Sep
28
Conservative Intellectualism
Filed Under American Politics, Conservatism
No, not an oxy-moron.
As I’ve said before, I’m interested in the narrative of American conservative history, and one of the key features of that history, is the intellectual search for the meaning of conservatism. The likes of William Buckley, Whittaker Chambers, Russel Kirk, Irving Kristol and Milton Friedman along with many others attempted to develop an understanding of conservatism that often defied a traditional Burkean conception. The many threaded and often divergent philosophies eventually coalesced into a pragmatic if sometimes fractious fusion that forms what is generally considered conservatism today.
What worries me, is that this intellectual tradition has dried up. Conservatism is now being defined by how to put policies into place at the expense of continuing to explore what it means. And whilst I’m a strong believer in conservative populism, that still requires a living guiding philosophy, not just a dead canon of thought.
And so this piece by Charles Murray, lamenting the passing of three of conservatism’s intellectual greats struck a chord with me:
I have been brooding about the cumulative void. First we lost Milton Friedman, who died in November 2006, then William F. Buckley, Jr., in February 2008, and then on September 18, Irving Kristol. The respective giants of the libertarian, conservative, and neoconservative Right, all gone within three years.
…
The comparisons with the voices of the Right today are unavoidable (The Left’s no better, but they’re not for me to worry about). There are many exceptions in print and some on radio and television. But who got on the cover of Time magazine the same week as Irving died? Glenn Beck, sticking his tongue out. He and others like him comprise far too much of the public face of the Right today—crudely sarcastic when they are not being angry, mean-spirited, and often embarrassingly ignorant. The antithesis of Friedman, Buckley, and Kristol.
I expect to be told that I’m too squeamish. We’re in a battle for America’s soul at a pivotal moment. But the very truth of that statement—we are indeed in a battle for America’s soul—makes it a good idea to stop and think about when the American Right was truly influential. It didn’t start after right-wing talk shows got big. It started in the 1960s, as Friedman, Buckley, and Kristol were hitting their stride. It flowered in the 1970s, then reached its apogee in the 1980s when their ideas were given political force by Ronald Reagan—another man of civility, good humor, and optimism. Don’t tell me that we have to put up with the Glenn Becks of the world to be successful. Within living memory, the Right was successful.
Whilst I agree with Murray on the timeline of conservative success, I do disagree with him on one point. Conservatism does need the shock and awe value of the rabble rousers; intellectuals aren’t likely to be rousing any rabbles, but it needs to be tempered by an understanding of the nature of conservatism. Resentment at progressive change, blanket obedience to pre-determined dogma and cliched observance of ritualistic America does not cut it. We need to be sold on why conservatism is the right path, and for that, we need a conservative intellectual renaissance that can be filtered through the pundits and politicians to the people.
Comments
2 Responses to “Conservative Intellectualism”
Leave a Reply
Marxism went on after Karl was dead. Anyway, we have a…philosophy? a golfbag of principles? Certainly NOT an ideology, like those other people. It’d be nice to see a politician, rather than a broadcaster picked for audience appeal, who could articulate those principles (and stick to them?). But when you espouse an individualist, rather than a collective approach, getting movement going is like herding cats.
[...] referred to Charles Murray’s original comments back in September in this post. I concluded: Whilst I agree with Murray on the timeline of conservative success, I do disagree [...]