Burke, Kirk, and a murk

Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation.

Thus wrote Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind, 60 years ago, while reflecting on a passage from Burke, written more than 200 years ago: "We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation."

The contradictions here are powerful and abundant. A student of conservatism, Kirk in his private life was radically opposed to change, yet he celebrated others' embrace of--by comparison--immense changes in legislative temperament for the sake of societal peace, which is an endearingly aristocratic frame of mind.

Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was the father of modern conservatism, which lies in radical distinction from contemporary conservatism, which is a peasants' revolt ignited by aristocratic forces of destruction that give not one damn about societal harmony. 

Yet this adherent of the theoretical left (and I mean that in all its double meaning) can still celebrate both Kirk and Burke with no compunctions of contradiction; I can do so out of a love of ideas, out of respect for thoughtfulness, and out of an enduring confidence that Kirk's Burkeanism shall someday resurrect, which will once again provide the left with that most necessary component of any robust philosophical design: an intellectually worthy opposition. 

So, with all that gobbledygook in mind, it was with some peace of mind this morning that I read Politico's "GOP governor 'all in' on ACA," which reports on Nevada's Brian Sandoval as "the only Republican governor whose state is both running its own health insurance exchange this year and expanding its Medicaid program under the health law," because, in the governor's words, though he "opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception," it is nonetheless "the law of the land"--and that's that.

It is, of course, still unclear as to whether Sandoval's adherence to modern--not contemporary--conservatism will work out favorably for him. But the governor demonstrates that there is yet life left in the old philosophy--and my enduring prediction, as well as confidence, is that ultimately the greater mass of contemporary conservatism will acknowledge its destructive flight from the modern variety, and come home.  

 

Comments

[Peter G]

It begs a question. How and what does one conserve in a mutable universe. We are moving rapidly into what some call a post industrial society but I think would be more accurately characterized as an advanced industrial society. Fewer and fewer people are required to produce goods and the cycle of production has become fragmented. Design and engineering are seldom collocated with production and even that process has become much much more efficient. In my life I have watched factories triple production while cutting workforce. I now see a lead machinist programming CNC machines loaded by unskilled labor. I no longer see engineering offices filled with draftsmen.

This is not the first time this has happened. The automation of agriculture allowed very few people to produce enormous quantities of food. And we are not done. The whole retail sector is now being changed as online trade steadily erodes the need for bricks and mortar establishments. Amazon pushes continuously to shorten delivery times while UPS touts their ability to satisfy consumers and their ability to return unsatisfactory goods painlessly. It is of a piece.

The problem is obvious. What will all these now redundant people do to earn their living. What passes for conservatitism these days says do nothing. There is nothing inherently conservative about this at all. There is no ideological underpinning to this position at all.