Russell Kirk - Ten Conservative Principles

[HikerGuy83]

This is a fair point. However too often that prudence is born out of fear or a false sense of nostalgia for a time which really never actually existed. It is not universally born out of due diligence.

Continuing on #4.......

I am not sure what you mean by fair point.

Going back to the false nostalgia......

First, I don't know that it is nostalgia......

It is looking at certain things (that are a priority) and feeling like we were in better shape then (with regards to those things) than we are now.

I don't think anyone can argue that racial issues have been improving (although they still are not very good) since the 60's/70's.

And you might say that things are better in terms of TV (all those freaking cable channels.....especiall ESPN).....

But you didn't have to worry about having shows come into your living room where the f-word is about every third word in the script.

As always, I defer to your abitlity to articulate.

Let me know how I misunderstood you.

Getting back to prudence.....in general.

I don't know that I've ever seen a reasonable political conversation at the national level.

But today's ugliness and posturing don't represent on drop of prudence (the prudent voices are drowned out).

Wanting prudence isn't being fearful.

I don't get your last comment about due dilgence.

Cheers !!! And Happy Christmas.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This is a discussion forum, not a debate forum.

Read the guidelines.

Then "discuss" your ridiculous premise that conservatives have an objective, never changing moral code.

 

[HikerGuy83]

As a conservative I agree with very few of these points. I will not go through them one by one but make a few general comments.

The belief that the 'experts' know best is a very leftist thing. At root the left thinks the masses shout be kept away from any decision making and do and say as they are instructed. The left distrusts the will of the people and call it , disparagingly, 'populism'. The outstanding case in point is the British Left's shock and horror at the people's refusal to vote to stay in the EU, as they were ordered to by their betters.

It is however true that conservatives distrust radical intellectualism, preferring gradual - and reversable - gradual change to mad-cap schemes drfeamt up by fashionable gurus.

I appreciate this comment.

It brought up some other thoughts I had.

First, I worry that in today's world, being a conservative or left winger is digital. You either conservative or you are not. I don't agree (You didn't say this so I am not arguing with your post).

It's more thinking about the comments on a moral order. I agree that it fits into a conservative point of view, but not the way it has been discussed above. But it is not exclusive to conservatives. I know many left wingers who feel the same way.

Much like the Meryers Briggs personality descriptors are dignital....if you look at the tes....you can see you are strongly one thing (N vs T) or weakly leaning.

This is what I have been thinking about when I consider my own points of view.

I would also go so far as to say that some of these things might be better further broken down. I am noodling on that a little.

Again, thanks for the comment.

 

[Evilroddy]

Here is the entirety of his quote.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato ...surgery.

Quotes shortened for word count.

HikerGuy83:

I did read the whole Kirk article at least twice and certain sections more times. My point was that the theoretical "prudence" of conservatives is real. However in real world practice, it is often used as cover to resist having to deal with real and imminent problems facing societies. This defective quality of "prudence" can take several forms. Fear. Not reasoned precaution but outright irrational fear. This is what drove American conservatives among others to drive out and expell between 1.5-2.0 million people of Mexican/Latino descent of whom an estimated 500,000 were actually American citizens through policies of some American states and the American Federal Government in the early 1930's. This was not born of real prudence but of fear and nativism.

The real world and theory diverged strongly. Wishful-thinking base on misrepresented historical nostalgia. The film censoorship movement of the 1920's - 1930's or the comic book regulation drive of the 1940's - 1950's. Both were based on the illusion that there had been a "golden time" of wholesome righteousness which had slipped away and needed to be restored by controlling what people could see or read in order to make things "right" again. They had never been right in the first place. Add to this list prohibition of alcohol, the Red Scare and the present day abortion issue as three more iterations of faux-nostalgia-based wishful-thinking driving conservative thinking in America.

1. There are places where you don't want prudence......i.e. the E.R. in a hospital. While someone considers all the angles, you die. If you need to act, you act.

Okay, how about a meal-programme or homeless shelter system in northern climes where people will die if they don't get immediate help for urgent needs? How about a programme to control violent firearms abuse to prevent or reduce 48,800 firearms-related deaths in America last year alone? How much prudence is caution and how much is deflection? The real world and theory can and do diverge strongly.

2. Most football players are pre-programmed to react to situations. They don't stop to "think it over".

So are ex-military personnel recruited later to serve as police and other law enforcement agents. The militarisation of law enforcement and the unnecessary deaths accrued to such policies. Where is the prudence there?

