In my previous post, I started to discuss Russell Kirk’s “Ten Conservative Principles.” Today, I thought we could begin to look at them by providing an overview of them.
Kirk first presented his “principles” in a speech to the Heritage Society, a “conservative” think tank, in 1987. You can read that speech HERE. In 1993, a version of the speech appeared in a book called The Politics of Prudence (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1993). And an adapted form of that version appears on the website of The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, an organization devoted to continuing the influence of Kirk’s fraudulent “ideas,” HERE.
I have abstracted the headline descriptions of the “ten principles” for preliminary consideration. Each one also has some extended commentary that is not reproduced here. In future posts, I will take up each in turn, including the extended commentary, which is intended to make the “principles” sound reasonable. But for now, let’s just get an overview. Here are the ten in order:
1. 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.
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. (As we will see when we look at this “principle” closely in a future post, this means that our choices should be prescribed for us by ancient tradition and religion.)
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by the principle of prudence.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
Even a cursory glance at these “principles” reveals several drawbacks for statements that claim to be “principles.”
First, some of them are mere assertions of prejudice. Number 1 amounts to adherence to a religious tradition that could broadly be called “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian.” As we will see in the next post, there is no reason for this other than personal preference (since claims for the superiority of this religious tradition over others are highly dubious), which is hardly the sort of persuasiveness one would expect of a solid principle, let alone an idea.
Second, some of them are hardly exclusive to “conservatism.” Nearly everyone agrees with Numbers 4, 9, and 10. So some of these “principles” are not particularly characteristic of “conservatives” at all.
Third, some of them are actually versions or perversions of liberal notions! Number 5, for example, is an attempt to claim that “conservatives” rather than liberals adhere to some “principle of variety,” when everyone knows that “conservatives” constantly castigate liberals for their pluralism. Number 6 is an inversion of the Enlightenment notion, popularized by Rousseau and passing almost unchanged into modern liberalism, than human beings are “perfectible”—that is, capable of improving their understanding and applying that improved understanding to alter their behavior for the better. We will see in future posts that there are several rhetorical strategies—but no rational grounding—for trying to co-opt or invert liberal ideas.
Apart from these initial observations, we can also see that the “ten principles” actually reinforce many of the negative stereotypes of “conservatives”:
Number 1 shows them to be religious in a narrow sense that points toward theocratic proclivities.
Number 2 shows them to be reactionary rather than progressive, stuck in the past rather than responding to the present or looking toward the future.
Number 3 shows them to be prescriptive, telling people what to do rather than letting them live their own lives.
Number 7 shows them to be deluded about the relation of freedom and property—indeed, to have it exactly reversed. Even if there were no government, every assertion of property is a limitation on the freedom of others. Without government, individuals reassert their rights by violence. Within government, the rights of property must be balanced against the freedom of the people, so that property must be regulated closely in order to preserve liberty, which is the domesticated form of freedom within the restraints of good governance.
And Number 8 shows them to be antisocial or at least selfish, for “voluntary community” must be subjugated to the common good under rational self-governance.
In short, at least five of these statements reinforce the negative characteristics that are most commonly associated with “conservatism.”
All in all, then, the “ten principles,” which the vast majority of “conservatives” think they believe, are a pathetic grab-bag of preferences that reinforce many human vices.
And that’s just on initial consideration!
In future posts, we will consider each of the “ten principles” individually and show that not a single one of them is supportable in the way an idea must be—namely, capable of providing plausible, logical, and persuasive evidence for itself.
In other words, we will see that “conservatives” have no ideas at all. They have only “irritable mental gestures” that explode when actual ideas reveal their ignorant and selfish vices.
Stay tuned.