Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles: a Rebuttal

Russel Kirk is a learned conservative writer that wrote up an interesting essay about conservative values.  I was pointed to the essay thanks to the magazine, The American Conservative.  It's a rather good magazine, and the essay is well written and enjoyable read.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. 

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth.

A solid morality are a principle common to many philosophies.  It can be established that certain ethical choices lead to outcomes that are provably better.

A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize;

Moral order, a sense of right and wrong, and personal convictions about justice and honor will only be as good as the society that establishes them.  Moral truths must be subject to empiricism for verification.  Take for example Nazi Germany.  They had a strong, though deluded, sense of right and wrong and a sense of justice and honor.  After all, Nazism was borne of a powerful nationalism and pride of the German state.  Nazi Germany was not a good society.  Morals are only as good as the society that make them, just as promises are only as good as the people that make them.  Preempting any suggestion of comparing conservatism to Nazism, it suffices to say it is simply an easy to use example of moral absolutes being subverted for bad purposes.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.

Though it's rather catchy, (custom, convention, and continuity has a nice ring to it,) but at least one of these isn't like the other.  Indeed they are all different.  Kirk attempts draw a false equivalency between them.  Indeed it makes it ironic for Kirk to point out the abuse of the term convention here.  Conventions are far more fluid than a set of customs, are generally broader in scope, and in practice often more grounded in evidence based reasoning.  People's traditions and customs aren't really bound by restrictions on nonsense.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription.

There is a lot to learn, and much that can be applied from what our ancestors have established.  That said, we don't just learn from their prescriptions, we learn from where they were mistaken as well.  Call it, "negative prescription," or what not to do, which is just as important; if not more so.  Our predecessors might be able to provide us with significant wisdom, and it is important to acknowledge that.  However, it is because people stand on the shoulders of giants they are better informed than the generation the preceded them.  It is thanks to our improved vision that we can dismiss our ancestors "prescriptions" when we get more accurate data.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.  Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.

Checking the problems with Burke (he was opposed to the American and French revolutions after all) at the door, it is important to judge decisions and choices for the long haul.  In addition, since new information is constantly received about the progress of existing structures, it is prudent to empirically evaluate their long-term consequences and validity, irregardless of tradition.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. 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. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.

Kirk's candor must be commended here.  More conservatives should come out and say how they really feel about inequality.  Indeed, if his position wasn't more clear, it would make sense to commend his sense of humor in framing inequality as "variety."  It grates against our observations to call egalitarianism deadening when it has been demonstrated empirically to be strongly positively correlated with human progress and functioning healthy societies.  Inequality is not a "preservation of a healthy diversity."  Surely we are more creative as a species than to call that "diversity."

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

It must be difficult to reconcile, on the one hand, a desire to maintain established norms while at the same time understanding that these norms, themselves products of human nature, suffer from those grave faults.  Upholding the virtues of such norms, while acknowledging they are faulted would seem to indicate a lack of yet another conservative principle previously alluded to:  reflection.

Humans have faults.  Understanding faults exist and what they are is half the battle, the other half is actively working to fix the faults or remove or diminish their impact.  It is asinine and fatalistic assume perceived faults are irremediable.  Part of what is observed of conservative principles is the claim that human nature is unfixable, while making it part of conservative philosophy to never actually try.  What a truly insipid and empty philosophy!

Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.”

Again the truth sneaks through in pieces.  Kirk is simply reverting back to the principles used by Aristocracies to dominate their people.  The implication that people are too weak, stupid, or violent to govern themselves.  It is interesting to note that we often fear in others the faults we see in ourselves.  If this was the case, there is no point to democracy.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. 

There is no such thing as private property.  The only thing that exists is property that you claim is yours, no one else claims as theirs, and a common structure in place to enforce that distinction.  It is not private; it requires state protection to ensure you retain ownership.  In effect the reason you can own things is because society collectively establishes that you can.  Whatever you believe about how rights are derived, it requires a government to ensure that those rights have meaning in the real world.  A right is only as good as the ability to actualize it.  Without governance, you have no rights.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community.

Another contradiction, is observed here.  Collectivism by definition requires all parties to consent.  Otherwise its not collectivism it's bullying and coercion.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

Certain restraints on power and human passions are necessary for ensuring that other's passions and autonomy are not unreasonably restricted.  A state in which an individual or small group dominate the wills of one's fellows is a state of mind control.  Joking aside, and in agreement with Kirk, states which allow a single person or group to seize control rather than through democratic elections are fundamentally flawed.  He continues

When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy...

Again no disagreement here either.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other.

The fact that Kirk feels it necessary to point out that conservative philosophy is not opposed to social improvement, is remarkable.  It wouldn't have occurred to me to think that anyone would be opposed to social progress.  And considering that he has bisect such as broad a gap as that between liberals and totalitarianism, just to insert conservatism as a reasonable middle.  That would be like one inserting their views between that of a selfless doctor doing candlelight surgery and a serial killer.  Then saying they not as bad as a serial killer and claiming it as an insightful demarcation.  Oh how sad are these principles that neither challenge nor inspire!

For one not necessarily opposed to societal improvement, Kirk sure has a marked cynicism of progress that seems to characterize conservatism in general.  Where is his aforementioned principle of prescription when you need it.

Since the establishment of civilization in the Middle East,  quality of life for human beings has measurably improved.  Life expectancy has improved, death from infectious diseases has declined, and quality of life has improved for large numbers of people.  That is considering that there are vastly more humans on the planet than in ancient times.  There has been progress in the absolute sense, and to be so cynical of progress in the modern age is not conducive of our modern society of which Kirk is a beneficiary.

Kirk's essay is impressive the first read through.  Though still a good read, upon further analysis, the same contradictions repeatedly appear, and eventually it cracks at the seams.  Disappointingly, conservatism continues to be the vapid philosophy fit for cowardly tools it has always been.  The basic synopsis of conservatism as per the words contained in these principles are, "We have affection for and are weary of changes to a deeply, irreparably, and gravely flawed society of people who assume responsibility for their successes or failures despite us knowing they can't change anything."  With a political philosophy so devoid of meaning, it is no wonder they must turn to religion to fill the gap.  This happens frequently as the initial excitement of having found what is believed to be a solid conservative argument gives way to emptiness.  It's almost like conservative ideas are much like rainbows, initially eye catching and appealing, but ultimately lacking substance and simply retreating to emptiness as you approach.