This is another installment in my critique of “Ten Conservative Principles” by Russell Kirk, one of the most influential “conservative” writers.
(Earlier installments are at these links: Overview, Principle 1, Principle 2, Principle 3, Principle 4, Principle 5, Principle 6, Principle 7, and Principle 8.
Now it’s time to tackle the ninth “principle.” (You can read all ten of them HERE.)
Here it is:
[T]he conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. 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. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
A careful dissection of these claims will show that they are incoherent, un-American, and unconstitutional.
Let us proceed directly to a detailed consideration.
Detailed consideration of the “conservative principle” of restraining political power
[T]he conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
There is nothing especially “conservative” about recognizing the need for restraints on power and passion.
Any rational person who advances beyond psychological adolescence knows that self-discipline—the ability to curb one’s own immediate ambitions and passions for the sake of future goals—is absolutely essential for growth and success.
In politics, liberals—whom “conservatives” regard as their enemies—very much perceive the need for restraints on power and passion, as well as for laws limiting the behavior of public officials. Again, even in politics, there is nothing especially “conservative” about this call for restraint.
If there is a particular difference that marks the “conservative” notion of restraint, Kirk is going to have to make it more explicit.
Let’s read on to see whether he does so.
Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. 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.
It is not just politically speaking that power is the ability to do as one likes. Power-hungry business people and academics are so common as to have become tropes in fiction. But it is incontrovertible that power-hungry politicians would like to get away with doing whatever they choose.
It is also true that a community under the control of a faction that cannot be checked is a despotism. We saw in Principle 8 that pure democracies under local control are particularly susceptible to despotism. As we said in that discussion, this is precisely why “conservatives” always praise “small government.” They hope to get absolute factional control and use their unchecked power to pass laws that benefit themselves without concern for the common good or majority will.
Does that sound like restraint? I don’t think so.
When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
Kirk’s implication about the origin of anarchy in the first sentence is false. Anarchy idoes not result from every person claiming to be a power unto himself. Anarchy—which means “without rule” in Greek—arises from the collapse of government, not from some mass delusion that individuals can do whatever they like—a delusion that the majority of people outgrow after adolescence. Even in the most destructive situations, such as war or a natural disaster that eliminates governmental control, only some people use the opportunity to claim to be powers unto themselves. Others strive to alleviate suffering and to find a way to rein in the chaos—which is to say, they look toward standing up some sort of government.
This is reason that Kirk’s second sentence turns out to be partly correct. Anarchy is intolerable, so people put a stop to it by standing up a government as quickly as they can. That much is certainly true. Whether anarchy cannot abide because of differences between strong and weak individuals or between clever and dull individuals is dubious. The chaos of anarchy is intolerable to everyone, regardless of their differences. No one can abide lack of order for long.
You might wonder why Kirk is dwelling on the impossibility of a stable anarchy—which is nearly an oxymoron. The answer is historical. In the late 1800s and early 1900s people who called themselves anarchists assassinated political leaders in Europe and America. Anarchists sometimes claimed to want to abolish all government, but that was never true. They actually advocated abolition of the current form of government, which they considered intolerably oppressive. Some of them may have imagined that anarchy was some sort of direct democracy or communism. But that too was untrue because these are also forms of government.
The “conservative” of the mid-twentieth century had a historical fear of irrational people who simply wanted to abolish government. This was a bogeyman. There are no such people. Certainly anarchists never wanted to simply abolish government. They always wanted to intimidate people into abolishing the current form of government and replace it with another form more to their liking.
Today we call such people “terrorists.” It is a much more accurate term that indicates precisely what they are up to.
So Kirk’s disquisition on the impossibility of stable anarchy is an attempt to dismiss something that never was an actual problem.
It does, however, have the rhetorical advantage—and we should never forget that rhetorical advantage is the main point of “conservative” argument—of stirring up fear and revulsion in the reader. This will be quite useful in the next section, where Kirk will introduce notions that contradict both logic and the American political tradition.
The third and final sentence in this passage is simply false. It is not a foregone conclusion that anarchy generates tyranny or oligarchy. This would be true only if one were to add bad will to the description of those who are “stronger and more clever” than others. If the strong and the clever are also unscrupulous and selfish, then one or a few may come to dominate all. But if they are right-minded and generous, one could expect a different outcome.
It is perhaps not a surprise, given the low opinion of human nature that “conservatives” hold (see our discussion of Principle 6), that Kirk would assume bad will on the part of most people, but that assumption is far from unchallengeable. And if it were true, the idyllic voluntary communities Kirk praises in Principle 8 could hardly exist. But self-contradiction doesn't seem to bother “conservatives” much.
So Kirk’s statements about anarchy are almost entirely untrue. What is the point of making them? Let’s read on to see.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.
There is nothing especially “conservative” about trying to restrain political power so that anarchy or tyranny do not arise. As we saw above, liberals also seek to do this. If there is something peculiarly “conservative” here, Kirk has not explained it yet.
