"Conservatives" grudgingly admit that progress exists
They just hate it and will do anything to stop it
This is the final 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, Principle 8, and Principle 9.
Now it’s time to tackle the tenth “principle.” (You can read all ten of them HERE.)
Here is the text:
[T]he thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. 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.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
Before descending to particulars, it is pretty obvious that this “principle” is nothing but empty rhetoric. Having railed in the first nine “principles” against progress and progressives, Kirk finally feels that it is necessary to concede the obvious—namely, that progress nourishes a healthy society.
He is forced to admit this because he is trying to simulate a rational person with a set of rational beliefs. Remember that Kirk’s whole project was intended to show that “conservatives” actually had “ideas” instead of “irritable mental gestures.” If he did not offer at least a sop to the absolute necessity of progress, his mask would drop. Even the least intelligent person can see that a society without progress cannot survive long.
So now we have to listen to Kirk’s attempt to incorporate progress into his jumble of incoherent “principles” that mostly reject progress. This is laughable, but so are all of the first nine “conservative principles.”
Let’s put an end to all this and descend to a close consideration of Kirk’s “tenth principle.”
Detailed consideration of the “conservative principle” of restricted progress
We begin, as always, with the initial statement.
[T]he thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
There is nothing especially “conservative” about this statement. Everyone, including even relatively unthinking people, know that permanence and progress must be managed—both in life and in politics. Kirk is paying “conservatives” the compliment of being at least as intelligent as everyone else. You might think otherwise if they really buy all the tommyrot Kirk has spread around.
The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. 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.
It is something of a surprise to hear that “conservatives” are not opposed to progress, since all of Kirk’s other “principles” indicate their fear of change makes progress terrifying to them.
The reference to “mystical Progress, with a Roman P at work in the world” is a rhetorical attempt to demean those who recognize progress as a real force in the world. That there is progress in the world is a bare fact—so obvious that Kirk himself felt it necessary at least to give it lip service. The most obvious example: slavery. Less than two hundred years ago, there were many Americans who would both practice it and defend it. Today there is no one left who will defend it—although there are some people who will still practice it in the shadows. The impossibility of defending it is progress because it means that humanity now sees that owning others is absolutely evil. Progress exists, even if “conservatives” would prefer that it doesn’t.
The fact that society may be progressing in some respects while regressing in others does not mean that progress is ineffective. For that to be the case, regress would have to outweigh progress. Whether that is true is debatable. This article, for instance, explains that in regard to economics, literacy, health, liberty, and education, the world is much better off today than at any time in history. My guess is that all this is the consequence of the Enlightenment, which taught us how to analyze intractable problems scientifically and work toward solving them. One could build a very good case that over the past four centuries or so progress has far outweighed regress. Kirk’s observation leads to no fruitful conclusion. And it certainly does not lead to the conclusion that progress is outweighed or equally balanced by regress.
The rest of the paragraph is trivial. The reference to Coleridge adds nothing but a soupçon of authority to the main point, which is that every society must hold together persistence and change. There is nothing especially “conservative” about this observation. It is true of all things, from rocks to humans to societies, and everyone, not just the “conservative,” knows it. This is so evident Kirk's next two points are truisms.
First, it is obvious that there are enduring interests and beliefs that hold a society together. The American people is still motivated and unified by the truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If Americans on the whole ever give up on those truths, if they start to believe that all men are not created equal and don’t have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then the unifying elements that animate this particular people will have failed and the nation will die. Whether it will fall into anarchy, as Kirk seems to think, is questionable. It may. Or it may simply reorganize itself around different unifying elements.
Second, it is also obvious that progress is necessary, if for no other reason than society must meet new challenges created by new circumstances. This requires intelligence, creativity, adaptability, and courage. Kirk can’t resist throwing in the caveat “prudent reform and improvement.” This is a sign that “conservatives” can’t tolerate much in the way of change—but we’ve known that since the start of this investigation.
As a parting shot, Kirk downplays the indispensability of progress by saying that society will stagnate without it. Stagnation is a relatively minor consequence of lack of progress. Society can continue for a long time in a stagnant state. But lack of progress can cause much more dire consequence. A society that cannot adapt to new problems will die. For example, the environmental problems posed by the refusal to abandon fossil fuels will destroy society if we can’t find creative ways to progress toward all-renewable energy sources. (“Conservatives” deny this. No doubt they see it as imprudent reform. They are of course, wrong.)
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression.