3. In government, taking the time to think about it is valued.

It can be or it can just allow tragedies to continue and to compound see examples above.

Can we point to certain things.....like the much debated "war on poverty". ...

War on Povertty, War on Drugs, War on Terror and now a nascent War on Information. All are bad ideas because wars of any type seldom solve problems and often make them worse.

I don't see that as being born out of fear.

I do. Fear or wishful thinking or expeditious indifference are often called "prudence" by those wishing to dodge responsibility for lessening ameliorable and mortal problems facing societies. But instead money is spent elsewhere. Where is that prudence when spending 800 billion+ dollars per year on a military which was defeated or stalemated so frequently in the post-WWII era? Where is the prudence in blowing trillions (about 5 trillion plus) in unfunded-wars of choice abroad? Where is the prudence in spending more hundreds of billions of dollars on a public security and surveillance state which is ignoring the US constitution and abusing protected rights?

Whether or not it is called out in Kirk's recitations, it does not matter.

Oh, yes it does in a world of limited resources with less limited urgent mortal needs. It is a matter of life and death.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

Continued from last post.

Most people agree that conservatives don't trust that you can build and control large complex systems and hope to accomplish what you set out to do. There are far to many unknowns. Men are not as clever a they think.....just ask Australia about cane toads.

All of human civilisation is a work in progress and all state policy requires real forethought, real-time assessment in the face of practice and constant adjustment or wider-scale reform in practice. Do not let the pursuit of the perfect become the enemy of the good and the pragmatic. Pragmatism and prudence must both be used in tandem when working towards solving the big problems.

The false sense of nostalgia claim is not what some think it is. ...

What moral order? Who's moral order? A moral order born out of the brains and souls of whom? Mine? Yours? A preacher? A prophet? A physician? A lawyer? A clock-maker? A money-changer? A thief? A liar?

Battery low...I'll be back.

Damn prudence and press on sir! The wall socket or car charger is but a reach away. Damn your prudence. sir!

Looking forward to the next instalment.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Continuing on #4.......

I am not sure what you mean by fair point.

HikerGuy83:

Sorry, British/Canadian idiom for, "You make a good point, but ...".

Going back to the false nostalgia......

First, I don't know that it is nostalgia......

Covered in previous but later post, I think! Question me more if not.

It is looking at certain things (that are a priority) and feeling like we were in better shape then (with regards to those things) than we are now.

Can you offer one or two historically rooted examples of such priorities and a worsening progression through time?

I don't think anyone can argue that racial issues have been improving (although they still are not very good) since the 60's/70's.

Typo or syntax error? I am not sure what you mean here. Have racial issues not been improving since the 1960's in America? I think they have. Did I misunderstand you?

And you might say that things are better in terms of TV (all those freaking cable channels.....especiall ESPN).....

But you didn't have to worry about having shows come into your living room where the f-word is about every third word in the script.

True. All I had to do is step outside the door to get the f-word or its Québecois equivalent surrounding me and there was no mute-button to press except to walk away or fight. I did not grow up in Eden; did you?

As always, I defer to your abitlity to articulate.

Let me know how I misunderstood you.

I don't think you have misunderstood me but perhaps the emphasis has been missed. Real prudence is very, very important but it is still also used as an excuse for other motives.

Getting back to prudence.....in general.

I don't know that I've ever seen a reasonable political conversation at the national level.

But today's ugliness and posturing don't represent on drop of prudence (the prudent voices are drowned out).

Agreed and that is intentional in my opinion. American politics is visceral, emotional, mass-manipulation by both major political parties, their backers and their mass-media allies to stop voters from thinking critically so that the voters will reliably vote against their own self-interests without thinking about it too deeply.

Wanting prudence isn't being fearful.

Agreed, it does not have to be. But sometimes in core conservative thinking it is.

I don't get your last comment about due dilgence.

Prudence is exercising due diligence before crafting and selling any political policy solution to an urgent social problem. Due diligence is how prudence is carried out in a pragmatic way. Weighing out the potential risks, benefits and costs of proposed programmes before they are passed and also cresting efficient, low-cost mechanisms for monitoring how those programmes are progressing (or not) for regular review and reevaluation after they are in effect.

Cheers !!! And Happy Christmas.

To you and yours too.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[HikerGuy83]

@Evilroddy

Rather than counter your points, I'd rather stop and consider what I think is being discussed here.

