any objection to those principles.

          • Spiral

            Aaron,

            Those principles don’t seem to clarify very much.

            For example, if you have someone advocating a free-trade policy and another person advocating protectionism, how are we to know which of these two people are conservative?

            Similarly, someone is advocating a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states and someone eles is advocating a Constitutional Amendment that would give each of the 50 states the right to regulate aboriton if it so chose.

            How are we to know, based on Kirk’s principles, which of these two positions are conservative?

            I noticed on that other thread that Rick Santorum and Michael Steele are considered to be moderates in your book. Is this something Russell Kirk would agree with?

            How can we possibly know?

            So, I guess this list of principles is interesting. But it seems to lack relevance in today’s world.

          • avgamerican

            A true conservative abides in using his freedom to obey his God given conscience.

  • Bouncer

    But Limbaugh would disagree with you on 4. He believes if you care about the consequences of your actions, or how they affect others, you are a liberal.

    But I know he doesn’t speak for everyone.

    • E_Pluribus_Unum

      He was a very, very odd bird. Did you know about his relationship with National Review? WFB wanted to make him an editor, but he refused. He was a columnist there, and had some bitter, lifelong dispute with a libertarian named Frank Meyer, who also wrote for NR, and Kirk refused to have his name listed on the masthead of a print magazine that would publish Meyer.

      Did not drive, did not watch TV.

      • aceintx

        :>)

        Seriously…you need to get a grip…based on our other exchanges you think Christi Todd Whitman and John Danforth chould define Conservatism?

        • bs

          “Me.”

          Classic.

          • aaronbg

            As far as Rush goes, I would argue that he agrees with principle 4 for the most part. When listening to Rush we all need to be careful in separating the sarcasm from the genuine. Rush has spoken of the danger of unintended consequences many times on his show, this shows that he takes an approach of prudence rather that just results. Although one could argue that Operation Chaos was lacking in prudence due to the skewing effect it had on party registration that ultimately lead to overweighted polling samples which in turn, one could argue, resulted in the polls being accurate in the end. But I digress.

          • aceintx

            where Buckly and Goldwater were more of the libertarian purists as well methinks.

          • aaronbg

            I was wondering when I would see you on this thread….;^)

          • aaronbg

            You will always have a place in my foxhole brother!!!

          • aceintx

            I still haven’t read him but am always whenever someone sites something of his that lines up so well with my thinking based on my readings of the founders, Burke and Locke…

            I’ve read a lot of Buckley and Goldwater and always felt there was a whole in their thinking when it comes to the need for a moral order to preclude the necessity of Government encroachment upon our liberty to enforce order on a society that can not order itself.

            One other thing I’d add and I don’t want to be preachy but I’ve never gotten the knee jerk reaction and rejection to the truths in the Bible whether you believe in GOD or not…Where Kirk talks about each generation standing on the shoulders of the ones before…I can’t understand why people can’t see the value in learning the lessons of a people who faced every trial and tribulation imaginable and developed a philosophy over over 4000 years of history deal with every one of them! There is value in understanding the lessons of culture and tradition that can’t be quantified in a Liberal Arts degree or by reading on a Computer Screen!

          • MadHatChemist

            Kirk was a strong advocate of “fusionism” where traditional values and libertarian approach to governing are “fused” into a shared ideology.

          • Cheetah772

            The point is that America and the US Constitution were founded upon moral principles, and made for a moral people.

            That’s why I do agree with your summary points of conservative principles.

            The reason for moderation of the Founders is simple: they all agreed on moral, Christian principles. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of moral principles. They all shared similar moral and cultural views.

            Even if Hamilton and Jefferson had lived today, they would have been horrified at how America turned out culturally and morally. That’s why I believe the cultural war is splitting parties on moral spectrum, where differences are irreconcilable.

          • aceintx

            to push their tax and spend agendas and SoCons are having that millstone wrapped around our necks by radical libertarians and liberal Republicans who want to see us out of the Party.

  • Spiral

    The fourth principle is non-controversial.

    How often does someone say:

    “This legislation that I am proposing is going to put us in deep trouble down the road, but it will work in the short run. So, let’s all get behind my legislative idea.”

    Even liberals think that they “take the long view.” Ever hear of the Global Warming Agenda?

