Posted on 02/22/2016 3:43:51 PM PST by Kaslin
Russell Kirk was a great American thinker of the last century - and giant of conservative thought. He was a student of the Founding Fathers, but also of their fathers, and of their mentors' mentors. He knew Edmund Burke's philosophy cold, and history's big lessons all the way back to Plato. Kirk hated "ruinous taxation," like Lecky, who wrote "Democracy and Liberty." Kirk hated "corrupt Washington," as Henry James, who wrote "Democracy." Kirk loved individual liberty and was a scholar of our Constitution's roots, including its "natural law" origins. Kirk was effectively the Father, or wise man, of modern conservatism.
So, what would this Father of modern conservatism - and a man who feared for America's future already in the 1950s - say about our current presidential primary race? He would celebrate our public concern, suspicions of power, and voting participation. But he would also shake his head at our impetuous behavior. He would worry aloud for us, as a society and as individuals. And he would warn us to stop and think.
This sage would ask us, before we cast our vote: 'Are you thinking hard about what you are doing, not just feeling the satisfaction of slashing at what is despised? Are you thinking about who can work within our complex constitutional system, to thoughtfully change what we do not like? Are you thinking about who personifies prudence - not the mad dash to a seemingly simple answer? Are you a real conservative, drawing your convictions from faith and duty, patience and history? Or are you just another French Revolutionary, willing to take the boat over the falls, destroying what we all value in the process? In short, are you thinking about who may lead wisely, not just with passion?'
If only this paragon of conservatism was alive today! Would he prefer indignant, irreverent, proudly outspoken and unapologetic Trump, or a patient, practiced, constitutionally-guided, but principled mover-and-shaker like Cruz? Would he prefer Rubio's fast-moving, ambitious, speed-skating - that rocket rise to power by someone young in nature? If we are true to our history, true to those who fought for it, true to the Founders and those who made today possible, what should we do?
To say what Kirk would advise right now is impossible. But there are hints. Actually, the billions of former Americans - and yes, there are now billions - who lived before us, left us hints. They were sometimes outspoken, more often kept their own counsel, did not opine on things they knew little about, were generally more quiet and judicious. They knew how to speak well, but also how to listen. They might have been entertained - if briefly - by Trump's style, but not for long. They preferred the workhorse to the show horse. They might have asked merriment of Cruz, but they would have appreciated his style, preparation and tempered personality. They were also young, like Rubio and Cruz, when they lived, when they wrote, when the fought, and often when they died.
What else do we know? The great American conservative thinkers of our past were respectful of THEIR past, and of the sacrifices made for them. They did generally NOT fling baseless insults. They were NOT generally arrogant. They did NOT pretend life's complexities, or fixing government's failures, was usually simple, quick or easy. They were NOT imprudent. Instead, they had the courage to speak, courage to listen, and embodied responsibility - that is, prudent thinking.
So, back to Kirk. If Kirk were our guide, what would he say today? Maybe these words - his own words - give us the best hint: "Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence ... Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues." Why? Because national security, national survival, the economy and respect for each other all depend on good judgment, prudence.
What other hints did Kirk leave? He said: Keep your eyes on "long run consequences" and not just "temporary advantage or popularity." Why? Because "liberals and radicals ... are imprudent." You will know their nature because "they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away." Interesting point, cautionary.
To this, he added: "Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be effective." So, maybe we need more strategy and depth, complexity and thinking, not so many simple promises. Maybe we should wonder about a feel-good pledge of walls built and paid for by others, indefinite bans on people from away, the odd contradiction of support and opposition to groups and causes. Perhaps we need to stop and ask what lies behind the words. What is the meaning of these words? If unclear, maybe we should dare to doubt.
The great American conservative ended a section of one relevant book this way: "The conservative ... acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences...Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery... The march of providence is slow; it is the devil who always hurries." And so, from our past, we get a guide to our future. We are warned to be prudent, unhurried, look for depth and mastery of complex, constitutional and inherently unsettled events. Beware the glad-hander with simple answers to hard questions. Walk a wide circle around those who pledge easy ways to get up a steep hill, or who slap your back and berate others, always boasting.
