Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
50 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Moral Absolutism and Natural Aristocracy, January 4, 2004
You don't have to be a Conservative to like this book. I found it very useful in understanding the basic worldview from which a Conservative might operate; and from that, one can make good assumptions as to how Conservatives view Liberals. Kirk's thinking is profound, his reading extensive, and his arguments well-written. The major points I took away from this discussion are:1) The Conservative assumes that the design of the world is not by accident, but by transcendental purpose. Metaphysical, permanent standards of Right and Wrong exist: moral standards are not relative. Similarly, the structure of society is not arbitrary. We should not attempt to alter society using science or social engineering, because we are strictly human, and our understanding is limited. Change, when it happens, should be modulated in such a way as to limit its effects on society. 2) A "natural aristocracy" exists in any society. It consists of the best and brightest individuals, and perhaps those born with reserves of wealth. No legislation or voter majority can eliminate it. John Adams defines a member of the natural aristocracy (in a Democracy) as anyone who has the power to influence at least one vote other than his own. 3) Individuals are born with certain Natural Rights, consisting primarily of property rights. Government should always act to protect property rights, especially in a Democracy, where the poorest elements of society may employ their voting power to redistribute the possessions of the wealthy few. A Democracy that gives unmitigated power to the people quickly deteriorates into the worst kind of tyranny. 4) Instincts and prejudices frequently have meaning: the individual may be foolsh, but the species is wise. The thinking of a few bright persons should not take precedence over tradition. Most of this comes out of Edmund Burke. The Natural Aristocracy theory is primarily from John Adams. The dozens of other conservative thinkers that Kirk discusses tend to modify or enhance the thinking of Burke and Adams. De Tocqueville, for example, sounds the alarm over the potential "Tyranny of Democracy", but that seems to follow from Burke's thinking on natural rights. I had a few exceptions with some minor points. Kirk argues, for one, that the American Revolution was somehow a "conservative revolution"; but I think you could make a more convincing case that it was in fact an Enlightenment-Liberal revolution. Also, he has a tendency to lump all of the different Liberals and Leftists together into a single agglomeration of "Benthamites" (after the British utilitarian/socialist philosopher Jeremy Bentham). On the whole, however, I can recommend this one to any reader interested in understanding how people think politically.
|
|
|
69 of 77 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Conservative Pantheon, September 19, 2002
The book is a sort of intellectual history, each chapter summarizing the thought of one to three conservative thinkers, more or less chronologically beginning with Edmund Burke and running through poets of the mid twentieth century (T.S. Eliot and Robert Frost, among others). The thinkers discussed include intellectuals, clergymen, politicians and poets, all thinking, working and writing in the Anglo-American sphere (most are in fact British or American, but the exceptions -- Tocqueville and Santayana -- wrote in America or for American audiences). A good working knowledge of British and American history from the French Revolution through World War II is therefore a helpful prerequisite to understanding many of these thinkers.The summaries are interesting and informative as description. Many of them (the chapters on Burke and John Adams, for instance, or the section on John Henry Newman) make great introductions to figures whose work can't be read in comprehensive political treatises and many provide intriguing introductions to writers you have probably never heard of (Sir James Fitzjames Stephen) or to the thought of people whom you don't know as political thinkers (say, John Randolph or Arthur Balfour). Among the wealth of description, a little prescription creeps in. Kirk's heroes don't "argue" -- they "know," they "perceive," they "realize," they "understand." Kirk is highly sympathetic with the ideas he summarizes, and it is no coincidence that his final chapter, on twentieth century poets, is called "Conservatives' Promise" and contains some of the most hopeful writing in the book. "If men of affairs can rise to the summons of the poets," he writes, "the norms of culture and politics may endure despite the follies of the time." He ends upbeat, with a call to action of sorts. Not to be missed is Kirk's first chapter, "The Idea of Conservatism," in which he spells out the fundamental tenets which unite the belief of the writers whose work he describes, as well as their photographic negative, the tenets of radicalism. The book dovetails perfectly with George Nash's _The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American after 1945_, which, of course, begins with Kirk himself and which carries on a similar discussion (though Nash omits from his narrative the British half and focuses on intellectual figures, to the exclusion of practical politicians like, say, Goldwater).
|
|
|
35 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
This book defines the principles of conservatism., February 15, 1999
By A Customer
Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind is a catalog of the thoughts of men, both British and American, whom Kirk regarded as eminent (albeit sometimes obscure) conservatives. They range in historical sequence from Edmund Burke (1729-1797) to contemporary scholars. Although this book is not an instruction manual for conservative politicians and activists, it will provide conservatives with both a clear understanding of conservatism's basic principles and a cogent defense of those principles. One of the major insights that this book offered was the central role of religion in society: Revealed religion is the source of Western morality; law was created to enforce that morality; the state enforces the law, so the state is an instrument of religion. Another insight was the hubris of nineteenth and twentieth century reformers, who thought that they could legislate happiness and freedom, but who instead created industrial slums and domineering central governments. The overall tone of the work is pessimistic, often despairing: the repeated theme is that from an idyllic, aristocratic, agricultural society united under Christianity the world has decayed to a lonely, atomized, atheistic, cold-blooded industrial society. In the face of such decline, the conservative can only try to salvage or resurrect bits of traditional society -- manners, customs, faith in Providence, etc. Again, the book is of limited practical value: The author's aim is merely to define conservatism, which he does explicitly only in chapter one. He offers neither explicit criteria for distinguishing desirable from undesirable change, nor strategies for forestalling the latter. The book is difficult both because Kirk provides no biographical information about his subjects and because he assumes a detailed knowledge of history. The author's style is literary rather than academic. When he outlines another author's work, it's not always clear where the summary ceases and Kirk's comments begin. Despite these shortcomings, no one should call himself a conservative until he has read this book and understands the principles that he's defending.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Richard M. Weaver
by Barry Goldwater
by William F. Buckley Jr.
by Whittaker Chambers
