[UPDATE : you can review the whole Fredhead Archive here at your leisure:]
The past 9 months have been instructive, yes? We’ve seen what happens in the utter absence of conservative governance; when evil, arrogant, and ambitious people have unfettered control over the reins of power. We’ve seen they are unable to govern either themselves or their lust for power, riding roughshod over all Constitutional safeguards in order to ‘help’ those they assay to govern. It is only due to a tremendous and wholly unexpected backlash by ordinary citizens that the advance of arrogant rule has been blunted (hardly halted).
So today, let’s talk about governance as it should be: Burke and Kirk style.
After a long operational pause, we resume the series on Russell Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles. I hope you missed me, as I have missed our discussions of conservative principles and foundations. To tell the truth, in light of the last 9 months, I’m half inclined to start over at #1. We’ll thin about that. But for today, #5:
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
From the great one:
They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
EPU’s short Kirk: People will are different. Let it be.
To the left, people are just things
During WW2, the massive production facility at Willow Run, Michigan produced at total of 8685 B-24 Liberators, at its peak putting out 650 aircraft per month, nearly 1 per hour. A great many ground-breaking techniques were developed along the way that improved speed, accuracy, and quality of production.

The B-24′s were tools, instruments of American foreign policy. It was important that they be essentially identical and interchangeable, because that was most useful and advantageous for the war effort; for production, training, spare parts, and mission planning.
It is ever the aim of leftists, under whatever name, to impose sameness upon people. They strive to control people, if only “for their good” (occasionally). They are never content with the messy business of people helping themselves, doing for themselves, deciding for themselves. We’ve got to be managed, sequestered, lined up, stacked, located on a grid.
Notice how often they call people “workers”? If you haven’t, then start. You see, we are not “citizens” to the left. We’re “workers”. I think you can figure out why. Your goals, desires, and dreams are of no interest whatsoever to the left. Not so to conservative principles. Personal liberty, the unencumbered pursuit of happiness, is the goal of conservatism. You begin to see why they hate conservatives so much.
The left’s irrational hatred of businesses (all kinds, not just the evil, maniacal, exploitative “big businesses”) stems from the simple fact that businesses are inconvenient to the left. Businesses are, by definition, self-interested. A person starts and maintains a business to make a profit; he sees an opportunity, a niche, and supposes he can do something better, faster, or cheaper than the competitors. The left thinks businesses exist primarily as the vehicles by which “workers” get paid.
Unions are the perfect leftist vehicle for collecting, collating, pressing, folding, and stacking “workers” into great piles of “things” that suit the left. Union members serve the unions, not the businesses they work for, thus disrupting free-market forces. As an aside, it’s spectacularly convenient that unions are also such cash cows and cesspools of corruption, there to be plundered for the benefit of all sorts of leftist, anti-freedom rackets — including Democrat campaigns.
Variety is beautiful
People will not willingly become cogs in some great state-run machine, numbered parts in a bin somewhere in a government warehouse. They do not exist for the benefit of the state. Quite the contrary, as we know — of the people, for the people, by the people, ring a bell?.
It is ever the aim of people to express individuality. OK, other than teenagers with their emo, screamo, moppy hairdos, goth, girl pants, tramp stamps, and whatnot ["I want to be unique, just like everybody else!"]. Just drive down Dallas highways a day or two, and you will experience seemingly no end of variety in vehicle choices – makes, models, colors, and then all those delicious modifications in rims, decals, bumper stickers [,horsepower!]. Step aside in any store or mall and just watch people for 15 minutes. People just naturally customize themselves and everything else they have.
Just.
Let.
People.
Be.
Holy cow, Democrats. [Holy cow, Republicans too!]
Equal Access to Justice
There is one thing Kirk points out, and we should too, about equality. It is the government’s business, and it is their job, to assure that people have equal access to justice, and an equal vote. The consent of the governed can brook no less.
Beyond that, it is not under the purview of government to equalize life. Every OTHER way in which government might try to make people equal involves some form of taking something away from Person A, to which he is justly entitled, and giving it to Person B.
No.
Freedom to succeed means freedom to fail
People like what they like, and they will strive endlessly to do as they will. They choose their own friends, they marry for love, for position, for convenience, or not at all. They seek careers and money, or not. They have pets or not, rent or own, live in the city or country, and they conduct business how they will. Thomas Jefferson, in our founding document, considered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness rights given by God, and not to be given nor taken away by government.