There is nothing especially “conservative” about reconciling stability and change. Everyone has to do it just to stay alive, whatever one’s political inclinations. This is just another attempt to flatter “conservatives” for minimal powers of perception.
He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise.
At this point, Kirk can no longer resist rhetorical hysteria. Having provided not a single coherent argument for any of his “conservative principles,” and now being forced to accept the necessity of progress—of which he is deathly afraid—he launches into disdainful and prejudiced attacks on liberals. (We ignore Kirk’s mention of “the radical,” since we showed in Principle 9 that this figure is a bogeyman.)
In the first sentence, he makes three claims: 1. that liberals are blind to the need for stability; 2. that liberals heedlessly endanger stability; 3. that liberals rush headlong toward illusory utopias that will never exist. All three claims are false.
To the charge that liberals are ignorant of the necessity of stability: We have shown repeatedly in the course of these discussions that liberals are indeed concerned with stability. But they are also deeply concerned with justice, to which “conservatives” pay little regard unless their ox is being gored. As the discussion of Principle 2 showed, liberals refuse to accept a stable society that is also unjust. Since they seek to reform society where it needs reform, they obviously care for continuity—otherwise they would revolt. In this way, liberals demonstrate greater care for the state than “conservatives," whose deep-rooted fears make them prefer power to justice.
To the charge that liberals heedlessly endanger stability: Our discussion of Principle 4 showed that the “conservative” notion of prudence is a sham intended to hide their insidious character flaws that flow from a deep-rooted fear of change. It also showed that liberals are for the most part far more prudent than “conservatives,” whose fears force them to block progress when progress is needed.
To the charge that liberals rush giddily toward impossible utopias: Our discussion of Principle 6 showed that the “utopias” Kirk feared most—namely, communism and socialism—are misperceived by “conservatives” as inherently tyrannical. There is nothing tyrannical about them unless they are joined with authoritarianism—something that “conservatives” condone so long as they hold authority. In any case, liberals, unlike “conservatives,” know that communism and socialism present their own challenges to justice and must be constantly reformed and improved, just as any society must. Unless they are very young and very inexperienced, liberals have no utopian drams. On the other hand, as we saw in our discussion of Principle 8, “conservatives” do have a utopian dream—the dream of the pure local democracy that is highly susceptible to factional tyranny. This authoritarian dream is what “conservatives” prefer to a just society that makes asymptotic progress toward justice.
The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
As our discussions of each of Kirk’s ten “principles” shows, there is nothing reasoned or temperate about “conservatives.” Not a single one of the “principles” can be defended on rational grounds. The falsehoods, illogical inferences, self-contradictions, and the intellectual hubris of the “principles” makes them highly irrational. It could hardly be otherwise with “irritable mental gestures” masquerading as ideas. Nor is temperance a virtue that could be claimed for those who are willing to embrace such headstrong and arrogant foolishness.
And while there may be some arrested adolescent liberals who prefer novelty to almost anything else, it is pure prejudice to ascribe that characteristic to liberals in general. As we have shown, the progress liberals espouse is linked to justice, not to novelty.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host.
Having disgorged his disdain for liberals, Kirk suddenly reverts to appearing reasonable.
He does this by stating several obvious truths that are not especially “conservative.” It is obviously true that change is essential both to society and to individuals. It is also true that if renewal ceases in living organisms, they die. It is also true that change must not disrupt the functioning of the organism so as to introduce serious disease, let alone so as to tear it apart.
But Kirk avoids a part of this analogy that shows liberalism to be far superior to “conservatism.” The health of the body is not only preserved by maintaining healthy conditions. It is also preserved by healing unhealthy conditions. In the body politic, injustice is a very unhealthy condition. Liberals seek to cure this disease and prolong the life of society, while “conservatives” prefer to keep the disease so long as it does not cause them much inconvenience, even if it impairs the health of society as a whole. In short, liberals care far more about the public good than “conservatives" do.
The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
This final rhetorical flourish bears little relationship to the realities of “conservatism” that we have encountered in our discussions of Kirk’s “principles.”
The initial sentence is untrue. The “conservative” does not balance old and new to any discernible degree. As Kirk’s own “principles” demonstrate abundantly, the “conservative” argues almost entirely for the old while disparaging or rejecting the new—with two important exceptions.
First, “conservatives” argue for the new, as Kirk is doing here, when they feel that have to look reasonable. Admittedly, this motivation is vanishing nowadays, since “conservatives” have decided that unreasonableness is no longer a mark of opprobrium in the era of instant mass communication—which, unencumbered by the thought process, enhances the effectiveness of “irritable mental gestures.”
