The Conservatives' War on Ideas

LFET ^ | Karen De Coster

[Sir Gawain]

The Conservatives' War on Ideas

by Karen De Coster

When Russell Kirk, a most engaging intellectual and the father of the modern conservative movement, wrote of "terrestrial hells" and zealotry, he was speaking of ideology. So adamant was he about the perils brought on by ideas and change, Kirk put together an entire book on this, The Politics of Prudence.

To Kirk, ideology is a series of "terrestrial hells" that is not favorable to a statesman's prudence because it bears the fruit of malevolent revolution against tried-and-true conservative traditions. Hence, it is a serious vice.

Kirk advocates prudence over ideology, telling us that the two are polar opposites. He takes the Aristotelian position on prudence as one of the first of the virtues, and manifests that as the lone antidote to the Left ideologues' revolutions, extremism, and factionalism. Interestingly, Kirk says it's ideology that necessarily leads to corrupt power, though he fails to support this belief. Moreover, he erroneously points to Hitlerian and Stalinist ideologies as being the tour-de-force for all of systematic thinking.

However, polylogism is a fundamental principle of Leftist-Marxist revolutionary ideology that relies on separate sets of logic for the varying classes in society. Marxist ideology as such is at best a self-contradicting state of chaos that denies the truths of logic. As Lew Rockwell says, "In Kirk's hands, conservatism became a posture, a demeanor, a mannerism. In practice, it asked nothing more of people than to acquire a classical education, sniff at the modern world, and privately long for times past. And if there was a constant strain in Kirkian conservatism, it was opposition to ideology, a word that Kirk demonized. This allowed him to accuse Mises and Marx of the same supposed error."

Lumping together all ideologies—without looking at the components of each within its own ideological framework—amounts to an evasion of proper methodology and reasoning. In truth, ideology is not a hopped-up form of political persuasion, but it is purely a systematic way of thinking about the social order. Conservatives have always denied such absolutes as economic law and systematic thought. Nevertheless, to deny the validity of systematic thought is to deny logic itself. On balance, to be "conservative" is to retain that which centuries of custom have handed down while renouncing any immediate change in the prevailing state of affairs, and this necessarily empowers the existing statist polity.

Kirk says ideology is evil because it makes political compromise impossible, and therefore, we put the government and its politicians in a position of no-win, which then prevents the State from performing in its essential capacities. The modern term for this brand of give and take is "non-partisan" politics. This conduct is a specialty of the Left, as well as the New Right, neoconservatives, and conservatives. Kirk did not ultimately reject statism in all its forms, as none of the conservatives do.

Political parties, then, are merely tools of plunder. It's "let me beat you to the plundering", and, if need be, the parties compromise with one another to share in the plunder and the power. This, in the Kirkian sense, is the mark of a prudent statesman. In establishing the differences between ideologues and conservatives, Kirk lets it be known that "conservatives, in striking contrast, have the habit of dining with the competition."

In essence, Kirk's views are an advocacy of retaining the current order in spite of its inherent corruptness. And further, when abstract ideas butt heads with the temptation of political compromise, it is conciliation with thy enemy that most appeases the conservatives. For it is ideas, says Kirk, that ultimately destroy entrenched social institutions and create a world of disorder. So for Kirk, abstract ideas are a cold-blooded and brutal view of life. We deduce, then, that everyone is ideological and therefore a slayer of the human species except a Kirkian conservative.

But those that deny the validity of ideology are the compromisers, gradualists, special interest types, and ultimately, all of them are statists. Certainly, it is not conservative posturing that will roll back the oppressive structures of domination that are inherent in the State. In reality, the moderation of mind and method is a subset of tyranny in the battle to restrain the advancement of theory in favor of retaining unbroken political customs. And the perception that political power structures should retain such a customary pose is entirely consistent with the conservatives' "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy. It is this sort of collective conditioning that makes the conservatives a Big Government party as much as the other guys.