Kirk puts forth a principle that states that "conservatives" believe in.....

Possibly he should have said "a true conservative" should believe......

But that is the point of the thread. A discussion about how you classify conservatism and what does it take for someone to call themselves conservative.

Many of the "counters" you put forth represent that worst side of politics from both sides of the aisle.

What you call or think is prudence overdone, is in reality, stalling and manipulation against ideas or policies that are not agreed with.

Was Merrick Garland's failed nomination to the supreme court an overdone case of prudence ? I think we both know it was not.

And yet that happens so much......

And I would argue that is why there are few, if any, real conservatives to be found in the public arena. Who is calling for prudence ?

Prudence being, as you someone what alluded to, not just taking your time....but making sure the right things are being addressed at the right time.

 

[Evilroddy]

@Evilroddy

Rather than counter your points, I'd rather stop and consider what I think is being discussed here.

Kirk puts forth a principle that states that "conservatives" believe in.....

Possibly he should have said "a true conservative" should believe......

But that is the point of the thread. A discussion about how you classify conservatism and what does it take for someone to call themselves conservative.

Many of the "counters" you put forth represent that worst side of politics from both sides of the aisle.

What you call or think is prudence overdone, is in reality, stalling and manipulation against ideas or policies that are not agreed with.

Was Merrick Garland's failed nomination to the supreme court an overdone case of prudence ? I think we both know it was not.

And yet that happens so much......

And I would argue that is why there are few, if any, real conservatives to be found in the public arena. Who is calling for prudence ?

Prudence being, as you someone what alluded to, not just taking your time....but making sure the right things are being addressed at the right time.

HikerGuy83:

Okay. If folks want to discuss theoretical conservatism in iIt's ideal form, then I won't object nor argue. I my chime in again however to ask for clarification or to offer a constructive comment.

Until then, have at it!

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Okay. If folks want to discuss theoretical conservatism in iIt's ideal form, then I won't object nor argue. I my chime in again however to ask for clarification or to offer a constructive comment.

It is sometimes difficult to know what you've communicated when you are not sure what you are trying to communicate.

I didn't mean to say that I wanted this to be a theoretical discussion.

What I struggle with is the definitions we use when we discuss politics and ideologies.

And I struggle with why they even matter (in some cases).

I have been rereading some of the thread (What happened to American Conservatism). It's the same story. Conservatism isn't fluid. However, those who claim to be conservatives certainly are.

In my world, this all has to add up to something worth talking about.......or else......

Kirk's list is, at least, a starting point.

With regards to the theoretical, I have to ask:

1. Just how does someone measure up against his 10 "principles" and determine if he is a "good" conservative, a "weak" conservative, a liar, or anything else.

2. Why are not these principles being discussed. Not necessarily as absolute principles, but as a starting place to establish what people are thinking and feeling themselves.

3. And what does it mean to the marketplace of ideas ? From both an application and principled standpoint.

Some got right on the "that doesn't describe conservatives" soapbox. So, it's B.S.....

Well......

If the principles don't describe today's "typical" conservative, then maybe they are not conservative at all.

And why is the term so general ?

I like the Meyers Briggs stuff. You have 4 continuums you are rated on. You can be neutral, weak or strong on any of them. That information is helpful too.

I am certainly not looking for you to leave the conversation, I am just struggling with measuring whether or not we are judging and rating Kiirk or understanding why things the way they are.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Hopefully the poop slingers are out of the discussion.

However, their contribution has been to show that the word conservative immediately evokes a negative reaction in some. We are all about inclusiveness, but still I see people who will not allow their kids to see their grandparents becaue their grandparents voted for Trump. I hear of families that have fractured over Trump. Seems inclusiveness only goes so far.

Which, again, is why I am interested to discuss what these principles mean. Whether or not they are conservative principles is a matter of debate. If most so-called current conservatives don't follow them, then maybe they are not really what we call conservatives.

The first principle comes to mind:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

****************************************

Just what is that "enduring moral order" ? In his commentary he uses the terms "right and wrong", but those are clearer in some cases than others.

The other thing that comes out of this is the perplexing behavior of some so-called conservatives who feel the need to "enforce" that moral order.

