The Conservative Mind: A Review
If you want to read my review of The Conservative Mind please click here.
Excerpt:
Reading The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk was one big adventure for me, and for anyone interested in the conservative philosophy. Russell Kirk goes back all the way to British statesman Edmund Burke to determine what the conservative philosophy or theory exactly is, and then spends attention to other conservative in the following centuries such as John Adams (the entire Adams family and several generations of them at that), Hamilton, Disraeli, Santayana and many more. By looking at what these people thought about politics, the state, the role the government should play and humanity, Kirk tries to define conservatism and tries to explain how conservatives should approach politics and life, and of course the political problems of today. It takes some reading capacity on the side of the reader, and some background knowledge about some of history’s greatest political thinkers, but Kirk succeeds with grace in his goal to provide conservatives with some intellectual backing.
When one tries to explain to someone what American and British conservatism believes in and stands for, one cannot ignore the giant Edmund Burke. Burke was a statesman and a political thinker… without a clearly defined political theory. Instead of writing one book describing his political theory, Burke wrote several shorter essays in which he deals with a specific problem (such as the Revolution in France and America’s Revolutionary War), but by reading these individual essays, and combining the thoughts expressed by Burke in them with each other, one can understand and describe Burke’s political philosophy and build on it. What Burke’s philosophy basically boils down to is that society – or the state – is a contract or bond between the living, those yet to be born and the dead. Society – and thus the state – is, according to Burke, not an accident but a slowly grown partnership, ordained by Providence.
As Kirk summarizes (p. 33) Burke’s theory, “Every state is the creation of Providence, whether or not its religion is Christianity. Christianity is the highest of religions; but every sincere creed is a recognition of divine purpose in the universe, and all mundane order is dependent upon reverence for the religious creed which a people have inherited from their fathers.” As such, “Burke’s detestation of Hastings” redoubled. Hastings was the Governor-General who “had ridden rough-shod over native religious tradition and ceremonial in India.”
Burke’s conviction that the state is ordained by Providence led him to oppose Imperial expansion (and especially the notion that the British should bring their form of government to other peoples). If the system of a state is ordained by Providence it makes no sense to try to change it (neither by Revolution as such, nor by conquering countries and overthrowing the existing regime). If we look at the world today, we can therefore only conclude that Burkean conservatives should oppose the, for instance, Iraq War and other projects to bring Western style democracy to a part of the world not used to it, or perhaps better said, where such a form of government did not naturally grow.
There is much, much more, please head on over to Monsters and Critics to read it (and leave a comment, either there or here).
In the review I chose not to touch on the following, but I wanted to raise this point in the blogpost (before reading this part of the post, please read the entire review):
- Although Kirk explains quite well what the role of religion has historically been in society, and why it is important that religion continues to play an important role in said society, I could not help but notice that Kirk does not truly provide us with a way to actually do this. In other words, how can religion continue to be important, how can it continue to be the glue that holds society together? Besides that, isn’t it already too late in Europe at least? Europe has already been de-churched. Can it truly be reversed (the situation in America is different)?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “The Conservative Mind: A Review”
You dwell on Burke while ignoring hundreds of years of evolution in thought and religious convictions.
Most certainly Burke would be opposed to any incursion by any government because his basic premise was that man in his limited wisdom was going to “muck things up.”
Yet the world has evolved and a world whose neighbors were once “far, far” away are now at the doorstep with influencing factors just a thought away.
While Burke began the thought process of the conservative movement, his by no means is the end all, be all of the movement. In fact his is the first shot and the rest is, shall we say, History.
The idea that religion is “the glue that holds society together” is hardly so cast in stone and solid so that it can be simply assumed. Certainly all societies need a moral system, and moral systems have traditionally used a religious framework, but the idea that a moral system requires an accompanying religous one is hardly proven.
Now, we all know the way this debate goes; the religious insist that morality must be rooted in God, atheists will say that there is no proof of this whatsoever, the religious will point to Hitler and Stalin, the atheists will say that their atheism did not determine their evil and point to the crusades, the inquisition, and Iraq, for good measure. And on and on…
I will try to touch on two things that aren’t quite as familiar. First your mentioning of our beloved Europe. If religion is in fact the glue that holds society together, wouldn’t we expect to find the most secular countries falling completly apart? Certainly there are issues in all of the EU nations, but quite frankly I think we are amongst the most advanced and civilized nations in the world, if anything an example that a country can become “de-churched” as you say, and NOT fall apart.