Some people are very ambitious, study hard, sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gain. All people have native strengths and weaknesses, and the wise person plays to his strengths, plans ahead, and lives within his means. Some people are naturally lazy, irresponsible louts. Most likely they will have limited material success, but then that was really their choice, Wasn’t it?
Government Theft
It is intrinsically a criminal wrong for government to confiscate from Person A to help Person B. It’s more than that. It teaches Person B that there is no consequence for underperforming. Further, it teaches Person A that there is no benefit to excel, to dream lofty dreams, if the government simply robs you of the fruits of your work.
Taken to its conclusion, you get a world where nobody will work anymore. Kinda like Communist Russia. [Or Michigan!?!!??]
Lessons about Russell Kirk’s variety
So let’s wrap it up. On a practical level, what does it all mean? Most of these are obvious.
- Government-run health care takes away your freedom to choose how, where, and how expensively to purchase your health care.
- Government-run health care takes away the incentives of health-care providers to provide an excellent product at the lowest practical price.
- Government-run health care takes away the incentives of individuals to get into the business. That means doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, all sorts of smart and capable people. Polls indicate that many of them will walk away, leaving us fewer (and probably the less talented and motivated) providers.
- Most of the current problems in the health-care industry are directly or indirectly caused by intrusive, meddling government regulation. Government takeover will do nothing more than cause the charlie-foxtrot of all time.
- Government-run health care lies far, far outside the purview of the government. It’s simply not their place, and one must question why they want this level of control over your life.
- Take the first 5 items above. Substitute every government program, every regulatory agency you know about, and every proposed 1000-page program the Democrats are proposing (substitute appropriately for ‘doctors’ et al). See if you can figure out why it’s government’s job to do that, and why any sane person thinks the government would do it better than the free market would.
- Overachievers have 40% of their income confiscated by the government, largely to pay for things the government should not be doing anyway. These people are usually also called “employers”. Underachievers have from 0 to 10% of their income confiscated by the government. Yet the left continually, unceasingly harps on “tax cuts for the rich”, “sticking it to the rich”, “rich people succeeding on the backs of regular people”, and so on. Most of the current big-cost programs the Democrats sell by saying “we’ll just tax the rich more: they don’t deserve all that money”. This is vile and unforgivable. Not only that, it will merely mean that these people, aka “employers” will lay off employees since their operating income will be lowered by these extra taxes.
- Most regulations are an assault on liberty. What business is it of the government that you want to operate a restaurant that allows smoking?
- Most regulations, in an open market with information freely available, are completely without merit. For example, if all smoking regs were abolished, you would literally see no-smoking restaurants sprout out of the ground. There are so many people, as consumers, that won’t eat in a smoking-allowed restaurant that in pretty short order, the marketplace would reflect the desires of the consuming public. My friends, Burke and Kirk are exceedingly wise.
- Public schools should be replaced by private schools, and property taxes to pay for schools should be abolished. I have no kids, yet I have to fork out $6000 PER YEAR to fund that sorry, piece-of-crap, government-run Democrat indoctrination camp in my town. That ain’t the government’s job, and it shouldn’t be my problem.
- The EPU Plan — You could give people 5 years, and say, on August 1, 2017, there are no public schools, no property tax. You would see charter schools sprout out of the ground, competing for kids, competing for teachers, providing the best product possible for the cheapest price. Good ones would thrive, bad ones would not. An underserved area would draw those willing to fill the niche. The free market is not perfect,m but it creates, by definition, efficiency and excellency in the long run.
- Regarding the above idea: if you don’t like it, propose another non-government solution. I don’t care. What I do know is that the government is not morally entitled to huge piles of my money to provide for other people’s needs. I went to college, I studied, taught myself how to do what I do. I sacrificed tremendously to become the professional I am. And the government takes great huge chunks of it mainly to throw onto wasteful, left-friendly garbage. Do I sound a little bitter? I don’t want you to miss this point. That’s MY money. Not the government’s. We’ll touch on this point more when we hit Kirk’s principle #7 (“freedom and property are closely linked”)
- I think Republicans should campaign, not this year but in 2012, on this: Every year, the next 4 years, we are going to eliminate a cabinet department. Every year, we are going to reduce the federal code by 10%. Every year, we are going to reduce the regulation code books every single place there are regulations, by 10%. And we are going to reduce every year, income taxes and every single fee, license, or any other code-named-tax that the government levies by 10%.
