This is the last installment in my commentary on the Conservative Principles posted by Stephen Bainbridge.
The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. ... 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. ... A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
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. ... 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.
So here goes:
-
The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Everyone does. In fact, we could use a little more restraint upon power at the moment—to stop the conservative in the White House from becoming a dictator. As I've said in other installments, and this point cannot be made too often or too loudly, the problem with conservative thought on this point is a too narrow view of power. The real power in the modern world is the power of wealth. The reason Bush has been able to bring us to the brink of dictatorship is not so much that his party had a stranglehold on the government for so many years as it is that Bush's loyalties, and those of too many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, lay with big money. -
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.
Slander, pure and simple. I'll ignore the use of the word "radical" to mean liberal. Insofar as there is any truth at all in this statement, it is at least as true for conservatives as it is for liberals. Who would like to legislate what science teachers can teach in their own classrooms? Who would like to make laws that keep gays from marrying? Who wants to make laws to tell women what to do with their own bodies? Who would make laws to limit unions? Liberals? -
A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
On the whole, it is not the conservatives who will do this. See the list above. For a more detailed discussion of the conservative and liberal views of authority, go here. -
Permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
This is certainly not a conservative distinctive. You won't find a liberal who doesn't agree. -
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.
Well, actually, conservatives have historically been opposed to social improvement—on nearly every issue from slavery to family planning.
On the other hand, I don't know of many progressives who believe in "a mystical Progress, with a capital P, at work in the world." Most progressives are painfully aware that progress requires hard and persistent work, especially in the face of consistent conservative opposition. -
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.
As this is my last chance, I'll overlook nothing.
Let's begin with "He". Conservatives persist in ignoring half the human race.
"Radical." Could we please stop calling names?
"The just claims of Permanence." Liberals do not believe in a mystical Permanence, with a capital P, at work in the world.
"The heritage bequeathed to us." I've commented before on the curious Conservative delusion that there is no liberal tradition. It goes back just as far as the conservative tradition—straight through the teachings of Jesus, for just one example. And in more recent times, this country was founded on the liberal tradition. Our constitution is one of the most liberal documents of its time.
"Some dubious Terrestrial Paradise." If you mean that liberals think our society could be more just, more caring, more supportive of individuals, then sure. But that's not all that dubious. If you mean that liberals think a perfect society can be established, I doubt that you've talked to many liberals. It's certainly not a liberal consensus.
As I look over the Conservative Principles in retrospect, they seem distinctly odd.
It's hard to believe that Kirk intended them to be anything other than propaganda, and yet I think he was sincere when he wrote them.
I read these principles, find them ridiculous or blatantly false over and over again, find them filled with silly ideas about people like myself, and I really don't know what to do with that. In what I guess is typical liberal fashion, I try to find a way to give Kirk some credit at the end of the day—and am frustrated that I can't. If he didn't mean them, he was being deceitful. If he did mean them, he was deceiving himself. I feel much the same about the conservative movement today.
I don't like either altenative. I don't want to think he was stupid, and I don't want to think he was bad.
Oddly enough, he seems happy to have thought both about people like me.