My second commentary is in regards to your actual question of how religion can participate. I’d like to add to the question, how can religion participate in the political arena without creating a repressive atmosphere for those who hold minority religions or no religion? I think our current form of democracy is the best answer, though incomplete. I see no problem with voters voting their interests, and if their interest is religion, so be it. I personally find the fact that Americans in their majority wouldn’t vote for an atheist for president horrifically bigoted, but such is the nature of democracy, allowing the majority to rule while protecting the most basic rights of everyone, majority or not.
how can religion participate in the political arena without creating a repressive atmosphere for those who hold minority religions or no religion?
Lets get on the merry go round.
The prevailing assumption is that Religion is a whip and chain process of torturing the ill informed into believing in “our way or the highway”.
This simply is not true. Period. How many people do you talk to at the water fountain who profess to be christians who do NOT lecture you on how to behave, what to think or how to think it?
My guess is the VAST majority of Christians lead a quite, unassuming life. A life with God but without politics. However when you spend your days on a political forum discussing religion and politics and religion shows up in political discussions you then make the leap that all Christians want to dominate the world with their neo conservative approach to life when in fact this is probably a vast MINIORITY of Christians who believe this way.
Yet if you hollar loud enough and long enough then one day we all wake up and find Christianity labeled.
“EVIL”
When in fact it has been Christianity OR some form of Religion that has led every culture and every nation and every race since the beginning of time till today. The fact that Europe is turning away from religion does not alter this fact or make religion any less important. It only alters the perception that it plays in the hearts and minds of those turning away.
What is…..still is…..what is.
Quote from MvdG’s review:
Since you say things have changed for the worse, when were they better?
Adding to Lynx’s comment:
It isn’t only that atheists say there is no proof that morality, by necessity, stems form religion. They say there is ample proof that morality develops without it. It’s being increasingly seen as a
manifestation of evolution. The purpose of religion’s glue can be, and has been, achieved by other means.
Organized Religion can be most construcive in society if it’s kept separate from governmental powers. That jpolitical power corrupts the church has been shown at every step of history, up to and including today.
Any religion is at heart a philosophy, an encompassing view of life. In a democracy, like in any society, it’s dangerouns when one philosophy is given special status, higher than even the status of the governement. How well that works out and how well the government funcions then become dependent on the nature of the religion in its current interpretation. Interpretions change. Why else do we get nervous when Islamists take high government positions?
In a society of many religious views, this becomes coubly important, as Lynx touched on in her comment.
Why hello Mr. Strawman! How are you doing today?
Somebody I in fact am not making the argument that Christians (which I never mentioned BTW, I used a generic “religious”) are evil. Your logical jump was a flawed one. Allow me to explain. When religion enters into the political realm, decisions can be made that have a religious base. Allowing rules to be made that have only religious backing is tricky territory. For instance, Judaism (and for some reason Christianity) makes homosexuality an “abomination”. If you allow religious argument as the main one for the creation of rules, you can justify persecution of Gays (also independent women, also shellfish and mixed cloths). Then there is the matter of WHICH religion to choose as the one that can be used to justify different rules. If you use religion as a moral crutch, you do so in the assumption that the religion is true, but they can’t ALL be true.
This is why I said the solution is our democracy, but that it’s an imperfect solution. The Constitution guarantees certain inalienable rights to all of us, so that no matter what a certain religious text says, even if I live in a city with 99% Muslim fundamentalists, I can’t be beaten for being a woman who has a boyfriend while not being married. It’s an imperfect solution of course, because the Constitution can’t protect you against everything you don’t like. So far as I’m aware, a state could conceivably ban teaching of evolution from schools (even if not explicitly teaching creation). An atheist parent would have no way to protect their child from this lowering of standards in the majority of the people in his or her state agreed with the ban.
When did Alexander Hamilton become a founder of Conservative thinking? Seems to me he was the exact opposite.
FH, Hamilton was “conservative” in his fiscal policy proposals…i.e., no federal debt, etc., but he was also a proponent of a stronger national government role, so I guess that might be the antithesis to the label…….kinda opposite of what “federalism” has come to mean nowadays.
