A Case for Conservatism (Paperback)

~ John Kekes (Author)
Key Phrases: Enlightenment Faith

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

In his recent book Against Liberalism, philosopher John Kekes argued that liberalism as a political system is doomed to failure by its internal inconsistencies. In this companion volume, he makes a powerful case for conservatism as the best alternative. His is the first systematic description and defense of the basic assumptions underlying conservative thought.

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Cornell University Press (March 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801485525
• ISBN-13: 978-0801485527
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #743,691 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Pluralistic Conservatism? An Oxymoron?, May 8, 2006

By	D. S. Heersink "D. Stephen Heersink" (San Francisco) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Kekes' A Case for Conservatism is an intelligent, articulate, and architectonic case for a certain type of conservatism. My primary criticism is with its structure, which, for a philosopher, does not begin with first principles and from them derive others. My other criticism is the hyper-avoidance to concreteness. Kekes goes out of his way to avoid any examples so not to mar his otherwise thoroughly theoretical basis for conservatism. Argument by analogy and example are entirely appropriate, but Kekes's theoretical purity would not indulge us.

Here's his case in barest form: Politics is primarily the ordering of social structures along moral lines. Conservatism's morality is derived entirely from human nature, a nature which is instantiated by empiricism only. Rationalism, Darwinism, Fideism, Absolutism, Relativism, etc. are certainly human features, but they do not of themselves constitute a "political" Human Nature. Politically, only human good and evil constitute Human Nature; and, conservative politics is concerned only with this aspect of human nature. Conservatism denies "external" causes provoke human evil, and repudiates the modern error ("Enlightenment faith") that humans are inherently good, only tis society, economics, breeding, etc. that corrupt. A conservative government's role is to maximize the approximations toward "a good life," and do everything to limit human evil.

To accomplish this goal, conservatism takes History, Tradition, and Conventions as its standards. Nothing else. For example, while the Bible may inform people's social consciousness, which then informs its social morality, it is always derivative. The Bible itself, for example, could never be a conservative's moral standard. No single person, book, or thing every could or should be. While morals so conceived are generally relative, some claims are universal to all societies: proscriptions against murder, genocide, torture, cannibalism, and the like. These primary universal morals require specific legislation, and while occasional instances of exception occur, they cannot be normative. In this sense, morality can be objective.

Enter Robert Nozick, the "libertarian" political philosopher from Harvard (deceased). "A conservative presumption in favor of institutions, traditions, and biases that have existed for a long time is extremely implausible on its face, unless it is severely restricted. Slavery existed for a long time, and so has -- these continue -- the subordination of women in society, racial intolerance, child abuse, incest, warfare, and the Scilian Mafia" ("Nature of Rationality," 130). Actually, Nozick's objections are extremely tame. After all, chieftans, monarchy, tyrany, polygamy, whitchcraft, harems, stoning to death rebellious males (Deut. 21:18ff) are much older and "cherished" traditions and institutions than Kekes gives credit. In the scope of History, fairness, impartiality, equality under the law, due process, etc. are mere "blips" on the radar and should be abandoned post haste. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of freedom" are therefore not only entirely anti-conservative, they are repugnant by conservative standards.

Other secondary social and individual morals should be more tentative, more reliant on personal determination, less demanding on external imposition, and always subject to adjustment. Certainly, laws, customs, conventions, etc., should reflect a society's secondary values, but they should do so with a pluralistic vision, a pessimism about their ability to dictate everything, skepticism in what these customs, conventions, and traditions can accomplish, but being based on inherited traditions that have worked, being sure to discard those that no longer do.

Two subsidiary issues. (1) "Autonomy," the liberals' mantra, may be important to some people, but it is never a separate or sole criterion for anyone or everyone. While important, perhaps, it never trumps everything else. (2) "Justice" is, at best, an approximation of an ideal, because (a) concepts of justice change, and (b) fairness, which underlines justice, is just not an truly obtainable goal. The ideal is still to be used, but recognize its limits.

And, thus, this is theoretical conservatism. Not everyone will agree with this thin outline, and I'm unsure it accomplishes very much in this form. What struck me as pleasantly odd is the ubiquity of "pluralism" throughout. But this is Kekes's theory of conservatism. Much less communitarian than Roger Scruton's, much more libertarian than Pat Robertson's. Not much to fill in between.

While ultimately disappointing on a number of levels, the candid assessment of human nature in moral and political terms, the exposure of liberalism's error (the "Enlightenment Faith"), and Kekes's constant appeal to "pluralism" makes his theoretical treatise more satisfying than the absence of concrete examples would suggest. Sadly, nothing like Kekes's conservatism seems to exist even in approximation, and having been hijacked by theocrats with little reverberations, means his "sell" did not succeed.

Of course, Kekes's thesis and conservatism's appeal to "tradition and inherited institutions" invites Robert Nozick's brilliant rejoinder: Bring on slavery, autocracy, despotism, subordination of women, racism, mass illiteracy, etc., and all the other genuine traditions and inherited institutions that America's founding intended to overcome! Is Nozick suggesting conservatism is unAmerican? If not, Stephen Holmes quite certainly is! (See, "Anatomy of Illiberalism.") As a "liberal" with "conservative" tendencies, not much in this work makes sense in either tradition. (Oops! American principles don't even register on Kekes' Historical radar, unless "slavery" counts; no question about it, slavery, etc., is a long, historical, institutional Tradition that justifies conservatism, while the Founders' revolutionary ideas must be suppressed.) In this light, my "conservative" tendencies just flew out the window.