Between Kirk and the Cult: Intellectual Conservatism's Decline in the Age of Populism

Rational Purview ^ | Apr 23, 2025 | Croaky Caiman

[New Perspective]

I could immediately tell the type of nauseating stench this article was going to expel simply based upon the play of words by the author of the article. So talentless that they result to spoonerism.

[ModelBreaker]

“This was never supposed to be the story of conservatism: a movement once defined by statesmen and scholars, . . .”

I used to be an intellectual conservative. But sine the second Bush term, I have moved steadily away from bow ties and hoary doctrines that never have and never will command a majority of Americans and will never hold power.

I’m pissed that the bow ties cared more about the purity of their doctrine than actually getting the power to eradicate the left from America and redo our relations with the rest of the world.

We aren’t in a world where the Constitution means much. The ruling class has ignored it (except where it can benefit them) and converted America into a pure power play. Bow ties think power is yucky. But that’s really all that’s left.

[ChessExpert]

Well said.

[rlmorel]

Self Interest and selfishness are not the same thing, which I see from your post that you understand.

It is a key Leftist attack vector against us (that Conservatives are “selfish”) because Conservatives value the individual rather than the collective. Because they successfully tag us in the public eye with the smear of being selfish, that is usually accompanied by the additional characterization that we are “greedy”.

It is a false smear, not supported by data (with metrics such as the amount of money given to charity by Conservatives vs. Leftists which contradict that) but that doesn’t make any difference to them since the truth isn’t important, but the smear is.

The point I was trying to make (probably rather clumsily) is that “Self Interest” is more aligned with the innate human condition than “altruism”, especially “imposed” altruism which as I said, is not altruism at all, but tyranny.

Self interest as embodied in the profit motive (distinct from “selfishness”) which when harnessed, can be quite powerful indeed. For example, I read an excellent book “Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II” by Arthur Herman that explained this dynamic quite well.

In the lead up to WWII, we recognized that war was coming and our armed forces were not prepared materially to fight and defeat the axis, and our govenrnment began to calculate what was needed to win.

It was apparent that even the most minimalist forecasts of war materials production that we would have to produce to even think we might win were largely unachievable. This was compounded by the prevailing attitudes of the Left at the time (particularly in the Roosevelt Administration) that demonized anyone producing armaments as “war profiteers”. It was considered and unsavory pursuit of money at best, and a criminal enterprise at worst.

So, the Roosevelt Administration had people like the execrable Harold Ickes Sr. (father of the equally despicable Harold Ickes Jr. that served under Bill Clinton) who was a chief critic of the “Profit Motive”.

Fortunately, Roosevelt had hired Bill Knudsen, Henry Ford’s right hand man for production (when Ford made the breakthrough in industrial production with the modern assembly line process) and who later worked at GM, and Knudsen bypassed Roosevelt’s Cabinet and appealed directly to Roosevelt to unleash the profit motive for arms manufacturers, which Roosevelt reluctantly did, and allowed arms manufacturers to make large profits off the production of war materials.

The numbers were staggering, the jobs needed and created were enormous, and it was literally a rising tide that floated all boats including the “boats” of winning of the war and supplying our allies with material that DID win.

It did these things because of the profit motive (which traces its direct lineage to the individual (self interest) at both the corporate and blue collar level) is engaged so that everyone pulls in the same direction and the results were clear to see.

Leftism purports to harness “altruism”, but that concept is foreign to innate human nature. People can be and are altruistic, but altruism is in a constant struggle with self interest, and this is best exemplified by someone who only has enough money to buy food for themselves. Rarely will people use their own money that will ensure their own survival (and by extension, the survival of those they love and care for) to spend that money on someone they don’t know. It does rarely happen, but it is not a consistent force in human nature, while self interest is.

[cgbg]

“Republicans immediately accept the new frame and then struggle inside the frame”

Excellent post.

This applies to politics and many other areas of life.

If you escape “establishment” language and smears you find it is an amazing world out there with wonders you have never seen before....

Never accept somebody else’s frame.

Make up your own frame and live by it.

[TBP]

popilism is not really the MAGA movement. It's a n America first ,ovement.

Oh? How so?

[Robert DeLong]

Because a populit movement doesn't spring up just because they like what they hear as the times become rougher & rougher

By all rights, Trump should have never been elected.

But the people took a chance, because neither of the two parties were delivering for the people. In fact, buth parties kept making it harder & harder for the people. So they took a chance with Trump.

He basically delivered what he had campaigned on.

He won reelection, but the teo partied conspired against him to steal his reelection bud

After 4 years of Biden, the people realized they were duped, anf more people once again turned to Trump and returned back yto the Wjite House again.

The Democrats & RINOs tried to steal that election, and even went so far as to try to assassinatie him to prevent him from retaking the presidency.

He hasn't had a populist party, and many such as yourself are still fighting tooth & nail aginst him.

There is not such thing as a populist party, only leaders who gain populist support from the citizens. But that is not populism, that is a fight to retake control of this nation.

Perhaps if you stopped allwoing other people think for you, you might start thinking for yourself, and realize that there is no populist party. Just leaders who are able to build a following.

That's how so, since you asked.

[TBP]

And there woul dbe no conservative movement today without the likes of Kirk, Buckley, and a few others.

[cgbg]

True—but just as in science we needed to move beyond Isaac Newton and his apple it is time to move on...

[TBP]

You don’t win elections just to win lections, then blindly follow the leader wherever he chooses to go, like listless vessels. That’s what the Washington cartel does.

You win elections not for power but for the power to do something. To do what? The principles that Kirk, Buckley, and others laid out are still the north star of what we’re trying to do.

[cgbg]

There are so many issues today that were not foreseen and understood by Kirk and Buckley.

The browning of America with the related collapse of the cities as well as illegal immigration are just one constellation of examples.

They also lived in a time where Communism was easily understood and everyone was clear on what needed to be done.

Now we have major Muslim powers and a Chinese nationalism that are more complex—and are not likely to collapse like the old Soviet Union.

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are nominally our allies but act like enemies in a long list of ways.

The left has completed a successful march through the institutions and perverts and crazy leftists are now in charge of most large organizations.

Then—just today the “conservative” Supreme Court “conserved” the leftist victory of gay marriage.

I could go on and on...but the landscape is very different these days.

Our enemies are coming at us from all sides—and they are in our face. If we don’t fight them off none of the other issues raised by Kirk and Buckley are not even on the table for discussion.

It is like worrying about meeting building codes while your house is on fire.

[TBP]

You’re completely missingthe point. Your posts are silly.

It’s about principles. And yes, Buckly, Kirk, Meyer, and the rest of the crowd did see those issues. We’ve been talking about them for decades.

[cgbg]

I think my building code example is dead on point.

Building codes are good and help to prevent home fires.

They are necessary.

Many very smart people created them with good reasons.

But—when the house is burning down that means the code failed to save you—and you have a different and urgent problem.

[FoxInSocks]

Russell Kirk would certainly make sense. Should have entered him into the running.

Capt. Kirk from Star Trek. :-)

[FoxInSocks]

I think you’re right. He didn’t occur to me. Thanks!