Second, “conservatives” argue for the new when they spot an opportunity to advance their interests. For instance, it is something new for “conservatives” to champion violent insurrectionists and leakers of highly classified information. But this new attitude is now embraced by most Republicans because they see it (delusively, I think) as enhancing their electoral support.
(Old line “conservatives” of Kirk’s stripe may not regard today’s Trumpist Republicans as real “conservatives,” and so may hold themselves at arm’s length from the horrors their “conservatism” has spawned. But they are wrong to think this.
As we have seen in the course of these discussions, the selfish, ignorant, aggressive, authoritarian, violent, vindictive, and lawless contemporary Republican grew up on the milk of “irritable mental gestures” disguised as “conservative principles.” The old “conservatives” hid their vices both from themselves and from others by spouting Kirk’s idea-like formulas and pretending that they were rationally defensible. And for two generations, the rest of the world let “conservatives” get away with passing off this nonsense as legitimate reasoning. But underneath it all was always irrational fear and prejudice.
It is an error, then, to think that today’s Republicans are significantly different from old school “conservatives.” The only difference is that the old-timers had enough shame to want to be seen, both by themselves and others, as reasonable, public-spirited citizens. Today’s Republicans, on the other hand, have become shameless, abandoning all concern for appearances. They want what “conservatives” always wanted, even thought they tried to hide it—to win by any means. But they no longer care to hide it, either from themselves or from others.)
The second sentence is also untrue. The best way to conserve a nation or a human or an animal or a business is not to balance old and new. It is to keep doing what is being done but strive constantly to improve. This requires continual attention to changes in the environment, to reassessments of previous understanding, to questioning the status quo, and most important, to pushing up to and beyond the boundaries of what is currently comfortable. That is why artists, athletes, scientists, and healthy human beings generally enjoy being challenged. It is the stuff of life itself to go beyond where you are right now. Balance may be tranquil, but it is not life-enhancing.
The final sentence is true but, as is so often the case when coming from the mouths of “conservatives,” it is made to serve an improper purpose. The times and the conditions do indeed suggest how much and what sort of change is necessary. But the implication that less change and barely perceptible change should be preferred is wrong-headed. Correcting injustice and improving society enough to keep it vital always takes much more change than the fear and selfishness of “conservatives” allows them to tolerate.
This the liberal knows all too well.
Conclusion: “Conservative” opinions about progress are not worth a fig
At a minimum, “conservatives” distrust progress. Most of them go much farther. They detest it. While they may have to admit its existence in order not to appear completely detached from reality (though “conservatives” care much less about this today than in Kirk’s time), they grant it only minimal status in the ecosystem of societal forces.
Everything “conservatives” say about progress is wrong, or self-serving, or both.
Most dangerous of all “conservative” notions about progress is the claim that stability and progress must balance one another. This is a rhetorical ploy to appear reasonable while actually being very aggressive. Since the truth is that society needs much more progress to stay vital than “conservatives” can stomach, concessions to some agreeable middle-ground actually end up greatly underestimating the amount of progress that is necessary.
This is an example of an important lesson for decent Americans. Do not trust “conservatives” who work hard to seem reasonable. Whatever they want in the way of concessions will be far more advantageous to them than it is to the public good.
The best way to conserve the nation’s vitality is to insist on continual progress at the limits of our capacities. That is how a strong nation—and a strong human being—stays dynamic and full of life.
Never listen to anything “conservatives” say about progress. That’s like taking sailing advice from a landlubber.
So we have finally finished our discussions of Kirk’s ten “principles.” It should now be quite clear that “conservatism” is a long con. For some eighty years, a collection of inconsistent, ignorant, illogical, and irascible attitudes have successfully masqueraded as an legitimate ideology—when in fact there is not a single genuine idea to be found among the preachings of “conservatism.” Lionel Trilling was right in 1950 and remains right today: “conservatives” have no ideas, only “irritable mental gestures.”
In the next post, I will summarize all the nonsensical and dangerous claptrap hidden under the veil of “conservative principles” and show how the dangers are coming to the fore today as modern “conservatives” throw off the sheep’s clothing that has concealed their wolfish nature for so long.
And as an added bonus, I will explain the most important rule of thumb that decent Americans need to take away from this complete refutation of “conservatism.”
See you soon.
Thanks, Tommy. I appreciate your interest in my work!
Tremendous work and effort. Thank you very much! When my situation gets better, I will upgrade