Are you aware of the famous article he wrote, titled "Why I am not a conservative"?In an absolute sense? No. But there is a lot of common ground.
I don’t disagree with your last sentence. As I thought I mentioned elsewhere, government intervention to control collusive pricing, monopolistic behavior and other abuses is necessary. But even with free markets faults, Kirk believed it was way ahead of centrally planned markets.
Sorta. He focused on the notion that conservatism does not offer an ideology to provide an alternative to socialism. My response is that by its nature, conservatism would produce an alternative. Hayek was a European where ideology is more important.
Exactly. Why I asked for yours.I won’t deny my definition of conservatism is what I think it is. But it’s not my invention. Your dictionary definitions are about a nickel deep and are what one might find in a primary civics book. In other words, they are not deeply thought out.
In theory, I see a lot of value to what Kirk describes in his 10 principles. Practically speaking, I think there are a lot of challenges to even remotely spreading his state of mind throughout the Commonwealth.
1. The conservative mindset goes far over the head of most today’s citizens whose 15-second attention spans can’t even whiff a single principle let alone assimilate all into a mindset.
2. The “order of the commonwealth” gets short shrift in the political class. The “order of the soul” is generally replaced by lack of “restraints upon human passions.” In short, there is little of what he refers to as moral order amongst today’s conservatives (obviously ignoring liberals).
3. The “maladjustments and evils” today are so numerous and prevalent as to overwhelm the fragile timespan required to foster gradual sensible change. A scientific solution is needed to reverse the downward spiral of the citizenry.
4. The widespread drugging (medicinal and illicit) of our citizenry compounds #3.
For the visual learners
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Translated…For the visual learners
Nil: the socialist way
Will: the conservative way
Willy-nilly: the liberal way
For the visual learners
I’m not sure CoH will admit there is a difference between a classical liberal and a conservative because he mixes and matches them to get his own definition. Which is my point. “Conservative” has a definition, even if it is fuzzy at the edges. The dictionary ones posted here are consistent with Kirk’s version, yet CoH says they are superficial while also citing Kirk as his main influence.
“Conservative” has a definition, even if it is fuzzy at the edges. The dictionary ones posted here are consistent with Kirk’s version, yet CoH says they are superficial while also citing Kirk as his main influence.I’m seeing the contemporary definitions of conservative as matching the current economic and political mindsets and behavior of “conservatives.”
By contrast, I see CoH/Kirk’s concept of conservative as an idealized state of mind perhaps existing in the minds of an esoteric few but not actually existing in actual political or economic discourse.
Which leads me to this: Id even say, the modern capitalist economy cannot exist in the absence of a firm conservative foundation.
Our modern capitalist economy clearly does exist such as it is, but what evidence is there that a firm “conservative” foundation under your definition exists to any degree?
I’m very comfortable with classical liberalism. Here is how the Koch bros. described a classically liberal economic structure:
“That last part has caught the attention of the left’s scouring eye. For unlike many billionaires, the Koch brothers espouse classical liberal economics: They advocate lower taxes, less government spending, fewer regulations, and limited government. “Society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom,” Charles wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Judging by the results of the 2010 elections, there are millions of Americans who agree with him.”
im good with this.
My idea that conservatism is the absence of all ideology comes mostly from Kirk. I think he is on to something when he describes a conservative as one who negates ideology. This describes what Burke and Locke were thinking.
I don’t think there is any question that the U.S. economy rests on our political system, which is decidedly classical conservative. Obama even recognized this, but he didn’t understand its workings, with his “you didn’t build that” nonsense.
@co-hoosier Clearly you view it that way. Could you elaborate on a few important foundational pillars you see actually existing?
Because what I’m seeing is a severe lack of Kirk’s moral order, for example, both individual and “commonwealth.”
The principle of prudence has long since been thrown out the window by conservative politicians, and replaced with massive spending on all sorts of things that they prioritize
My idea that conservatism is the absence of all ideology comes mostly from Kirk. I think he is on to something when he describes a conservative as one who negates ideology.
Sounds to me like conservatism is whatever makes you feel like the smartest person in the room.