    • Dave_in_Fla

      :smile:

      • birdmojo

        I’m very, very conservative when it comes to the stuff I say when I am on my soapbox about how the world ought to work and whether those kids today ought to pull their pants up.

        When it comes to how much power we ought to give law enforcement… well, let’s just say that I’m a fan of open carry.

        It’s one thing to say “the world should be a particular way” and quite another to give law enforcement the power to make it so.

        • aaronbg

          n/t

          • aaronbg

            As I have said before in this very thread, these principles do not require that we have uniformity in thought, and they will, often times, lead to conclusions that are divergent.

            Even with the Iraq war, as you suggested, both going to war and not going to war are conservative positions in theory, but as far as policy goes it would not be prudent to ignore a growing threat, as was the case with Iraq. The short term peace is no reason to ignore the long term threat.

          • kyle8

            they are more succinct, therefore harder to misinterpret.

          • kudzu630

            I ended up getting two books from Kirk, after visiting his website you posted earlier. Seeing as how I’m going to take a break from school after my current class and before I deploy again it’ll give me some good bourbon and book time.

            One thing I’ve noticed lacking in today’s current conservative writers is true quality time spent defining the movement/philosophy. I enjoy reading Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, and even Zig Zag’s last book. But a true intellectual dive into the belief system is needed in order to provide a backdrop for the current issues today.

            I’ve been pushing for a conservative/Red State/Right Wing “manifesto” and this is it. We need a base to start from so ALL conservative politicians can start from. Have them sign it and make it a core part of our party platform. We can partition our take on issues all day (i.e pro-gun/anti-abortion) but unless we can identify the foundation for those stances we stand on sand.

            We must take these core beliefs and apply them today with little rhetorical talk and a few striking tones. Speak to a people’s soul from in front of their eyes and they’ll undergo a sea change within their life and their beliefs. We seek nothing more than the total envelopment of people’s beliefs so they can think clearly, objectively, and within the confines of freedom loving peoples the world over from as far back as ancient Greece. Hard to do but with an articulated foundation applied to today’s issues we can win the elections in 2010 and quite possibly 2012.

            P.S. My training in information operations is coming through… oops.

          • kudzu630

            The American Cause and The Roots of American Order

          • aaronbg

            Do no harm? How is that working out with the Hippocratic Oath and abortions?

          • kyle8

            anyone else’s statements of principle. They sound fine but can be used in any way conceivable. So they should be personal. Mine are personal. They come from reading Lao Tsu, Proverbs, the Gospels, the stoic philosophers, Locke, the Founding Fathers, and Mill.

            They inform my decisions and I can try to teach them to others, but they are not, as you say policy prescriptions, and as such, as Spiral correctly points out, they are not as useful as you seem to think.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    “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.”

    There are too many policy oriented Republicans that cannot see the big picture. Everything is a series of policy fights which leads to a incoherent disjointed message. There would be no Reagan without Kirk. Reagan has stated so himself. Republicans need to act like conservatives and conservatives need to honor a vision that is larger than a tax code or a foreign policy.

    • aaronbg

      These principles are useful to the extent that they are guidelines on how to construct policies that are beneficial to, and palatable to a large group of society, which is what we need in order to win elections on the national level and institute the shared vision of a limited government.

      By the way what I pointed out is that succint is no substitute for deeper thought. You merely backtracked because you got caught in your own little trap.

      • Spiral

        We tend to forget that the US and Great Britain were actually in a state of war with Saddam Hussain’s Iraq for years in terms of patrolling the no-fly zones.

        In addition, when Saddam Hussain sheltered the terrorist who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that demonstrated that Hussain meant the US harm, as if we needed additional evidence.

        Principles are principles. So it is unreasonable to expect principles, no matter how well articulated, to answer every question, every eventuality.

        • Spiral

          Okay. But I admit that I have not read William F. Buckley Jr’s “God and Man at Yale” yet.

          Perhaps my personal favorite book is Radical Son: A Generational Odessey by David Horowitz.

          Hey, if Kirk has written a book as good as Radical Son, I’ll buy it tonight.

  • pilgrim

    Excellent diary Aaron, and I understand why Erick promoted this to the front page. The details of defining conservativism in the words of Russell Kirk is superb, and it is timeless. The only additional wish that I have is that the face of conservatism could be displayed without the fear or worry that there will be accusations that we are pandering. I think that we have to stop worrying about accusations like this. The opposition are going to criticize and fire shots no matter what we do.