Don't get me wrong, for I think Kirk was heroic in many respects, and one of the most interesting thinkers of modern times. He was a Catholic cultural conservative and social elitist who tirelessly fought the Left and all of its prescriptions to cure imagined social ills. And he always remained suspicious of the State where and when it imperiled the mores of Western civilization.

Nevertheless, it is those that are armed with a multitude of ideas about the advancement of the human condition that are the harbingers of a society advanced along the wheels of the human mind. It is radical thought and the building-up of a cohesive, intellectual movement to advance these ideas that can affect progress toward sweeping change and away from the current tide of moderation.

Putting the educated mindset on the front lines in the battle against the political demonization of liberty is not a vice, but a virtue. And it's a noble one at that.

---

Karen De Coster, CPA, is a freelance writer and Business Consultant in the Midwest. See her website at www.karendecoster.com.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Support Free Republic]

There's no need to be mean spirited !
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[jdege]

If by "ideology" you mean "a view of the way that other people should run their lives, that you are justified in imposing on them by force", then the truth of the claim that ideology is irreversibly evil is obvious on the face of it.

[marron]

Kirk is a "classic conservative", a traditionalist. While there is, as the piece says, much to admire in him, he adheres to a different version of "conservatism" from many of us.

Most US conservatives would be better described as "classic liberals", believing in limited government, individual liberty, and the importance of private property. Constitutionalists, in other words. Its not an either-or thing, many classic liberals are also fairly traditionalist, but it is due to the fact that, in the US, our tradition is classic liberalism, as embodied in the Constitution.

Not many of us pine for a return to earlier times, Americans don't have much time for a static social order. The old English conservatism that Kirk evokes doesn't excite many here. US conservatism is of a different kind. If only we could get the socialists to stop using our name, things would be much simpler.

[elbucko]

Most US conservatives would be better described as "classic liberals",

I wholeheartedly agree with your post. The term "classic liberal" confuses some conservatives, and outright confounds a "neo or pseudo liberal".

[sneakypete]

Most US conservatives would be better described as "classic liberals", believing in limited government, individual liberty, and the importance of private property. Constitutionalists, in other words. Its not an either-or thing, many classic liberals are also fairly traditionalist, but it is due to the fact that, in the US, our tradition is classic liberalism, as embodied in the Constitution.

I couldn't agree more. I flat refuse to use the word "liberal" when describing anyone from the left. The left are about as "anti-liberal" as it is possible to get.

[f.Christian]

If by "ideology" you mean "a view of the way that other people should run their lives, that you are justified in imposing on them by force", then the truth of the claim that ideology is irreversibly evil is obvious on the face of it.

Nobody sees this!

Conservatives are so easily bequiled by liberalism (( most of the FR )) it isn't funny!

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern spin // spun age...

Main Entry: be·guile
Pronunciation: bi-'gI(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): be·guiled; be·guil·ing
Date: 13th century
transitive senses 1 : to lead by deception
2 : HOODWINK
3 : to while away especially by some agreeable occupation; also : DIVERT 2
4 : to engage the interest of by or as if by guile
intransitive senses : to deceive by wiles
synonym see DECEIVE
- be·guile·ment /-'gI(&)l-m&nt/ noun
- be·guil·er /-'gI-l&r/ noun
- be·guil·ing·ly /-'gI-li[ng]-lE/ adverb

[f.Christian]

Nevertheless, to deny the validity of systematic thought is to deny logic itself. On balance, to be "conservative" is to retain that which centuries of custom have handed down while renouncing any immediate change in the prevailing state of affairs, and this necessarily empowers the existing statist polity.

This is all leftist drivel and evolutionist bottle this like perrier water for the masses . . . FR starved too ! ! !

I'm sick of it . . . 7 // 24 // 365 ! ! !

[f.Christian]

This pretty nuch says it all!

Kirk did not ultimately reject statism in all its forms, as none of the conservatives do.

Conservativism was founded on limited govt . . . unlimited freedom // prosperity (( anti-statism ))!