- It goes without saying that the government takeovers of the auto and banking industries were a vile assault on freedom, and on the principle of variety. Ditto for the proposed health care system takeover. Immoral. Tritto on the Cap-n-Tax.
- You do know why gasoline costs what it does, don’t you? You do know that the shores of America are teeming, practically swelling with petroleum, untapped because the Democrats won’t allow it. You know this, right? You also know that China is drilling off our shores, don’t you? We have private companies, chomping at the bit to get to that oil. Just sayin’
Well anyway, enjoy your variety!
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Recommended because it's FRED!
NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, October 28th at 7:25PM EST (link)I hope that’s allowed around here again…
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill
I better hope it is
Richard Mullins (Diary) Wednesday, October 28th at 7:27PM EST (link)because we need FRED now.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
I thought it was EPU... nt
Raven (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 1:03AM EST (link)“If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36
Everything EPU puts up as a diary has Fred Thompson in the tags
Richard Mullins (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 1:07AM EST (link)so we expect that but for how much longer.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
Kirk is the man.
Aaron Gardner (Diary) Wednesday, October 28th at 7:34PM EST (link)That is all.
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat
Follow @Aaron_RS
Kirk was a great, great thinker
Joe Rivers (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 2:55PM EST (link)A deep thinker and voracious reader, and even though he bordered on reclusive, he was extremely passionate about what he believed.
If I get the story right, once upon a time (before he was deemed a demi-god) he followed a lecture by Freidrich Hayek with a lecture of his own that destroyed Hayek’s premise. He had a bitter running feud with Frank S Meyer.
Maquisard
Wh ich lecture was it?
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 3:18PM EST (link)I was under the impression that, though Hayek was the more classically liberal of the two, Kirk and Hayek still shared a common frame of reference. I’d be interested in listening to both lectures if you know which ones they were.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
A quick search failed to turn that up
Joe Rivers (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 3:41PM EST (link)Which is why I couched that in the “if I get the story right” disclaimer. I’ll try to find that overnight (and I may well have it mixed up with something else). I do remember it that way (not the lectures, but the comparison).
My impression at the moment is that I ran across that somewhere in the Heritage.org libraries. But like I said I’ll try to dig up both that reference and the two lectures if possible.
Obviously Hayek was more an economist and Kirk was more a political theorist, although the overlap is great. I think in general they tracked broadly similarly – although a Hayek essay titled “Why I am not a Conservative” tends to suggest otherwise. Kirk’s strong attachment to the “socon” side of conservative put his cross-grained of a great many others, particularly the classical liberals. To my knowledge they were personally friendly.
Maquisard
Partial answer to the Hayek-Kirk debate
Joe Rivers (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 5:33PM EST (link)Here’s what I’ve found so far. It took place in 1957 at the Mont Pelerin Society in Switzerland. It was not a debate in the sense we normally think about. Hayek spoke, then Kirk followed. No transcripts exist that I know of, and unless audio recordings were made, Kirk’s part will never be retrieved. Hayek’s remarks presumably resembled the printed version of his essay Why I am not a Conservative, and Kirk gave his presentation with no notes.
Friedrich Hayek was founder and president of the Mont Pelerin Society, and accounts differ on whether Kirk challenged him to a debate at his own society, or whether Kirk was invited as a respondent, since the essay was obviously a response to “The Conservative Mind”, Kirk’s world-grabbing book from 1953. They were probably on friendly terms (although I have seen one claim to the contrary), but in their writings they sparred quite a bit. In the large scheme of things, I would say they were in-house squabbles.
What prompted what I wrote (and sure enough, my memory was a little exaggerated) is the quote from Henry Regnery, who was there. According to Regnery, Kirk won the day:
I got the quote from here. The whole paper is interesting, although I don’t know enough about Bradley Birzer to say how trustworthy the whole account is.
So, FWIW.
Maquisard
Interesting
aesthete (Diary) Friday, October 30th at 12:23PM EST (link)Thanks for the link.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I recc'd at the halfway point.