    I believe that if you ask the man on the street to put a name and a face to conservatism it will be Rush Limbaugh.

    It is my wish and hope that the time will come when you ask the man on the street to put a name and a face to conservatism, and it will be Bo Snerdley

  • bs

    I’ve been wanting to write on this topic for a long time, but I could never summon up the energy to give the topic the appropriate attention. You’ve done it.

    • gamecock

      Steele and Newt and….

      • JSobieski

        Besides the Bible, the Founders cited the works of John Locke more than any other writing.

        While there is a lot of overlap between modern conservatism and classical liberalism, there are differences between them.

        Thomas Paine was certainly no conservative. Neither was Thomas Jefferson. However, both were Classical Liberals. As was George Washington.

        I think the realm of classical liberalism is large enough to encompass certain aspects of conservatism (being conservative makes one a classical liberal in many respects) but being a classical liberal does not necessary make someone a conservative.

        • von

          I’m not sure if I’m qualified to answer, but, in response to this:

          emphasis each places on ideas v. culture

          I am not sure that the principles as a whole give more emphasis to one over the other. Explain that a bit more for me, if you would?

          I’d argue that classic liberalism was (and is) driven by ideas, and a rejection of the status quo. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the Declaration of Independence, utilitarianism. The idea that an American becomes an American by pledging allegiance to a set of ideals, rather than by national origin. Different though these examples are, each rejects the way that the world has worked. Each strives towards human freedom at the expense of tradition. Each is, in an important way, a contribution of classic liberalism.

          This is not to say that classic liberalism is perfect. As with any form of liberalism, hubris is a problem. Burke, for instance, might point out that for every advance wrought by classic liberalism (e.g., the American Revolution) there is at least one terror (the French Revolution).

          That’s why I’ve always tended to think that classic liberals and conservatives belong together. There is undeniable tension between the two. The world views can be contradictory. But the tension is useful, because each brings something different to the table. The result could be a vibrant Republican party.

  • avgamerican

    It started off good. Moral order was made and man was made for it, but by who?
    You can’t make it irreligious, thats where the whole thing is. I don’t like to use the word religion because religion can be man made. The bottom line is that if we don’t believe in the only one and true living God as creator, we can fill in anything and we fall into moral relativism which causes the entire break down of the system we see today.

    “He who won’t be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants.” Patrick Henry

  • Pingback: look

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    Ah, MAN! Great, great stuff, Aaron. YOu can’t go wrong with Russell Kirk, for starters. But your lead-in, on the relationship of issues, policies, and principles…..very, very tight.

    Keep educating, man, you are good at it. I think that’s the order of the day right now. Regroup, get our message good and tight, firm up our natural alliances, and THEN start storming castles.

  • 1SGinTN

    Thanks, this is excellent. It has been several years since I have read from Russell Kirk, I needed the reminder. Now, to pass it on….

  • aaronbg

    Your influence got me here and I will never forget that…As to this:

    Regroup, get our message good and tight, firm up our natural alliances, and THEN start storming castles.

    I think Margret Thatcher said it best:

    First yo win the argument, then you win the vote

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • birdmojo

    But, for the record, it’s a “not” that wouldn’t inspire me particularly to do much more than grumble at the nightly news, were it instituted.

    Dare I say it, had Bush paid attention to these rules and seriously followed them, the democrats would still be grumbling about being in the minority.

    Woulda coulda shoulda.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    but some dont. There are some other lists out there promulgating a more libertarian strain of conservatism and the modern conservatism as classical liberal strain.

  • mfr2063

    Aaron -

    Thank you for the thoughtful diary entry. I only “discovered” Russell Kirk within the last year but happily found I had subscribed to his notions for a long time. In response to another post … nobody made Russell Kirk the eternal rulemaker. The fact is Mr. Kirk was simply articulating timeless principles that are at the foundation of our great country.

  • Charles_Bird

    nt

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The guy is special. A little weird (actually very weird) but a special intellect.

  • aaronbg

    Have you read Russell Kirk? Do you know who he is? The only reason I ask is because this is the second time I have brought him up in the last couple days and both times you argued with me about what I brought up.

    If you haven’t read about him click the link in the article and read about him and the work he did and his associations with some of the great modern conservative thinkers. You may just find out that you would like him to be the “rulemaker”.