As far as preventing anarchy goes, it means preventing the collapse of government, since that is the origin of anarchy. Since Kirk has not explained how “conservatives” limit and balance political power differently from other ways of doing so, we cannot tell how he recommends to prevent the collapse of government that leads to anarchy.
As far as preventing tyranny goes, we can already understand that “conservatives” are not very interested in preventing it so long as it benefits them. As we saw in our discussion of Principle 8, “conservatives” prefer pure democracy, which is exceptionally prone to tyranny. Tyranny is what they want—as long as they control it.
So we still do not have anything that differentiates “conservative” restraints on power from anyone else’s restraints on power.
Up to this point, Kirk has been careful not to tip his hand about the kind of restraints on power that he has in mind. His vagueness about the topic allows the reader to imagine that he is referring to the checks and balances of the Constitution and other laws restricting the behavior of public officials—the same restraints that liberals approve.
Now, however, we are about to see that Kirk is recommending a different kind of restraint. He is not talking about limits on the power of government at all, which is what the Constitution provides. He is talking about limits on the power of the people. And that would make “conservative” notions of restraint very different from what nearly everyone else regards necessary political restraint.
The second and third sentences cast aspersions on “the radical.” Kirk has already used the terms “anarchy” and “tyranny” to seed the reader’s mind with negative sentiments. Now he builds on that negativity to paint “radicals" as lawless, cupidinous, irascible creatures, always ready to overthrow the established order on a momentary whim. The “conservative” now has a class of people to fear—wild, irrational, and constantly striving to tear society apart.
The fourth sentence finally gets at Kirk’s real point. What is characteristically “conservative” in all this is not fear of anarchy or tyranny but fear of revolution. “Conservatives” are terrified that their power will be usurped by someone else. They regard their own power as justified, of course. But the power of someone else is just “for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage.” This fear of revolution is concretized by the examples of the French and Russian revolutions, in which power flowed from the hands of the old governments into the hands of the “radicals.”
The fifth sentence is an invalid inference. Because the two revolutions Kirk mentions turned out badly, leading to governments that were oppressive in different ways from the previous government, he inveigles the reader to conclude that revolution is worse than any established government.
This is not true. The best example, obvious for its omission, is the American Revolution. It was not conducted by wild radicals but by sober, serious men who understood the gravity of overthrowing an existing government. It produced a government that was far better than the prior government. This proves that revolution is not worse than any existing government.
Everything Kirk has said up to this point was in service to this unsupportable conclusion: Revolutionary radicals are constantly trying to overthrow government and tyrannize society. This is the fear that motivates all Kirk’s talk about restraint. Now we finally see what is distinctive about “conservative” notions of political restraint. The “conservative” thinks that the people must be restrained from deposing existing government.
Whether “conservatives” approve of other forms of political restraint—like the checks and balances of the Constitution for instance—is immaterial to the “principle” that Kirk espouses here. The “conservative,” Kirk claims, believes that the people need to be checked from overthrowing their own government. That belief, at least, is uniquely “conservative.” And like most uniquely “conservatives” beliefs, it is both un-American and unconstitutional.
The Founders did not consider the power of the people to overthrow their government something radical that had to be limited. On the contrary, they considered it a right. Here is the Declaration of Independence on that subject:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Italics mine.)
Nor did they think that the people were radicals always champing at the bit to throw off government:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Nor did they think an oppressive government ought to be suffered beyond the point when its hostility to the people’s welfare was apparent:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These are the beliefs of Americans that originally set them apart and made them a people. So Kirk’s opposed sentiments certainly qualify for the ephithet “un-American.”
Kirk’s sentiments are also unconstitutional. The Constitution does not try, as Kirk wishes, to limit the power of the people. Instead of trying to limit the people’s right of revolution, the Constitution, like the Declaration, assumes that the people have that right. The Declaration holds out the threat of exercising that right as the ultimate backstop to government abuse. Then the Constitution does everything it can to make it unnecessary to use that right.
Moreover, it does so in a way that “conservatives” dread, namely, by placing all sorts of limitations on government. These restraints make it very difficult for "conservatives" to attain the factional dominance of government that they actually desire. (See, again, our discussion of Principle 8.)
The logic of limiting the power of government is inescapable. In every society, either by accident of history or by voluntary grant, the officers of the government hold practical power. In America, the conceit of the Constitution is that the actual power rightly belongs to the people. They grant only some of it to the government for particular purposes while retaining the rest.
By choice, then, the American people put themselves in a situation of relatively diminished power. Why? So that they can go about their lives seeking personal happiness while the practicalities of government are managed by their agents, similar to the way one might hire a real estate agent, or an accountant, or a lawyer.
Since power is now in the hands of the government, that is the place from which abuses of power are likely to emerge. It is hardly logical to expect abuse of power from those who have relinquished it, even temporarily.
So “conservatives” get the concept of limits on power exactly backwards, and that is what makes their understanding of it unconstitutional. Whereas the Constitution seeks to limit the power of government, “conservatives” want to limit the power of the people.
