This is an excellent discussion of the tensions on the political and cultural right, which have persisted for decades.
In my view, the problem arises from the belief that government can and should do more than protect each individual's life, liberty, and property, with the latter two including the people's religious faith. Regardless of Locke's origin story for government and his dubious account of the human mind (read *Tristam Shandy* for Lawrence Sterne's hilarious takedown of that) Locke is right about the proper sphere of activity for government. Everything else is best left to the people themselves.
The notion that government will comprise the best and most selfless people is the premise behind progressivism, socialism, and Communism. History demonstrates the falsity of that premise, in abundance. Being made up of fallible humans, government is in fact inherently prone to corruption.
In addition, actions of government beyond the protection of life, liberty, and property end up doing harm by creating moral hazard. Moral hazard is in fact modern governments' biggest output.
The solution, as our nation's founders realized and Tocqueville observed firsthand, is to leave the people space in which to develop natural human relationships, including religious faith.
There's the rub. Without a common religious faith, there is nothing to hold a nation together. Thus the sovereign has typically functioned as defender of the faith. When the entire adult population is sovereign, however, the nation's common faith will steadily lose its form, because the religious faith behind the creation of liberal societies, Protestantism, has no central institution that is as extensive and influential as the state.
That, it seems to me, is behind Kirk's real objection to classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism, however, as represented by Burke, Smith, and their Whig contemporaries, did not authorize, nor even contemplate, essentially universal suffrage and consequent sovereignty for all.
It is the latter that has caused all the problems. Kirk conflates classical liberalism, however, with what Americans have called liberalism since the Progressive Era: the pursuit of "positive liberty" as outlined in President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech. This notion arrived after the Whig liberalism of Burke, Smith, the American founders, etc., but to say that classical liberalism is the source of modern liberalism is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The problem for America is simply the rise of positive-liberty liberalism, a philosophy that is antithetical to classical liberalism. Its source, as noted above, is the religious and moral deterioration unleashed by the expansion of suffrage into a universal human right (with no attendant responsibilities, it is fair to note).
It is extremely difficult to envision how a political movement could successfully reverse the universalization of political authority through the very system that has sustained it for more than a century now. The new right should concentrate on that conundrum, for fundamental reform and national revival seems impossible under the currently reigning premises.
Sam, what an excellent reply. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out. It does strike me that Kirk--right or wrong--anticipated much that Patrick Deneen and the post-liberals would come to. I'm far more libertarian than Kirk was, and I'm with you about the Lockean restrictions on government. Interestingly enough, when Kirk wrote most of what I quoted from him, he was still nominally Protestant. He wouldn't convert to Catholicism until 1964. I do agree with you, though, that Kirk is really wrestling with a religious question. And, totally agreed on the rise of democracy as opposed to the republicanism of the founding.
Thanks, Brad. I think that I'll probably work this up into an item for Life, Liberty, Property. I see this as a discussion well worth having. Your mention of the timing of Kirk's conversion is interesting--I hadn't thought about that. That brings us to some potentially very fruitful and surely controversial avenues of further discussion. (What is there that is not controversial these days?)
Fascinating stuff. But how much of Kirk’s philosophy is upended if Dawson’s conception of medieval societies are inaccurate? In other words, if ordered medieval societies didn’t have issues and failings there would not have been a move towards liberalism in the first place. But since they did have profound issues, (such as abuse of power) what would Kirk suggest how we order our society? Any suggestions on what he said along those lines?
Ben, from my reading--especially given Dawson's and Kirk's works--the medieval, at least in Anglo-Saxon England and later in Christian Iceland (and parts of Scandinavia)--was very free. Things like the Magna Carta and the rise of common law revealed true liberty. Thanks so much for the comment--I really appreciate it!!!
Outstanding article! I am much more of an innovative visionary than a traditionalist by nature, but I think I am actually closer to this vision of conservatism than I am the modern so-called conservative capitalist and the progressive liberal. I am at any rate in favor of humanity being restored to our cold statistical economy.