  • ofjay

    But what about the other factions? The ones whose books don’t cleave to these ten? What of TheoCons, who might find 9 and 10 difficult to abide by? Or libertines?

  • aaronbg

    I never said Rick Santorum or Michael Steele were moderates, I merely said that I would not support them for the RNC chair.

    So, I guess this list of principles is interesting. But it seems to lack relevance in today’s world.

    I doubt you took the time to contemplate any of these principles, so therefore I doubt you have the understanding to make that assertion.

  • aaronbg

    Your story is my story….about a year ago I was introduced to Kirk via EPU. I found that I had followed these principles without even knowing of their existence as well. That alone is a testament to their longevity and common sense nature which puts them in the realm of eternal truths, at least that’s how I see it.

  • towdogInCal

    Back to Basics! Like the “this is a football” speech- definately what is needed today.
    Good one Aaron.

  • aaronbg

    Now is the time to define and teach so that come 2010 and 2012 we can solidify our support for a man/woman who will embody these principles and return us to a Republic instead of a Peoples Republic as we appear to head to.

  • Cheetah772

    That is how I identify myself politically.

    It has always been my view that conservatism is not necessarily synonymous with the Biblical teachings. After all, Pharisees were ‘conservative’ in their political nature. Yet no one would dare to associate them with conservative principles set forth in your blog or according to Kirk’s writings.

    But that is getting off track here…

    However, speaking as a conservative, I do agree with most of your points.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    Obviously anybody can assert anything in regards to ‘who decides what conservatism is’. But there is a body of history, and here is the extremely compact version:

    The Founding Fathers were immensely shaped by British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke, who is said to be the Father of Conservatism. Even that point is disputed by those who would give that mantle to Hume or John Locke. But most say Burke. John Adams, Alex Hamilton, and James Madison would said by modern conservatives to be the core conservative thinkers and shapers of the time in America. Now fast forward to the early 1950′s, when conservatism had not been heard of in decades. Three men – Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, and William Buckley, all friends and allies — fostered the great conservative reawakening. Each wrote at least 1 seminal book at the time, and while there are differences, even somewhat notable differences (Kirk is NOTABLY less libertarian than either of the other two), most of the core conservative fundamentals are in sync.

    Russell Kirk is the least well known, and all I can say is, so much the pity. Why do Aaron and I so vocally back him? In part, pure pragmatism. Kirk, MUCH better than the other two, boiled it all down into a compact teaching tool, a core 10 principles, easy to follow, nice and organized.

    That is why, for me, Kirk and not the others.

  • aaronbg

    I must say that I too am a Christian first. With that in mind, none of the principles discussed here are anti-Christian, in fact most are born of eternal truths which are found in the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    Additionally we must recognize that, even though these principles are used to construct policy on any given issue, we may not always come up with the same policies in the end. The hope though is that whatever policy constructed by these principles would be palatable to all men, not just those who acknowledge these principles. This is the moderation of the Founders rather than the moderation for moderations sake that we see today.

  • avgamerican

    Give freedom of religion as the founders intended “GGOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY” with the understanding that those who don’t believe have no right to solicit government to stop or control those who do.

  • Spiral

    There is an attempt to make Christianity “liberal.”

    The Sermon on the Mount is being used to convince Christians to endorse socialism.

    A few years ago, the Republican Governor of Alabama asked the legislature to raised taxes to pay for more social programs.

    He called it “the Christian thing to do.”

    I hope that this trend does not continue.

  • stang

    We have allowed the left to define conservatives and their philosophy for far too long.

    “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

    Thomas Jefferson

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    In the next day or so (following up my Fredhead 3 which says let’s learn, and learn to teach, conservatism), I’m posting Fredhead 4. The topic will be Kirk’s Principle #2,

    The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

    Since earlier I had done a piece on Principle #1.

    Don’t go zooming me now!

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Buckley’s statement that “Conservatism is standing athwart history, yelling, ‘STOP’.” Has never resonated with me, because it is so inadequate to so many issues. Kirk’s 10 principles has the advantage of being almost universally applicable.

  • aaronbg

    What is a Theocon? Is this a person who believe in a theocracy? If it is then they aren’t not a conservative because to have a theocracy would be a radical view that would require one to disagree in whole with the views of the Founders.

