There have been many purges on the right, led for instance by National Review and William F Buckley, removing from polite society those who were considered “extreme” elements.
“A state in which scholars find no place is in decline. If wise men appear and one pays them no attention, then one pays a princely price. One can disregard the wise and pay them no attention, one can scorn the scholars and not collaborate with them in caring for the good of the state, and in that case one renounces the wise and forgets the scholars, but a state in which such happens has never been preserved.”
In the words of Rockefeller’s General Education Board in 1906, “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science… We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply.”
"Conservatism is not something that stops one going upwards and forward, but stops one from going downwards and backward."
The vox populi vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) does not address the core problem of democracy, in my opinion.
Simply put: functionaries of the State believe they are politically neutral, so they must obey any order. But that lack of autonomy in judgmenet means they are not politically neutral. They are, at best, hypnotized.
I have much respect for Kirk, by the way. But the State is the problem, because it is at the source of all ideologies.
I consider libertrainism to an anti-ideology, at least in its overlapping points with the good parts of conservatism. In very practical terms, things would get better simply by avoiding legislative package-deals. That's a death sentence for all forms of legislation.
Every American political arrangement from the Iroquois to the Internet has been a Federation.
Including the just collapsed one of 1787.
1. The Iroquois Confederation
2. The Articles of Confederation.
3. The Republic of 1787.
4. The Confederacy 1861-1865
5. The Internet; is a Federation.
Centralization failed;
The Crown
To an extent (mostly neglect) the French interests in Canada
The Iroquois when they turned to internal Mohawk terror and tyranny.
It now fails again with Fortified democracy in DC. They have the DC Green Zone, it cost them the country.
I can speculate* as to why, but what we know is every American Arrangement is a Federation, it happens organically, over and over and centralization fails.
*Perhaps very resources rich but varied resources and matchless internal and external navigation by water and land drive Federated nature as diverse interests?
"All they have left are people like David French, Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro"
Err... you sure about that, William? None of those guys are on staff. Shapiro and French has not had a byline since 2018. Goldberg had a byline last month but his previous one was in 2017.
National Review has a solid staff now with varying opinions. You should reconsider this paragraph and the criticism. And listen to the Editors podcast sometime.
If you are on a Kirk kick, try Enemies of the Permanent Things.
One question comes to mind: How would Kirk analyze the rise of populism today and its relationship with traditional conservatism?
Based on my understanding of writings Russell Kirk would likely see populism as a reaction to the perceived failures of elite institutions and the erosion of traditional values. He would agree with some of the populist critiques, but he would also be critical of some populist movements, which he would worry could be easily manipulated and lead to unintended consequences.
Kirk would likely argue that the best way to address the concerns of populists is through a return to traditional conservative principles, such as a limited government, a mixed economy, a strong civil society, and traditional values such as faith, family, and community. He believed that true conservatism is not about resisting change, but about managing change in a way that preserves the best of the past.
Would you agree with that assessment, William?
Secondly, while looking through possible candidates of figures that are continuing in the tradition of Russell Kirk's reality-based traditional conservatism I found a lot of people that unfortunately are no longer with us, such as Roger Scruton (1944-2020). But one person that still is alive and kicking is Patrick Deneen. An American professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Author of several books, including Why Liberalism Failed and The Sacred Life of Humanity. Deneen is a critic of modern liberalism, and he argues that traditional values are essential for a flourishing human society.
Is Patrick Deenen somebody that continues what Kirk started?
“A state in which scholars find no place is in decline. If wise men appear and one pays them no attention, then one pays a princely price. One can disregard the wise and pay them no attention, one can scorn the scholars and not collaborate with them in caring for the good of the state, and in that case one renounces the wise and forgets the scholars, but a state in which such happens has never been preserved.”
In the words of Rockefeller’s General Education Board in 1906, “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science… We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply.”
"Conservatism is not something that stops one going upwards and forward, but stops one from going downwards and backward."
V Putin 2016
The vox populi vox dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) does not address the core problem of democracy, in my opinion.
Simply put: functionaries of the State believe they are politically neutral, so they must obey any order. But that lack of autonomy in judgmenet means they are not politically neutral. They are, at best, hypnotized.
I have much respect for Kirk, by the way. But the State is the problem, because it is at the source of all ideologies.
I consider libertrainism to an anti-ideology, at least in its overlapping points with the good parts of conservatism. In very practical terms, things would get better simply by avoiding legislative package-deals. That's a death sentence for all forms of legislation.
Centralization FAILS;
Every American political arrangement from the Iroquois to the Internet has been a Federation.
Including the just collapsed one of 1787.
1. The Iroquois Confederation
2. The Articles of Confederation.
3. The Republic of 1787.
4. The Confederacy 1861-1865
5. The Internet; is a Federation.
Centralization failed;
The Crown
To an extent (mostly neglect) the French interests in Canada
The Iroquois when they turned to internal Mohawk terror and tyranny.
It now fails again with Fortified democracy in DC. They have the DC Green Zone, it cost them the country.
I can speculate* as to why, but what we know is every American Arrangement is a Federation, it happens organically, over and over and centralization fails.
*Perhaps very resources rich but varied resources and matchless internal and external navigation by water and land drive Federated nature as diverse interests?
"All they have left are people like David French, Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro"
Err... you sure about that, William? None of those guys are on staff. Shapiro and French has not had a byline since 2018. Goldberg had a byline last month but his previous one was in 2017.
National Review has a solid staff now with varying opinions. You should reconsider this paragraph and the criticism. And listen to the Editors podcast sometime.
If you are on a Kirk kick, try Enemies of the Permanent Things.
Bad writing. I meant Professional Conservatism. Not NRO particularly.
One question comes to mind: How would Kirk analyze the rise of populism today and its relationship with traditional conservatism?
Based on my understanding of writings Russell Kirk would likely see populism as a reaction to the perceived failures of elite institutions and the erosion of traditional values. He would agree with some of the populist critiques, but he would also be critical of some populist movements, which he would worry could be easily manipulated and lead to unintended consequences.
Kirk would likely argue that the best way to address the concerns of populists is through a return to traditional conservative principles, such as a limited government, a mixed economy, a strong civil society, and traditional values such as faith, family, and community. He believed that true conservatism is not about resisting change, but about managing change in a way that preserves the best of the past.
Would you agree with that assessment, William?
Secondly, while looking through possible candidates of figures that are continuing in the tradition of Russell Kirk's reality-based traditional conservatism I found a lot of people that unfortunately are no longer with us, such as Roger Scruton (1944-2020). But one person that still is alive and kicking is Patrick Deneen. An American professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Author of several books, including Why Liberalism Failed and The Sacred Life of Humanity. Deneen is a critic of modern liberalism, and he argues that traditional values are essential for a flourishing human society.
Is Patrick Deenen somebody that continues what Kirk started?
Flower,
Only have a moment. Yes, I believe you are right about Kirk. Deenen is less in his vein, I think, but he's not far from it either.