Aaron, thanks so much for a thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it. I'm more open to libertarianism than Kirk was, but the older I get, the more I see his viewpoint. He, too, started out extremely libertarian (especially against the military and military service) and then became more traditionalist. He was, however, always a Stoic.
What I rather resent about traditionalism is conformity to convention. "Break the conventions, keep the commandments" is probably my favorite Chesterton quote. It's absurd to think that a thing must be good for no other reason than it is new, but I believe it equally absurd to think that a thing must be good for no other reason than it is old, unless we're talking about doctrine and liturgy. A thing ought to be examined on its own for whether it is good and true or not. And the Catholic faith is good and true not because it is old, but because, well, it is good and true.
On the other hand, there is a rather large part of me that wishes that I was not an independent visionary and enjoyed conforming to the group. I agree there is fulfillment in that. But evangelism through media to me seems far too important a task to exchange for blending in with my peers.
Sorry for ranting on your article. I do like this form of conservatism better than the factory pelagian conservatism of today. I just am very cautious of bullies on any side. But maybe that is exactly what Kirk is against? I do find it curious that he accuses liberalism of soulless conformity; I always thought conservatism was about conformity.
All completely understood, Aaron. Excellent quote from Chesterton, too. I feel like I've been a non-conformist since seventh grade and always (possibly at times, sinfully) rather proud of it. I think Kirk, despite his conservatism, was the most eccentric individualist imaginable. He, T.S. Eliot, and Christopher Dawson all argued that liberalism was dread conformity while conservatism was the release of individual talent.
I'm torn between being proud of non-conformity and frustrated at just how few people I can connect with. Life must truly be easier for those who naturally adopt the mores of the crowd. And having attended the Latin Mass for most of my life, I'm not sure I can say that conservatism doesn't have its own conformities as well.
But it's a fascinating and complex discussion, whether or not the people should think as one. I stumble and bumble around trying to examine this topic in my (much shorter) Substack article here:
This is an excellent discussion of the tensions on the political and cultural right, which have persisted for decades.
In my view, the problem arises from the belief that government can and should do more than protect each individual's life, liberty, and property, with the latter two including the people's religious faith. Regardless of Locke's origin story for government and his dubious account of the human mind (read *Tristam Shandy* for Lawrence Sterne's hilarious takedown of that) Locke is right about the proper sphere of activity for government. Everything else is best left to the people themselves.
The notion that government will comprise the best and most selfless people is the premise behind progressivism, socialism, and Communism. History demonstrates the falsity of that premise, in abundance. Being made up of fallible humans, government is in fact inherently prone to corruption.
In addition, actions of government beyond the protection of life, liberty, and property end up doing harm by creating moral hazard. Moral hazard is in fact modern governments' biggest output.
The solution, as our nation's founders realized and Tocqueville observed firsthand, is to leave the people space in which to develop natural human relationships, including religious faith.
There's the rub. Without a common religious faith, there is nothing to hold a nation together. Thus the sovereign has typically functioned as defender of the faith. When the entire adult population is sovereign, however, the nation's common faith will steadily lose its form, because the religious faith behind the creation of liberal societies, Protestantism, has no central institution that is as extensive and influential as the state.
That, it seems to me, is behind Kirk's real objection to classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism, however, as represented by Burke, Smith, and their Whig contemporaries, did not authorize, nor even contemplate, essentially universal suffrage and consequent sovereignty for all.
It is the latter that has caused all the problems. Kirk conflates classical liberalism, however, with what Americans have called liberalism since the Progressive Era: the pursuit of "positive liberty" as outlined in President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech. This notion arrived after the Whig liberalism of Burke, Smith, the American founders, etc., but to say that classical liberalism is the source of modern liberalism is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The problem for America is simply the rise of positive-liberty liberalism, a philosophy that is antithetical to classical liberalism. Its source, as noted above, is the religious and moral deterioration unleashed by the expansion of suffrage into a universal human right (with no attendant responsibilities, it is fair to note).