    For those who are libertarian I would urge them to understand a passage that I quoted above:

    When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy

    And that with anarchy, presumably, the next step is tyranny. No libertarian should want that as it is counter to the very heart of their philosophy.

  • von

    I can only write about what I know. This strain, from what I understand, is that which most closely matches the classical liberalism of the Founders. To me that is what we need to define conservatism as.

    Russell Kirk is not a classic liberal, and Kirk’s ten principles of conservatism are not classic liberal principles.* For instance, a classic liberal may adhere to Principles 1 and 2, but much of classical liberalism is at odds with Principles 1 and 2. Kirk’s principles also do not reflect the principles of the founders. (Yes, there are overlaps among some of the founders, but “the founders” were certainly not a uniform group by any stretch. There were very serious disagreements between them.)

    That said, I have three reactions:

    1. I think that this is a valuable argument to have.

    2. It’s a well-written, although not wholly persuasive, essay.

    3. I question the wisdom of elevating Kirk’s 10 principles to a kind a Nicene creed.

    von

    *I recognize that classical liberal and conservative are both amorphous terms. But it strikes me that a profound difference between the two is the relative emphasis each places on ideas v. culture.

  • aaronbg

    Let’s just say that I provide an outline for the students of conservatism and you shall provide the teachings chapter and verse…;^)

    Besides, I learn from what you write and the diversity of our thoughts is mutually beneficial.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The founding father I believe can be called classic liberals. They were reasoned men of the enlightment, but there were many radicals in this mix.

    Burke’s and subsequenty Kirk’s emphasis on tradition, prudence, organic change and their rejection of ideology symbolized something a little different.

    A lot of the classic conservatatives were and are enamoured with the high middle ages. Kirk is something of a gothic figure.

    But without question, Kirk is a conservative giant. Maybe the most important American conservative ever

  • kudzu630

    Of Russel Kirk until this post. But he speaks to the very definition that I know a conservative to be. Made me buy one of this books…

  • aaronbg

    You may be much more qualified to write on the subject of classical liberalism than I, and I encourage you to do so.

    As to this:

    but “the founders” were certainly not a uniform group by any stretch. There were very serious disagreements between them.

    These principles do not require uniformity of thought nor uniformity of policy. The principles are merely the guidelines used to construct any given policy. As I stated below two people could come up with divergent policies while using the same principles to formulate those policies.

    And to this:

    emphasis each places on ideas v. culture

    I am not sure that the principles as a whole give more emphasis to one over the other. Explain that a bit more for me, if you would?

  • ramblinwreck

    Shouldn’t the core of conservatism be the Constitution? If you are a conservative shouldn’t you insist that the Constitution be observed? I know it’s a mere afterthought to what happens in Washington today and maybe I’m old fashioned but all I really want from a candidate for office is for them to take their oath of office seriously. If they actually did that the political parties would be a lot less relevant than they’ve become.

  • c17wife

    And the answer is yes. Always.

  • aaronbg

    And the last two line of that Jefferson quote are eerily relavent today…see Obama

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • aaronbg

    Be sure to visit his site as well. Kirk died in 1994 but through the site I linked in the diary his teachings and philosophy can live on.

  • aaronbg

    You have been one of the many here at RedState who have contributed to my conservative schooling.

  • aceintx

    :>)

  • aaronbg

    To answer your question as to why some reject the accumulated knowledge of our elders. A catalyst of this is, I believe, the advancement of evolution beyond the realm of adaptation of species. You can see this on bumper stickers which urge all of us Neanderthals to “Evolve Already”. Those who have perverted evolution truly believe that we have grown beyond all of the knowledge of the ancients and therefore believe that man is perfectible by the action of the collective, all the while ignoring that the collective can only be as strong as its weakest member. Like the old saying about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link.

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • kyle8

    Sorry, but his principles, although quite fine, are obtuse and long winded. You can sum it up much better by saying.

    1. First do no harm.
    2. Stick with what works.
    3. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
    4. Respect peoples rights, beliefs, and property.
    5. Don’t try to play God.
    6. Do what you must to make society function, then leave us alone.
  • aaronbg

    I believe you are much more conservative than you give yourself credit for…you just have an aversion to the word conservative…you counter-culture hippie freak…;^)..Seriously though, this is not intended to be exclusive, but rather inclusive.

