Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 2

Almost done. Kirk's Ninth Principle:

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. 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. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

======

While I have some young anarchist friends with whom I'm sympathetic, I nonetheless agree with Kirk here. I don't know that I have anything to add.

I will say only this: The way our system is designed and practiced, we have just the sort of aristocratic anarchy that Kirk fears here. The rich are more equal than others. Our capitalist democracy has been sold to the highest bidders and that currently is the military/industrial oiligarchy.

Bush and his people, for instance, get away with lies, cheating and murder. It doesn't seem to matter what they do, they remain in power. And you know what? This was true for Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton before War Bush.

To quote that famed socialist, Helen Keller (surprised?):

Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

J. Dirtbike

Jordan Cyclist
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 3

Almost done. Kirk's Eighth Principle:

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

======

Here, I'm back to agreeing in principle with Kirk. While I'm a big believer in a communal living mindset, I'm not wanting to enforce community upon anyone. Further, Kirk is addressing here the notion of local decision-making, with which I, in general, agree.

That is, generally speaking, the people at the local level are going to know what is best for them and, even if they might not, I'm cautious about taking away from local decision-making.

Having said that, I'll admit to being of two minds on the matter. Sometimes, it seems to me, Justice demands action and if the local community is not listening to Justice's demands, an outside (federal) authority can be a force for good.

Here, I'm thinking of the Civil Rights era, where many local communities would not have offered Justice to their minorities without federal prodding. I'm also thinking of pollution issues. What if the local community decides that it's okay for someone to set up a hog pond next door to my house and pollute the groundwater which belongs to us all?

Do I, in general, want the feds to dictate to local communities how they must act? Not really. Do I think it sometimes appropriate? Yes.

Seems to me that this is one of those times that a slippery slope ought to be cautiously trod.

Nicaraguan Kids

Nicaraguan Kids
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 4

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

...For the institution of private property has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

======

I can agree that I'm not too keen on a State actor taking property away for their own purposes – and especially for corporate purposes, as was decided here lately by the Supreme Court!

Nonetheless, I'm thinking that I probably don't agree all that much with Kirk on this point, either.

Philosophically, I'd have to agree with the native american saying, We do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. This, of course, is echoed by New Testament teachings (The earth is the Lord's and its fullness. I Corinthians) and Old Testament teachings (The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is Mine and you are but aliens and My tenants. Leviticus 25:23).

Lest I'm accused of cherry-picking verses, I will point out that this is a large theme in the Bible – from the Jubilee laws teaching that land was not to be endlessly acquired, but guaranteed that land will be passed down, so that none can go poor for long, to the early church's practice of holding all things in common. Feel free to look it up.

This is not state-ownership, but neither is it private ownership. I'd suggest ownership is the wrong paradigm altogether. It's really more of a stewardship thing. That is, we're responsible for holding and tending property for the purpose of passing it on to others in good shape. We borrow it from our children, indeed.

Girl and Ducks

Girl and Ducks
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 5

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk.

======

Here again, with this principle, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing. Certainly people are imperfect. Some moreso than others. I know of noone who'd argue to the contrary.

However, my faith system teaches me to pray and act, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Perhaps a key phrase would be the “utopian domination,” Kirk references. Surely, people chaff under restrictions imposed upon them – even restrictions for noble purposes (see Prohibition, both of alcohol in the past and of other drugs presently).

To this extent, both conservatives and liberals (on different issues) are correctly wary of imposed morality. At the same time, we are called upon by our humanitarianism as well as our God (for those of us who believe in such) to work for a better world.

Who can disagree with wanting to end hunger? War? Pollution?

Myself, I don't share Kirk's pessimistic view that “to seek for utopia is to end in disaster.” The anabaptists (Amish, Mennonites, etc) have done it and done it remarkably well, I'd say. And they're not the only ones. In Kirk's defense, perhaps it might be fair to say that they're not seeking utopia, but a right and just way of life. Semantics. Maybe.

So, for now, I'll acknowledge that it is a tricky road to walk, between working for a better world and imposed morality. But it is a road worth walking and to avoid it altogether would be a great shame.

Companeros y Sandino

Companeros y Sandino
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 6

Kirk, again:

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

======

This is the principle of Kirk's with which I probably most strongly disagree. His notions of “preservation of classes” and “justification of inequality” spark a creepy negative reaction in me.

While I am certain that most conservatives have no desire to “keep anyone down,” this principle seems to help perpetuate the thought. “We need our happy slaves, after all.”

And, while I agree that equality and a just egalitarianism will not be seen this side of Heaven, the whole suggestion that, “The poor, ye will always have with you” has been used way too often to justify doing nothing.

I do agree with his suggestion that society requires honest and able leadership (now more than ever), but what's he getting to? It sure sounds like he's talking some serious class denigration or oppression or something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but this one creeps me out.

As I have no doubt that most of our conservative friends don't wish to be oppressive towards “the lower classes,” I'd be glad to have someone give me a better interpretation of this principle, because the way he states his point leaves me very cold.

Summer Days are Going Away

Sarah, Howie & friend
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 7

I continue my series in which I embrace Conservative Philosophy (and reject the notion that modern conservatives, are), presenting Kirk's Fourth Principle:

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

======

“Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences...” Does this sound like modern conservative thought? In warning about global warning, many scientists are deeply embracing this point – saying, “We don't know for sure what the outcomes will be for our current lifestyle. There is evidence it could be greatly detrimental. It would make sense, therefore, to change our policy until we know that it is a prudent way to live.”

And, very promptly, those same scientists are rebuffed and ridiculed by conservatives for being prudent.

When the Peacemakers were advocating caution instead of invading Iraq, were we not being prudent? Were we not asking, “What are the consequences of setting pre-emptive invasion as a precedent? Of invading a country that poses no threat to us?”

It seems very clear to me that, at least in the fields of foreign and environmental policies, the progressives are the prudent ones. I think we'd be considered the more prudent in economic matters, too. Think of Wendell Berry's or Lester Brown's writings encouraging us to consider the economy a subset of the environment instead of the other way around. They've both written very responsible and well-thought-out essays on the matter.

Yes, I certainly agree strongly with this Conservative Principle.

Louisville Behind Willow

Louisville Behind Willow
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.