It is extremely difficult to envision how a political movement could successfully reverse the universalization of political authority through the very system that has sustained it for more than a century now. The new right should concentrate on that conundrum, for fundamental reform and national revival seems impossible under the currently reigning premises.
Sam, what an excellent reply. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out. It does strike me that Kirk--right or wrong--anticipated much that Patrick Deneen and the post-liberals would come to. I'm far more libertarian than Kirk was, and I'm with you about the Lockean restrictions on government. Interestingly enough, when Kirk wrote most of what I quoted from him, he was still nominally Protestant. He wouldn't convert to Catholicism until 1964. I do agree with you, though, that Kirk is really wrestling with a religious question. And, totally agreed on the rise of democracy as opposed to the republicanism of the founding.
Thanks, Brad. I think that I'll probably work this up into an item for Life, Liberty, Property. I see this as a discussion well worth having. Your mention of the timing of Kirk's conversion is interesting--I hadn't thought about that. That brings us to some potentially very fruitful and surely controversial avenues of further discussion. (What is there that is not controversial these days?)
Fascinating stuff. But how much of Kirk’s philosophy is upended if Dawson’s conception of medieval societies are inaccurate? In other words, if ordered medieval societies didn’t have issues and failings there would not have been a move towards liberalism in the first place. But since they did have profound issues, (such as abuse of power) what would Kirk suggest how we order our society? Any suggestions on what he said along those lines?
Ben, from my reading--especially given Dawson's and Kirk's works--the medieval, at least in Anglo-Saxon England and later in Christian Iceland (and parts of Scandinavia)--was very free. Things like the Magna Carta and the rise of common law revealed true liberty. Thanks so much for the comment--I really appreciate it!!!
Outstanding article! I am much more of an innovative visionary than a traditionalist by nature, but I think I am actually closer to this vision of conservatism than I am the modern so-called conservative capitalist and the progressive liberal. I am at any rate in favor of humanity being restored to our cold statistical economy.
Aaron, thanks so much for a thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it. I'm more open to libertarianism than Kirk was, but the older I get, the more I see his viewpoint. He, too, started out extremely libertarian (especially against the military and military service) and then became more traditionalist. He was, however, always a Stoic.
What I rather resent about traditionalism is conformity to convention. "Break the conventions, keep the commandments" is probably my favorite Chesterton quote. It's absurd to think that a thing must be good for no other reason than it is new, but I believe it equally absurd to think that a thing must be good for no other reason than it is old, unless we're talking about doctrine and liturgy. A thing ought to be examined on its own for whether it is good and true or not. And the Catholic faith is good and true not because it is old, but because, well, it is good and true.
On the other hand, there is a rather large part of me that wishes that I was not an independent visionary and enjoyed conforming to the group. I agree there is fulfillment in that. But evangelism through media to me seems far too important a task to exchange for blending in with my peers.
Sorry for ranting on your article. I do like this form of conservatism better than the factory pelagian conservatism of today. I just am very cautious of bullies on any side. But maybe that is exactly what Kirk is against? I do find it curious that he accuses liberalism of soulless conformity; I always thought conservatism was about conformity.
All completely understood, Aaron. Excellent quote from Chesterton, too. I feel like I've been a non-conformist since seventh grade and always (possibly at times, sinfully) rather proud of it. I think Kirk, despite his conservatism, was the most eccentric individualist imaginable. He, T.S. Eliot, and Christopher Dawson all argued that liberalism was dread conformity while conservatism was the release of individual talent.
I'm torn between being proud of non-conformity and frustrated at just how few people I can connect with. Life must truly be easier for those who naturally adopt the mores of the crowd. And having attended the Latin Mass for most of my life, I'm not sure I can say that conservatism doesn't have its own conformities as well.
But it's a fascinating and complex discussion, whether or not the people should think as one. I stumble and bumble around trying to examine this topic in my (much shorter) Substack article here:
https://akessler.substack.com/p/pink-floyd-and-anarchy