This is another post in my continuing series demolishing Russell Kirk’s “Ten Conservative Principles,” one of the most influential texts in the “conservative” canon.
Earlier installments are at these links: Overview, Principle 1, and Principle 2.
It is now time to tackle Kirk’s “third principle of conservatism.” As we will see, it is somewhat redundant, overlapping with the first two “principles.” But, as I have said, Kirk’s style is nothing if not prolix.
Here is the text of the “third principle.” (You can read all ten of them HERE.)
[C]onservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
A detailed consideration of Kirk’s “third principle”
The “third principle” is this:
[C]onservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
This is not self-evident. We need to read more of Kirk’s supporting statements in order to understand it. Let’s consider the next two sentences.
Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary.
This is enough to understand what Kirk is getting at. As usual, he is wrong is very many ways.
To begin with, it is not just “conservatives” who recognize ancient excellence. Anyone who has training in the liberal arts is aware of this, even if they are committed liberals. Indeed, as I will show shortly, the healthy relationship of moderns to ancients is essentially liberal.
The mention of the shoulders of giants is a reference to Newton, who wrote in a letter to Robert Hooke in 1676, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
But Newton was being modest—exceptionally so. He did not make his mark on history simply by revering the achievements of his predecessors. He examined their achievements, questioned them, thought for himself, and generated towering innovations in mathematics and science.
This is what I meant by essentially liberal. Newton’s attitude toward the achievements of the past was both respectful and inquisitive. Like Socrates, all truly intelligent people question everything, no matter how ancient, revered, or widely accepted. They are willing to accept the agreed-upon convictions of experts in fields they know nothing about, but that is just a matter of convenience. If they really become concerned about those expert convictions, they will study the fields themselves in order to make their own decisions.
Kirk teaches “conservatives” precisely the opposite. He recommends “prescription,” that is, a sort of intellectual stasis, a stunning of the mind in the presence of past greatness. He argues that immemorial usage justifies the “conservative” predilection for hewing to the old ways.
That is what I meant by saying this “principle” is somewhat redundant. In the “second principle,” Kirk insisted that “conservatives” stick with ancient precedents. Now he insists that ancient precedents demand this adherence. He still has not produced a single good reason to support either of these opinions.
He is, however, very good at dropping literary references, like his reference to Newton and the phrase “the mind of man runneth not to the contrary,” which comes from the British legal tradition and refers to how long-standing customs going back beyond the memory of living men can have the force of law. But dropping literary references is a far cry from proving one’s case.
Let’s continue to Kirk’s next attempt support the doctrine of “prescription.”
There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part.
There are of course rights, customs, and conventions that are secured only by their antiquity. This is simply a matter of fact. As I said in my previous post, however, the antiquity of these things is not sufficient reason to maintain them if they are wrong. If they do little harm, perhaps discretion can allow them to continue in force. But if they do great harm, they should be eradicated, no matter how disruptive it is to the status quo. Any other stance is highly immoral, because it amounts to declaring unconcern about the harm being done.
The claim that our morals are largely prescriptive in a similar way is very wrong-headed. Where morals are concerned, it is highly likely that wrong customs will work great harm. In the realm of morality, therefore, expunging bad customs and practices should happen far more often than in other areas. In other words, the realm of morality should not be treated similarly to other realms. It should be far less prescriptive and far more open to reform.
Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste.
Conservatives may argue this, but is it true? Why should moderns be more likely to be wrong than ancients?
When the question is put that way, the answer is obvious. All generations have the same chances of being wrong. The weight of past custom does not make the current generation less capable of ignorance, error, and folly. Even “conservatives” who adhere to the past are no less capable of ignorance, error, and folly than anyone else—especially since they are prone to misinterpreting the past based on their present prejudices.
If we moderns are not capable of making brave new discoveries, we live in a strangely curtailed world, limited in our experimentation and our creativity in ways that our predecessors were not. Did they not have the weight of tradition behind them as well? Of course they did. Yet they made brave new discoveries. And so can we.
It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality.
Having suggested that moderns are stupider than ancients, Kirk now goes on to intimate that we should not trust the judgment of such idiotic moderns. This is wrong in at least two ways.
First, as Socrates taught, it behooves each of us to pass our own judgments on the issues that matter to us. Accepting beliefs from others without examining them is an abnegation of our responsibility to ourselves and to our fellows. We must work to own our beliefs and trust that our work justifies our own individual judgment. This is the core message of Emerson and Thoreau, by the way, two American originals.
Second, the danger that Kirk fears here cannot actually exist. Society as a whole cannot weigh issues on the basis of private judgments, which vary so much that no consensus could ever be reached. Since this danger is an impossibility, what is Kirk really afraid of?