Steph C (Diary) Wednesday, October 28th at 7:57PM EST (link)I was ready to cheer by the time I got to this point:
Reduce the government and you’ll see the burgeoning of ideas and entrepreneurship and ingenuity. Keep growing the government and these things will dry up and we’re seeing that. We’ve gone from a manufacturing, entrepreneurial, inventing society to a consumer society. We don’t make things or invent things anymore.
For example, you want alternative energies? Get the government out of it and attract private enterprise to really workable ideas and it will happen a whole lot faster. Government subsidy simply means getting paid to not do anything except come up with an ideal as opposed to idea, like wind power. Do anyone have any idea how long wind power has been around? It was thrown out when engines and energy became a better way of doing things. And the left wants us to go backwards?
On diversity: I don’t care what color, what culture, or whatever in their private lives they want to do as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else to do the same in their own private lives. What’s so hard to understand about that?
But conservatism is so bbbbaaaadddd, don’t you know?
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
EPU, having not been present during the primaries...
penguin2 (Diary) Wednesday, October 28th at 8:32PM EST (link)I am just now finding out about all of the wonderful diaries and positions everyone held here regarding the various candidates. This one of yours I’ll be printing out and putting in a folder. You do incredible comprehensive writing and discussion of very important concepts, critical to our movement.
Of course I’m quite happy to admit that Fred Thompson was my first choice.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Didi we miss you? Might as well ask of the sun comes up in the morning...
AceInTX (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 12:38AM EST (link)and the Burkean study is needed now more than ever…
keep it up!
Yes, EPU, you should put a diary up that lists
janis (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 10:03AM EST (link)the previous principles of FredHeadedness. You don’t have to explain them in the same detail as the originals, but do remind the ones who weren’t here to see/read them what came before this one.
Because, other than it’s been a long time between those and this one, it also gives you the chance to legitimately say Fred’s! name that many more times.
Far as I’m concerned, you could just put up a diary with” Fred Dalton Thompson” written 100 times. Meditating upon his name is much like meditating upon the essential truths of the political universe.
Got you covered, Janis - the Fredhead Archives
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 11:59AM EST (link)I actually made such a diary awhile back :The Fredhead Archives, for just such a purpose. Your note reminded me to update it with the current one.
Love ya!
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Nice, bookmarked! Some of those were what drew me here...
nessa (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 12:18PM EST (link)…I’ve been a daily reader of Human Events for quite some time. I mean, anything good enough to be subscribed to by Ronaldus Magnus has to be great, right? I started checking out RS from the links to the front page on Human Events. Some of the articles listed on your Archives were responsible for elevating RS to one of my daily sources, thanks for the links!
Its a shame we will never hear a President of the United States say, “The average progressive don’t take a dump with out a plan, son!”
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Contributor to Unified Patriots
teh twitter
Fantastic diary!
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 12:22PM EST (link)I was wondering what happened to the Fredheadedness series that I so looked forward to reading. Given that I’m something of a neophyte when it comes to Kirk, it’s certainly enlightening to read about a fellow-traveler who had such a massive impact on the conservative movement. I must, however, point out that the principle of variety doesn’t so much read as a conservative principle as it does a classical liberal, libertarian, or “Old Whig” (as Hayek might put it) maxim. Conservatism necessarily sees people as fungible, in that it by definition expects and wants people to conform to basic socially-prescribed standards as informed by custom and tradition (which is one reason that I’m reticent to call myself a conservative). I was under the impression that Kirk himself had this view to some extent, and that it was one of the points of disagreement between himself and other conservative luminaries like Bill Buckley and Goldwater. At any rate, your OP was, as always, an entertaining an thought-provoking read, and comes highly reco’ed.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Edmund Burke was a Whig
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 1:10PM EST (link)(Thanks for the kind words aesthete, by the way)
Of course, 18th-century Whig-Tory differences did not really break cleanly on modern-day left-right lines as we now know them. In fact, it was often asked of Burke why, with his philosophy, he was not a Tory instead.
I agree that there’s a tension between Burke-Kirk conservatism and classical liberal-modern libertarianism, and that it falls on Kirk’s first principle (existence of a enduring moral order).
But I disagree profoundly that “Conservatism necessarily sees people as fungible, in that it by definition expects and wants people to conform to basic socially-prescribed standards as informed by custom and tradition”.