    These principles should be shared for the most part by libertarians and although they may not get your active support as a whole they would also not drive you from the tent of the Republican Party now would they?

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    Kirk is an easy read…..

    Yes, he’s wordy and a bit windy, but just consider Buckley. With Kirk, you don’t have to have Merriam-Webster out on the table with you.

  • aceintx

    Society falls into anarchy and Government expands to establish an authoritarian order…I’m sounding like a broken record because I know I’ve written a variation of this 20 times today but the simple truth of this is undeniable…

    Libertarians need SoCons amd the moral order they represent to maintain their liberty…

    As one of the founders said, (was it Franklin after signing the Declaraiton? and I paraphrase), “We must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately!

    Libertarians need to understand this lesson and unify with us instead of sticking with the RMSP Liberals in freezing us out or the Democrats will simply continue their long march toward Gomorrah and a totalitarian society where they choose the winners and losers in this country

  • BigGator5

    If that what it means to be a conservative, then color me conservative my friend.

    Also, I think principle 8 & 9 would make a great case for repealing of the 17th Amendment. Your thoughts on the subject is most welcome.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    you are full-time libertarian? That’s your right, but I hope you have a better champion than Frank Meyer on that.

  • aaronbg

    I understand that you are some sort of conservative and you are pretty solid in what you believe, so for you the short blurb is sufficient but others need more depth.

    If this isn’t your style, for reading pleasure or learning, so be it. No need to sully the concepts just because you lack the desire to go in depth.

  • Spiral

    I agree with them.

    But I can easily see how you could have a supporter of the Iraq war and an opponent of the Iraq war both say that their view is endorsed by Kirk’s principles.

    Same for free trade v. Protectionism

    Ban all abortions everywhere v. let the states decide.

    It leaves most of the important contemporary questions unanswered.

    That said, what can reasonably be expected from any set of principles? Even the Constitution, as great as it is, can be misinterpreted, and often by people who aren’t supporters of a “living constitution.”

    For example, Robert Bork wasn’t sure whether the 2nd Amendment really gave individuals the right to bear arms.

  • Spiral

    It all goes back to repealing the 17th amendment, doesn’t it?

    I have always thought that the beginning of all of our problems was when they decided to give people the right to vote.

    But right now, I’m trying to generate mass interest in changing the filibuster rule to a 60 vote requirement to a 51 vote requirement.

    I think we both need lots of luck on our missions.

  • aceintx

    It’s still beyond me though…as I say…it’s simple common sense…even if you don’t believe in God…that there are lessons to be learned from 4000 years of history…

    Oh well…I repeat myself…

    :>)

  • stang
  • aaronbg

    I would still say that the principles above would be most akin to the principles that guided the founders.

    You say, and I am paraphrasing, that the founders threw off tradition to insure freedom. This is true to the extent that they went away from their immediate past, but they also lean on the knowledge of the ancients and the forms of government of the Greeks and Romans and the British and combined parts of each to form a new government that would insure greater freedom.

    I would relate this to the 10 principles in Kirk’s list, the reconciliation of Permanence and Change.

  • aaronbg

    You are correct that following the constitution is at the heart of Conservatism. I would say that if more people used these principles to guide their decision making process they would be inline with the Constitution 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time would be issues that involve the amendments to the Constitution that have diluted its original meaning.

  • aaronbg

    I understand yo want to repeal the 17th amendment and I agree with the premise, but as mbecker pointed out it is not a realist possibility right now. Dem Senators won’t vote for it, heck most Rep Senators wouldn’t either. Constitutional Convention??? This would open up the flood gates and we could end up with new “bipartisan” amendments which could leave us worse off than we are already. I believe the case could be made to the state because it would return Senators to being actors specifically for the state rather than the constituents, which would return a balance between the Representatives and the Senators. But like I said right now this can’t be implemented in a way that would violate the 4th principle listed above…Prudence.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I think Destructive Generation is underated.

  • ofjay

    But I’m also trying to drive a point. That is how many SoCons are perceived. I’m still working on something about SoCons in general. I tend to use the word TheoCon to call it as it is: someone whose Conservatism is grounded in Theology (whether it be modern Protestant or older Catholic).