The idea that religion is “the glue that holds society together†is hardly so cast in stone and solid so that it can be simply assumed.
I guess you and I studied the history of two different planets. I’m not sure I have read a more Bold assertion that God and Religions are irrelevant. And yet I still tried to answer a question you posed in your post.
Why hello Mr. Strawman! How are you doing today?
how can religion participate in the political arena without creating a repressive atmosphere for those who hold minority religions or no religion?
Did you not ask this question?
Did I not attempt to answer it? Did I once assert that YOU were making this claim?
Yet if you hollar loud enough and long enough then one day we all wake up and find Christianity labeled.
“EVILâ€
This was My quote which implies a time in the future not anything you were claiming. The problem with these boards is that no one really reads anyones posts they just sorta skim over them with their own preconceived notion of what that person is going to say based upon what they might have said in the past.
I find that true of me here all the time now as I am one of a few conservatives in a sea of Liberals. It is why I have been absent from these boards so much of late.
Everyone just says the same thing over and over without ever wanting to engage in debate.
C.O.,
I don’t really agree that Hamilton believed in no Federal debt. Actually the exact opposite. One of Hamilton’s first moves was consolidate all State debt into the Federal debt.
Once he accomplished that he implemented modern, at the time, accounting principles and intentionally used debt to get the nation OUT of debt.
He certainly wasn’t considered a Conservative during his day.
Somebody, if you go back to other threads you can clearly see that I’ve engaged both Michael and C. Stanley in debates on religion, very productive ones, at least for me. I have never had any reason to think they gave my comments anything less than their full attention, and likewise I always pay close attention to what they write, as a matter of respect and because usually they have interesting and informative things to say, even if on some issues (like this one) we disagree.
I also read your comments fully, though I find that they are much richer in seeming anger and assumption than others. I am often perplexed as to how you get your answers from the comments of others. For instance, I never stated that religion is irrelevant, simply that the statement “religion is the glue that holds society together” is far from proven. Certainly religion has been very IMPORTANT, I will never deny that, but it could well be that what holds society together is the underlying moral philosophy, that has traditionally existed tied to a religion but that doesn’t need to do so, as we see in secular nations where the influence of religion is declining.
To seperate man from his religion is impossible. My premise is that man is a social animal whose very existence is due to his religion and that his religion makes him a social animal. They are intertwined and man without God is essentially a ship without a rudder.
To try to separate man from his God is vain. This is in a nutshell is the attempt being made by Europe and is picking up steam here in the United States. Remember this post was about religion falling into disrepair in Europe.
The (anger)frustration I have is that secularism is replacing religion as the new “mantra” by the left, and even the center. While I cannot deny secularism as a foundation for Americas Government this debate began about EUROPES NON SECULAR governments.
The (anger)frustration you sense from me is when I hear people making statements such as:
but it could well be that what holds society together is the underlying moral philosophy, that has traditionally existed tied to a religion but that doesn’t need to do so, as we see in secular nations where the influence of religion is declining.
That Christianity is declining in influence cannot be argued, yet accross Europe it is slowly being replaced with a new brand of religion by extremely religious Muslims. This decline of religion appears to be by nations with citizens who have nothing better to do then to sit in front of their computers and dream up new ways to be miserable.
The new enlightenment?
The incessant assault upon this “glue” is the basis for change. Yet it is the very essence of who mankind is that these people wish to change.
This also goes to my argument of Gay rights. To win the day they must change the basic foundation of who mankind is before they can then win the argument that a nation should allow and embrace gays into their fold.
My (anger)frustration goes much deeper then that. My (anger)frustration goes to the very fact that you along with others are suggesting that the moral and social fabric of mankind would have developed despite religion. Okay on an academic level I would not begrudge you this thinking yet it has now moved beyond that sphere to the concept that because proponents have convinced enough people that this view is plausible (not probable) but plausible, it is now in the stage where what is coming next is:
God/Religions should be banned to your living rooms and the church buildings. Secularism is the NEW religion for mankind AND when people such as I stand up and protest we are painted as RIGHT WING LOONS.
I cannot even agree with the starting assumption of you argument.