Many of them use religious justification. Which is contradictory. You have injunctions to "not judge", to "go the second mile", to "pray for them that despitefully use you". And yet, some people want to be make it hard of the LGBT community because they think it is "wrong". While I may not believe in a gay lifestyle for msyelf, I am not going to deny it to others. I have a right to my personal notions that it is wrong. But I can't (and I think I've been told I shouldn't want to) enforce that in any way shape or form except in my choices as they relate to me.

My thoughts.

When it comes to the more simple things....thou shalt not kill, though shall not steal......I don't believe that many disagree with these. It has been reported that John Adams stated that: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Just what our second president mean ?

(continued)

 

[Evilroddy]

It is sometimes difficult to know what you've communicated when you are not sure what you are trying to communicate.

I didn't mean to say that I wanted this to be a theoretical discussion.

What I struggle with is the definitions we use when we discuss politics and ideologies.

And I struggle with why they even matter (in some cases).

HikerGuy83:

Yes, I agree. It is very hard to communicate ideas when you don't have a clear concept of what you or others are trying to communicate. Definitions, be they theoretical or functional matter because they are a prerequisite to successfully having that communication work. The definitions matter because they are the bridges between otherside isolated minds with unique internalised world views.

I have been rereading some of the thread (What happened to American Conservatism). It's the same story. Conservatism isn't fluid. However, those who claim to be conservatives certainly are.

The older I get and the more I learn, the greater I think I understand the fluidity of meaning and definitions over longer periods of time. Human's just are that way. They are adaptive organisms who use their brains to create and recreate their perceived realities as the adapt to the changing world around them. It's called neural plasticity and in a neurally plastic world, can there be long-standing and enduring definitions? I'm no longer sure that there can be.

In my world, this all has to add up to something worth talking about.......or else......

Okay.

Kirk's list is, at least, a starting point.

With regards to the theoretical, I have to ask:

1. Just how does someone measure up against his 10 "principles" and determine if he is a "good" conservative, a "weak" conservative, a liar, or anything else.

I would think that is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. It depends how much weight/value/utility you place on each of Kirk's principles in the list. The emphasis or discounting of each point's value means you're dealing with a complex multivariate calculation. Therefore terms like "good", "weak" or dishonest ("liar") become less and less meaningful. Perhaps it's better to ask why you believe what you do about conservatism rather than trying to shoe-horn yourself into Kirk's snapshot of what he thinks a conservative should be?

2. Why are not these principles being discussed. Not necessarily as absolute principles, but as a starting place to establish what people are thinking and feeling themselves.

That is a very good question. My answer would be it is likely because too many people believe themselves to be something that they want themselves to be rather than what they really are. They want to wear the badge of conservatism or progressivism or some other ism without really analysing and internalising how to live that label. They seek to belong to the group rather than emulating the living principles the ism articulates and demands of its adherents. They seek to wear the tribal affiliation of the ism rather than actually being it.

3. And what does it mean to the marketplace of ideas ? From both an application and principled standpoint.

Marketplaces are transactional fora where deals are negotiated and struck between parties with different motivations, viewpoints and interests. In that context can one expect the rigid/brittle principles of any ism to withstand the transactional give-and-take of a marketplace of ideas where compromises are so often made to seal deals?

Some got right on the "that doesn't describe conservatives" soapbox. So, it's B.S.....

Well......

If the principles don't describe today's "typical" conservative, then maybe they are not conservative at all.

And why is the term so general ?

Fluidity of meaning over time can be a right pain in the arse.

I like the Meyers Briggs stuff. You have 4 continuums you are rated on. You can be neutral, weak or strong on any of them. That information is helpful too.

Agreed. But should we announce our M-B profile as a preface to all we discuss?

I am certainly not looking for you to leave the conversation, I am just struggling with measuring whether or not we are judging and rating Kiirk or understanding why things the way they are.

I don't know the answer to that two-part question.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[HikerGuy83]

(continuing)

Now, is there a true "Moral Order" ? This not answered by the behavior of those in the past. Such behavior says that the conservtaives of the past were maybe not as qualified as they originally believed.

If such an order existed, it existed.

This, of course, ties directly into a conversation about theology and religion. Does God exist ? or Do you believe in God ? If so, how do you see yourself relative to what think that means (i.e. following him).

Scriptures teach that man was almost totally obliterated by the flood.

That 98% didn't believe in a moral order......does not mean it did not exist.

To be clear, while I believe in God and his commandments, I don't believe I should expect others to fee lthat same way.

But getting back to Kirk. He says that society "decayed...." and the history says such societies disappeared as a direct result of their failure to work within the order.