And that is contrary to true American principles.
As if that were not enough to invalidate this so-called principle, there is also the practical proof that “conservatives” do not regard this un-American restraint on the power of the people as any sort of “principle” whatsoever. How do we know that? Because a substantial portion of the Republican party has taken to calling for revolution. That is, the party that considers itself the standard-bearer for “conservatism” is now relying on the right of revolution that Kirk wishes did not exist.
In sum, then, the “conservative principle of political restraint” is completely incoherent. On the one hand, it seems to agree with restraints on government that everyone finds reasonable, so that those restraints can hardly be called distinctively “conservative.” On the other hand, it rejects the right of revolution, which makes it un-American, unconsitutional, and internally inconsistent because the right to revolt is what backstops the governmental restraints in the Constitution.
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
The final paragraph is mostly rhetorical flourish.
There is nothing especially “conservative” about knowing human nature is both good and bad. Everyone knows that. Nor is there anything especially “conservative” about not trusting mere benevolence. Even the “radicals,” whom “conservatives” fear, and the liberals, whom “conservatives” revile, do not trust to mere benevolence. The first sentence makes no useful distinctions among people.
The second sentence introduces the first mention of constitutional restrictions. This confirms that Kirk expects the reader to confuse the Constitution’s checks and balances, together with laws limiting the behavior of public officials, with something characteristically “conservative.” But we have seen that this is subterfuge.
The talk of restraint here is a misdirection. Kirk feints in the direction that almost everyone would approve, namely, restraints upon existing government. But his real concern is to restrain the people from changing their government. The mention of the “old, intricate web” is the tell. The part of that web that places restraints on existing government is not especially “conservative.” The especially “conservative” part places restraints upon the power of the people. And that part should be rejected by everyone who understands true American principles. The fact that “conservatives” approve of that part makes their notions inimical to the American spirit.
(The current political situation highlights the hypocrisy of “conservatives” when it comes to political restraint. Republicans are willing to use every restraint on government provided by the Constitution to prevent government from blocking what they consider to be their self-interest. They fight government regulations on corporations, they prevent sane gun-control measures, they resist women’s rights to abortion and reproductive freedom. But in states where they control the legislatures, they are only too happy to use government power to trample on the rights of those whose oppose them. This is practical proof that “conservatives” do not hold restraint on existing government power as a true principle—that is, something one upholds regardless of personal interest. Nothing shows more clearly that “conservatives” do not actually accept the principle of political restraint. They merely use it when it is convenient.)
The final sentence may be true, provided that the balance between authority and liberty is vastly overweighted toward liberty. If government ever decides that its authority extends to limiting the power of the people to alter or abolish their government—which is the characteristically “conservative” element of this “principle”—it is time to alter or abolish that government.
It follows that “conservatives” have no proper place in government—at least not in American government and in similar democratic republics. Their proclivity toward factional tyranny (Principle 8) together with their desire to prevent the people from exercising their right of revolution (the “principle” we are now discussing) incline them toward permanent tyranny, which is anathema to citizens of a democratic republic.
Conclusion: The “conservative principle of political restraint” is completely antithetical to American democracy
Although “conservatives” claim that they are deeply devoted to political restraint, the truth is the opposite.
"Conservatives” do not actually support political restraint as a principle, but only as a tool to be used when it serves their self-interest.
The practical proof of this is that, when they obtain control of government, they quickly dispose of political restraints on their power and force others to bend to their will. The current red-state manias for forcing extreme gun-rights laws, extreme abortion bans, extreme book-banning codes, and extreme anti-LGBTQ+ restrictions on their own citizens—all measures that majorities in their own states oppose—demonstrates just how little “conservatives” regard political restraint as a principle. Kirk’s lip-service to political restraint here is belied by the actions “conservatives” take when in power.
The one distinctly “conservative” point stressed by Kirk is both un-American and unconstitutional. It is the belief that the right of the people to revolt should somehow be limited. If “conservatives” actually held this as a “principle” it would make “conservatism” fundamentally unfit to participate in American democracy.
But “conservatives” do not actually believe in limiting the right to revolt. They are willing to resort to that right in the service of their own self-interest if they do not like the current government. But they try to strip others of that right if they control the current government.
This hypocritical selfishness demonstrates that “conservatives” do not consider restraint on the people’s right of revolution to be a principle, but only an expedient tool to be used when it serves their purposes and rejected when it does not.
This hypocritical inconsistency makes “conservatives” just as unfit to participate in American democracy as does an actual belief in Kirk’s limits on the people’s power.
If “conservatives” can ever combine the preference for factional tyranny with the expedient suppression of the people’s right of revolution, it will be impossible to remove them from power. They will have engineered a durable tyranny.
This is the actual threat to be feared by a democrat people from those who preach a balance between authority and freedom. What they really want is the freedom to be authoritarian.
Stick with me for the final “principle” in this series of horrible “conservative” notions. It gets even worse.