    Ultimately we share the same view: the many groups need each other, not just to keep real, government-fetishizing authoritarians from taking office, but to complement each other. The question, too, is where are the groups willing to yield in order to build a coalition?

  • aaronbg

    I think it would be great if you still did a diary on it as well since the 5th principle is variety….;^)

  • aaronbg

    SoCons, or as you called them TheoCons should not have a problem with either the 9th or 10th principles.

    For the 9th Christians should embrace this because they understand that man is fallen and therefore subject to the passions of man and the abuse of power that comes with that. In a biblical sense I would direct them to the failures of Saul and David, both were great kings but both did wrong when they succumbed to their passions. David went so far as to send a man to the front lines of combat in order to sleep with his wife.

    The 10th principles should also come easily to a Christian because it balances tradition with progress. This could be related to the vision Paul had of the table with all the foods on it. Prior to that vision believers thought they had to follow the older laws concerning food, upon revelation from God through Paul’s vision all foods became clean.

    Additionally every principle listed is a balance to every other principle, you might say it is better to view them as a whole rather than parse them individual. In short each reinforces the other in some way.

  • John_E

    In the historical overviews of American political thought that I have read Kirk is said to have interpreted important founders such as John Adams as conservative. John Winthrop, a leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony  was certainly an early American Conservative. "These colonists wrote and signed what John Adams called the the first American Constitution: the Mayflower Compact." Through this feature of Adams writings Kirk connected him to Winthrop and identified him as a conservative. Others find evidence showing that John Adams was firmly in the classical liberal tradition and therefore think that Kirk drew a mistaken conclusion. Regardless, there were strong conservative forces still in play during the period of the constitutional founding as evidenced by the republicanism of the anti-federalists arguing against Hamilton, Madison and Jay. English tradition was widely cherished. It did include a relatively recent historical elevation in the valuation of liberty, the social impact of which was still being sorted out.

    I would say that classical liberalism in American tradition embraced that elevation in the valuation of liberty along with the risky task of sorting out how government and the cultural value system should change in order to appropriately embrace it. There were conservatives in that day and there still are in this who believe that this was an ill-advised risk, that any form of liberalism is a radical error in Western tradition. The Revolution itself was radical change. The period that followed seems to chart a course between the radicals like Tom Paine and the virtuous society republicans. That’s what I personally think of as American classical liberalism. There are cyclic periods of more radical liberalism and radical conservatism throughout our history.

    For those of us who identify classical liberalism as a productive catalyst in American tradition, but have a conservative nature — I.e., we cherish this tradition, give deference to it and want to preserve it — we are subject to an antinomy: conserving liberalism. The pure liberal-rejecting conservative has a conundrum too, how to reconcile his/her American patriotism with its Revolution, new form of government and liberalizing history. So I have to question whether we should use the term Conservative categorically as we are trying to do in popular parlance.

    We might ask whether those born into traditions quite incompatible with ours — for example: Chinese communism or Saudi Islamism — are conservatives because they follow principle 2. Then we might disqualify them on account of 1, or 7 or 8.  But aren’t these actually values in our tradition that we have elevated to an essential status by calling them principles? Kirk makes good sense to me when he sets out to articulate a unifying American identity that many of us are inclined to cherish and embrace. He superbly articulated shared values that are essential to this common experience of our cherished America. I’m not satisfied that he articulated a set of principles for sorting out of the mix of Americans a political category of human being called Conservative. To the extent that he set out to do so perhaps he disregarded his own better judgment. So I prefer to read these "principles" in the prior sense.

    The rankly common meaning of the term "conservative" describes one who is reluctant to embrace change and who favors preserving traditional values and customs. That makes for a simple contrast with the progressive who eagerly pursues change in pursuit of perfection. Thomas Sowell in his book "A Conflict of Visions" elaborates on this and related differences at length. He contrasts ways of viewing nature, man and society which seem to underpin our most salient modern political division and gives them coherence under what he terms the "constrained" vs. the "unconstrained" vision. He perhaps fails to meet his objective of offering a rigorous theory of the foundations of our political identities but I submit that it comes closer to the purpose than this application of Kirk.

     

     

  • jerry38

    Great intro to identify the process of application, great explanations of the principles. The dwarfs standing on the shoulder of Giants analogy really brings home the arrogance of BO’s attempt to remake America and the disdain he shows for our history.

  • avgamerican

    There really is only one true conservative.