It's time for American Conservative voters - indeed for all Americans - to stop laughing, slapping backs, and start thinking - hard now. We must navigate these treacherous times, around these treacherous falls, not go over them. That might be Kirk's counsel to us, and the word of caution from all who brought us painfully, slowly, prudently here. The pumped-fist of populism is never prudence. Sometimes an American leader must have mastery of the Constitution, of the Congress and Supreme Court, of the complex - in order to succeed. I leave it to the reader to assess who that candidate this year may be - but in all events, think about it. The stakes are high. From some distant and ethereal ridge, around some far and unfathomable bend, our ancestors may yet be watching. It is all on us now.
A conservative should not stay home in protest if it means that a lib such as Clinton or Sanders wins.
Vote pro Constitution and anti invader. Anything else is just personal preference.
If the so-called conservatives had not stayed home in the general elections of 2008 and 2012 that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania would have never been elected or reelected
How a conservative should vote:
1. Study RINOubio’s voting record.
2. Don’t do that.
How is Trump any different from Sanders?
How is Rubio any different from Hillary?
A conservative should vote for the most conservative person with a chance of winning who also has the best chance of successfully implementing conservative policies.
These are the reasons why:
If you vote for someone who can’t win, you achieved nothing.
If you vote for someone who can win, but wont be able to (for whatever reason) be able to successfully implement conservative policies, you achieved nothing.
Shouldn’t a Conservative vote for a Conservative?
I live in colorado, my primary vote means jack and squat....
We would also have amnesty, and the 2013 gun control bill would today be law.
At this point the real question is:
How should an AMERICAN vote?
Long gone are the days that ideological differences matter, our country is going down the toilet, led by the Uni-party.
I want someone that will put AMERICA first.
There, fixed it.
Yes Trump is campaigning as a populist yahoo, but Cruz is no "workhorse" and his pro-H1B/TPP/TPA views would leave Kirk unimpressed.
Kirk might vote his conscience in the primaries, even if that meant a write-in vote. He then would most likely go on to vote for whomever the Republicans put forth.
He might hope that no candidate would have sufficient votes at the convention, and a consensus candidate would be put forth preferable to both Trump and Cruz.
Who knows.
Now that Bush is out I can almost see voting for any of the five remaining candidates. Yes even Kasich or Rubio. However pathetic, they are much better than Mittens, McLame, or Dole.
At least they occasionally pretend to be conservative.
If elected, they might on occasion accidentally govern that way.
or a patient, practiced, constitutionally-guided, but principled mover-and-shaker like Cruz?
I mean... I don’t understand the complete lack of reality in gushing overtures like this. Ted Cruz has been mealy-mouthed on a couple of important votes about issues that matter a lot, and on the eve of a caucus he’s had to issue another apology for spreading false information.
I get liking him the most, but all I ever see in these pleas to vote for Ted are a bunch of lofty praise that goes above and beyond reality in ways that are just too over-the-top.
Not if he cannot will the general election
I will vote for
Fix immigration
Fix the economy
Fix the military
Not just spend money on it
Are you still posting this crap from your Mother's basement?
Trump supports border security, trade, and defeating Islamists. That's 720 degrees away from Sanders.
How? Pencil, lever, whatever it takes.
Hillary/Sanders are more liberal than Trump (and I am no Trump fan), and MUCH more liberal than Rubio or Kasich.
Don’t kid yourself - that’s exactly as liberals see it, which is why they will vote for Clinton/Sanders over any Republican.
If I can promise to vote for Trump, you can promise to vote for Rubio/Kasich.
All of us will like the outcome better than any Dem, unless, of course, you’ve liked the past 7 years, which I have not.
If Trump is elected he will have unchecked executive power. Hillary would have a cloud over her and congress would more likely to oppose her. Not so with Trump, he would be able to implement his big-government initiatives with little resistance. This makes Trump much more dangerous.
If the Dems win this one... the next presidential election will be packed with 40 million additional new Democrat voting citizens. The country has reached the point where all the marbles are now on the line. Even if we win this one... 20 trillion chickens are out there waiting to come home to roost. We are now looking over the precipice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.