preview

The Foundations Of Modern Conservatism

Decent Essays

The foundations of modern conservatism have always been nebulous. It is less a defined set of principles than a reactionary disdain for change and bleary-eyed nostalgia for some imaginary pastoral paradise one might find in a Nicolas Poussin painting. Its spongy basis and hazy boundaries are conservatism’s strength. It lets conservatives co-opt and abandon virtually any issue at will
When Ronald Reagan was in office, he enjoyed the title of “The Great Communicator.” It was a title he earned, and conservatives embraced his oratorical skills as a valuable asset. By the time Bill Clinton brought his own superior communication skills to the office of the President, conservatives attacked him for being too “touchy-feely.” The good became the bad, with no reference to coherence.
If conservatism can be said to have guiding principles, Russell Kirk has probably constructed the most plausible list of them. I won’t rehash what he has already done, but I will draw your attention specifically to the fifth and six entries on his list. His fifth principle, which he dubs “the principle of variety,” holds that:
“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.”
Mind you, Kirk isn’t making a descriptive statement here about how thing actually are, but rather making a prescriptive statement about how things should be. Even dressed up in its Sunday Best, what he advocates

Get Access