Burke Not Buckley
The case for community-centric conservatism
By CARL T. BOGUS • April 9, 2013
Conservatives are engaged in deep introspection these days. As they reconsider their direction, they would do well to look back to the formative period of their movement. They may find something there of great value—something many conservatives think their movement embraced, but in truth rejected.
By 1952, liberal candidates had not only captured the last five Democratic presidential nominations but the past five Republican nominations as well. Most observers considered conservatism dead—a philosophy unsuited for modern times. A small number of intellectuals disagreed. They believed that—if redefined—conservatism might be resuscitated. But they passionately disagreed about how it should be redefined.
One group wanted to follow the teachings of the great 18th-century English statesman Edmund Burke. Russell Kirk was the most prominent of this group. In 1953, Kirk—a young assistant professor of history at Michigan State—turned his doctoral dissertation into a book. “Burke’s is the true school of conservative principle,” Kirk argued, and he described Burke’s philosophy so appealingly that Kirk’s book, The Conservative Mind, became wildly successful. Other Burkeans included Clinton Rossiter, a political scientist at Cornell; Robert Nisbet, a sociologist at Berkeley; and Peter Viereck, an historian at Mount Holyoke College. These men, though academics, were gifted writers, and each produced a popular book advocating the Burkean way. ...
Will conservative Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Salvadorans, Cubans, South Koreans, Dominicans, Guatemalans choose Burke or Buckley?
These being are our top ten incoming populations. As important as the questions of what is conservatism and which direction should it take may be, it all becomes something of a surreal parlor game without recognizing that Western civilization is quickly sinking and that Westerners are being rapidly replaced, which means the sinking at some point becomes irreversible.
Not that I don't admire the learning on display and the many fine points made. Maybe someday Chinese, Japanese or perhaps Arab scholars can unearth such debates and puzzle over them. I can imagine one scholar looking at another with furrowed brow: "Kirk? Captain?"
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
Google Images
Posts