All open for debate.

Now, is this a conservative principle ???

It's certainly not exclusive to conservatives. I know many religious left wingers. They believe in God and in His teachings.

But if it is to be an accepted principle (and I am not sure how that is measured.....do you have to sign some kind affidavit saying as much ?

I do believe, I'd like to ask Sean Hannity how he justifies his B.S. slinging show in the "name of God" ? It certainly promotes nothing I think the Lord promoted while in mortality or since.

Again....something we should be talking about.

Once we get some alighment, we (as conservatives.....and eventually with a broader group) can discuss where that takes us.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Perhaps it's better to ask why you believe what you do about conservatism rather than trying to shoe-horn yourself into Kirk's snapshot of what he thinks a conservative should be?

I would agree that you need to ask why you believe what you do.

The challenge there is articulating what you believe.

Kirk's principles give you more than a blank sheet of paper.....at least you can say, yes, no maybe when considering his principles.

Then maybe a "so what"....or "What do I do now ?"

I think people should absolutely stay away from the shoe-horning you describe. The idea isn't to conform, but to find out how you make your voice known in a way that is meaningful.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I would think that is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one.

Agreed.....but there can be objective components. Just like the with the MB Inventory. It does give some form to the discussion that helps people to put form to their attitudes and ideas.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The GOP is NOT the vessel of conserveratism. Not even close these day.

I am completely disgusted by what I see.

Pffft


Don’t be silly

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't think racism will ever go away, so long as people exist who are willing to mislead others into hatred for the power it gains them.

People like Democrats who actively say white people need to be “replaced” definitely fall into this category

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Todays conservatives bear zero resemblance to the conservatives of Kirk's experience.

Largely due to many “conservatives” in modern American society being more leftist than Democrats 15 years ago.

There’s now “conservatives” that think they need to appease homosexuals and destroy the most basic social institutions to do so.

 

[The Mark]

People like Democrats who actively say white people need to be “replaced” definitely fall into this category

Give me an example?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Give me an example?

Why? You aren’t going to accept the premise no matter how many examples I give.

 

[The Mark]

Why? You aren’t going to accept the premise no matter how many examples I give.

At this point I'm in the position of being skeptical because I haven't heard of any democrats who talk about needing to replace white people.

If you have an example, I can look at it and decide whether that person deserves ridicule or not.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

When Kirk is talking about civilizational variety he is talking about social hierarchy and the existence of orders in society. It’s a development of his writing in his book

3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a "classless society." With reason, conservatives have been called "the party of order." If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.

This is probably the biggest actual difference, the leftist radical at least mouths that they believe in egalitarianism, some of them genuinely believe it. But the truth is human beings are not equal. The leftist will refuse to acknowledge this, which is why we’re seeing increasingly manic and insane rhetoric that obese is healthy, Bruce Jenner is a woman, and black Americans not having qual economic statistics to whites is because of a subconscious racial conspiracy.

It is also why leftists largely no longer care about the poor, if someone is equal and not financially equal it must be because they don’t merit it. This has led to a breakdown in nobless oblige, you’ll see leftists give insane amounts of money to nonsense crap like “climate change” while not putting up anything for homeless in America, in fact it’s worse than that, policies of social welfare are really thinly vieled programs to employ their fellow leftists but not benefit the supposed beneficiaries.

Once one falls down the false path of egalitarian thought society soon follows with it. Humans are not equal and so society based on radical beliefs like human egalitarianism are likely to decline

 

[EMNofSeattle]

At this point I'm in the position of being skeptical because I haven't heard of any democrats who talk about needing to replace white people.

If you have an example, I can look at it and decide whether that person deserves ridicule or not.

Yeah so if I provide one you’ll either gaslight me with a denial or claim they need ridicule.

The New York Times has literally run editorials “yes, we can replace them” we are passed the point of wasting time with your denials

 

[The Mark]

Yeah so if I provide one you’ll either gaslight me with a denial or claim they need ridicule.

The New York Times has literally run editorials “yes, we can replace them” we are passed the point of wasting time with your denials

I don't have a NYT subscription, and I'm suspicious of editorials in general, they're basically opinion pieces. and those can run the spectrum from useful to utter hogwash.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Keep it "lofty" folks

 

[Jredbaron96]

But the truth is human beings are not equal.

Individuals are not equal to one another, but societies and tribes have no innate advantage over one another outside of attributes gained through environmental circumstance.