Typical liberal spin // lies . . . 'evolution' - - - PROGRESSIVE // engineers // STATIST (( elites )) ! ! !

[f.Christian]

In essence, Kirk's views are an advocacy of retaining the current order in spite of its inherent corruptness.

In essence, Kirk's views are an advocacy of retaining the current order (( constitutional republic )) in spite of its 'inherent corruptness' . . .

.. .. .. for the liberal utopia - - - nanny (( uncorrupted // PC )) state the liberals would like to herd // EVOLVE us SHEOPLES into ! ! !

[f.Christian]

No wonder . . .

The Laissez Faire Electronic Times // anarchist left wing clap trap ! ! !

ping the evos!

[f.Christian]

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

[f.Christian]

KEYWORDS: ANARCHIST; BGONECJ N CURRY; FLASHING BARF ALERT; LEFT IS A RAG; LEFTISTGARBAGE; LIBERTARIANSPEW; Click to Add Keyword

---

[YCTHouston]

"it is those that are armed with a multitude of ideas about the advancement of the human condition that are the harbingers of a society advanced along the wheels of the human mind. It is radical thought and the building-up of a cohesive, intellectual movement"

The author is tragically uninformed on her subject. Russell Kirk was the godfather of the "cohesive, intellectual movement" that brought conservatism to the forefront of public debate during and after the Cold War, and long before this lightweight and way-late call to arms.

If she is going to snidely imply that Kirk was somehow anti-intellectual, she needs to read more than "The Politics of Prudence," which, by the way, was written primarily for the young and beginners in conservatism. Try "The Conservative Mind," for starters, if you're going to comment on Kirk's perspective. You might also consider George Nash's "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America" to understand Kirk's significance in building the movement the author is calling for - a little late IMHO.

Had the author read more of Kirk, she wouldn't have had to fictionalize his beliefs.

An "educated mindset" is not a "vice?" Uh...Russell Kirk was a leading intellectual who had his masters and doctorate before most of us were born. As for being at the "forefront," Kirk was a regular columnist for decades, as well as a professor, a frequent public lecturer and debater, to say nothing of his numerous and wide-ranging books.

Regarding ideology, even a high school civics student knows that ideology is not simply "systematic thinking," synonymous to logic itself. In the language of logic, the author's argument here is known as reductio ad absurdam, and is both the tool and trap of the intellectually lazy.

To point out the author's other numerous errors, contradictions and fictions would take too much time and space; suffice to say libertarianism is not the same thing as conservatism - which debate is already a dead horse on these boards.

This is not to say that Kirk is above question or criticism, merely that this particular author should take smaller bites.

[f.Christian]

ANARCHIST; BGONECJ N CURRY; DARWIN; EVOLUTION; FLASHING BARF ALERT; GLOBALISM RW DUPES; LEFT IS A RAG; LEFTISTGARBAGE; LIBERALISM; LIBERTARIANSPEW; NWO; SLEEPERS; TECHNOCRACY; TECHNOCRATS; THIRD WAY;

[KC Burke]

Alas, if it was only anarchist leftists saying this.

The author is writing about a particular chapter in The Politics of Prudence and how the author believes it conflicts with ideological libertarianism along with all other ideology. And he is correct that it does, indeed, condemn it when carried to its ideological extremes.

Four years ago, the very first thread I posted was about that very chapter. You can read much of Kirk's actual wording from the chapter by going back to that thread: The Errors of Ideology

Now my general agreement with Kirk's take on Ideology as "a simple, hidden, saving truth" the is actually a lie doesn't seperate me from those libertarians that hold that label as a general collection of principles, but it does point out the dangers of a certain brand of pure ideological libertarianism that is a false hope in my opinion.

Our political systems shouldn't "immanetize the symbols of transcendance" as Voegelin would say.

[KC Burke]

old ground being re-plowed

[f.Christian]

old ground being re-planted . . . 'evergreens' - - - liberals // evolution ! ! !