If I may say among friends, fungible my ass. I spent alot of this diary demonstrating quite the opposite. I’m just guessing here, but I suppose you, like most libertarians, conflate “enduring moral order”, with the requirement of conformity to Christian ideals on the part of citizens.
Conservatism is 100% about governance, and requires no particular behavior from citizens except the basic respect of the rights of others. If you replace “wants people to conform to” with “expects the government to respect” in the latter part of that statement, then you are very near the truth.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Heh, thanks for the reply
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 2:58PM EST (link)“I’m just guessing here, but I suppose you, like most libertarians, conflate “enduring moral order”, with the requirement of conformity to Christian ideals on the part of citizens.”
Nope! I’m a Christian myself (preacher’s kid), and I don’t necessarily see a conflict between common morality and individuality. I do see some problems with government enforcement of the same, but I value Christianity greatly and, on a personal level, my relationship with Jesus has made me more of an individual, not less.
No, I was referring more to the concept of permanence that conservatism in general is in favor of, i.e., this is what worked in the past/with X group of people, therefore, it will work for group Y, which assumes at the least that groups X and Y are fungible. In addition, many forms of conservatism preoccupy themselves with either reverting society to a heralded golden age, or with reinforcing cultural norms of the past where they don’t fit (ex: attempts to keep feudalism alive in Europe in the 1700s), which again assume that humans, or groups of humans, are fungible. Granted, US conservatism doesn’t suffer from this problem to the extent of other conservative groups around the world (mostly because what they seek to “conserve” is really quite radical and revolutionary), but it should still be noted that fungibility of humans, and at least groups, is part of conservatism (though certainly not to the degree that it is found in collectivist movements!).
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Quick note
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 3:03PM EST (link)I’m not quite a libertarian; too Randian for my tastes
I consider myself more of a libertarian-conservative, personally.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Hah, well who knew
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 3:56PM EST (link)Well, it *sounded* libertarian, and I saw the Rand quote in the tagline, so I just assumed……
Plus I put terrible, terrible connotations on the word “fungible” since it’s usually used in relation to Democrat and bureaucrat budgetary shenanigans. My bad, mate.
I see where you’re coming from much better now. And OK, many conservatives subscribe to that “gilded past” thing to a degree that’s unhealthy. I probably border on that. I am a Founding Fathers junkie, and the more I study modern politics the more I am convinced that they were absolutely genius. For 90% of what a body can think of, the answer “do it like the FF did” is the balls-on right answer.
But to your issue, I just would implore you to take Russell Kirk at his word. Principles 2,3,4, and 8 preach the old-school. Principles 5, 7,8, and 9 (5 being the current one) very strongly back the “leave the individual to his own” thing. 10 moderates somewhat the strong wording of 2,3, and 4.
In my humble opinion, it’s only when we take any of the ten principles in isolation that we get in trouble with imposing societal will on individuals. Taken as a body, I think Kirk’s 10 are a very, very nice balance.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Yeah, I could definitely live with Kirk's principles
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 4:35PM EST (link)And yes, it’s difficult to overvalue the Founding Fathers, given that they not only implemented a pretty radical change in government, but did so with effectively and with few of the negative effects associated with
I just found the Rand quote approps, given the “white guilt” prevalent this last election. I’m glad that she hit the ball out of the park at a time when literature was (and still is) the domain of Marxists, but her almost Nietzchian ideas concerning people and business don’t seem true to life, and really don’t sit well with me at all.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Typo
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, October 29th at 4:35PM EST (link)“associated with” should be, “associated with revolutionary change in government.”
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
beware the collectivist mindset
Beaglescout (Diary) Saturday, October 31st at 11:58PM EST (link)You wrote:
>>>No, I was referring more to the concept of permanence that conservatism in general is in favor of, i.e., this is what worked in the past/with X group of people, therefore, it will work for group Y, which assumes at the least that groups X and Y are fungible.<<<
My feeling is that conservatism does not try to divide people by identity groups, but allows people to associate freely. However, it is based on certain concepts of rights, duties, and responsibility that are closely related to, and perhaps drawn from, Christian concepts like the golden rule, the creative nature of mankind, free will, unchanging God-given laws such as the Ten Commandments, and human equality in the eyes of God and the law.
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”