He fears that individuals may come to judgments that differ from the judgments of “conservatives,” and he fears that those individuals may make such a compelling case for their judgments that society at large will accept them and reject the “conservative” judgments he prefers.
But this is precisely the way in which societal judgments change. Some one person or some few people begin to understand that a custom, a law, or a belief is wrong. They begin to inform others. Depending on the persuasiveness of their case, their judgment will either be rejected or accepted by the majority.
To recommend that individuals stop thinking for themselves, that they adhere to the status quo, and that they stop demanding societal reform is to sin against individual responsibility, independent thinking, and creative innovation.
That’s a lot of human potential to squash just because “conservatives” fear change.
The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared.
Burke may have declared this, but it isn’t true.
As I have pointed out repeatedly already, there is no magic in the number of people who believe something or the duration of a belief. The species is just as capable of error as the individual.
And when error is discovered, it should be corrected, no matter how many people believe it or how long the belief has existed.
In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
The sudden turn to politics is a bit of a non-sequitur, but the continuity of Kirk’s prose is guaranteed by its pervasive incoherence.
This sentence excuses all “conservative” sins. They do not need to think for themselves, for they can simply adhere to precedent and precept—and even prejudice! Why? Because the “mysterious” species wisdom, which does not in fact exist, effortlessly hands “conservatives” everything they need.
When words like “mysterious” start appearing, the writer is admitting that he has no solid case to make. This passage is perhaps the most irrational yet to appear in Kirk’s attempt to explain his “ten principles of conservatism.”
Conclusion: The “principle” of prescription is baseless and immoral, serving mainly to exculpate “conservatives” from their many character flaws
Kirk fails to defend his “third principle” with even the slightest apposite evidence or cogent argument. Each and every point he makes is either irrelevant or just plain wrong. What is left is a tissue of personal preferences without rational support
The truth is the opposite of everything Kirk says. There is no good reason for rigorously following the precepts of the past. There is no good reason why antiquity should be preferred, and no good reason why morals should be prescriptive if they are not founded on truth. There is no good reason why moderns are less capable of originality than ancients. There is no good reason to denigrate private judgment and private rationality. There is no good reason that the species should be wiser than the individual, who alone is capable of examining beliefs and comparing the results with others. There is no good reason to accept the “mystery” that justifies precedent, precept, and prejudice, giving “conservatives” an excuse for holding onto customs no matter how harmful they are.
One could say that all these statements add up to one thing: we know better than you, and we prefer to stick with the past, and anyone who doesn’t agree with us is foolish. That’s a pretty arrogant attitude, especially when you can’t back it up with any reasoning. And “conservatives” are constantly whining about the arrogance of liberals!
In the end, the “third principle,” like the two that preceded it, amounts to nothing but dressed up “irritable mental gestures.” All that Kirk has so far succeeded in doing is bulking up personal preferences with prolific verbiage that has no argumentative value but serves to convince “conservatives” that they are smart and virtuous, when in fact they are ignorant and vicious.
Stay with me for the coming commentary on the following “principles.”
I assure you, It gets even worse!
Thanks. I know the series is dense and focused on the negativity of "conservatism." I had quite a few requests to do something like this, and I listened. But maybe I made a mistake. The readership seems to be up a bit, but not much. Nevertheless, having started the task, I am loathe to cut if off until its done. Maybe I can turn it into a book later.
Yes, I did read the podcast transcription. You sent it to me! I think I sent an email thanking you for it. It's truly damning about DeSantis--but then again, his very existence is damning.
Scott, and write this with the deepest respect for your genuine and sincere work in alerting this nation to the Fascist threat bearing down upon us.
That said, I would suggest this series is, in my mind, like a lecture series on the “Austrian School” of Economics. Understanding the logic and motives of Hayek and Mises may serve some function with economic nerds like me, but I wouldn’t wish forcing anyone I know to read “The Road to Serfdom” to better understand what amounts to free market theology.
I think I was first attracted to your heart, your goodness and concern for your fellow man that was expressed with real fervor in your writing.
For all I know this series is building a huge and well deserved following among your readers and I am just some outlier, so if that’s the case then I commend you for this really arduous effort.
BTW did you see the article in the Feb. Harper’s “See Know Evil” that was the transcription from the excellent Podcast “Eyes Left” - It is an interview with at the time 16 year old kid who suffered out and out torture under the gaze of (drum roll) Ron DeSantis.
I served in a war zone for 18 months and I have to tell you this was some real out and out Christo-Nazi motivated shit.