"The individual is foolish but the species is wise."

- Edmund Burke, Correspondence

In an earlier discourse, I wrote ever so briefly, on the core tenets of what comprises my "Conservatism". I recounted that, in point of fact, what is (in contemporary parlance) called "conservatism" actually has deeper roots that tap into the wisdom on Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayak and Russell Kirk. They were philosophers (of which I am surely not one) who believed themselves "liberals" in the sense Burke meant when he praised "a liberal understanding" - that of truly free men, aware of their rights and their corresponding duties. Conservatism is a label used willy-nilly in modern times to cast a shadow on the true light of this ancient school of thought.

I am a conservative but only in the classical - shall we call it "paleoliberal"? - sense. As such, I enjoy no attachments to the reigning political parties. The Democratic Party has, for over a century, been an anathema to my beliefs; the Republican Party has become totally untethered and rudderless. The latter causes me no small disquietude as, in the fog of the past, the Republicans once came closest to, at least, espousing (if not completely implementing) what I have come to understand as political truisms. This superficial kinship has long passed, the door closed and welded shut by the last Presidency, and I find myself emancipated from allegiances to either of the two goliaths that stalk the American electorate. So be it.

My "paleoliberalism" - conservatism, if you must - lives on and, in fact, flourishes. My camp fires are lit, though the tents are empty. In my most imaginative thoughts, I see Valley Forge. A cold, frost-bitten, underfed and unsupplied few, holding out against an overwhelming force. Yet final victory remains in their grasp. As I shiver in my tent, I hold out the most ardent hope that, someday, a Washington will come. And with him, renewed vigor and sense of purpose. Until that time, I will be content to send despatches to any who might intercept them. And murmur to myself, alone: "Someday. Someday!"

To whit: This discourse on the specifics of my paleoliberalism nee conservatism. As Newton might have said, "If I see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants". As I struggle to put words to my personal foundation, my ballast, my grounding, I borrow from the genius of conservative thought, the late Russell Kirk. I do so with a reverence and a solemnity that one imagines the Democrats recite Marx, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton but, I, with more sincerity and rectitude. For Kirk gives us a steely philosophy forged in the fires of antiquity; Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton give us pablum steeped in demagoguery and progressivism. Kirk speaks of the wisdom of the race; the others babble about the pie-in-the-sky plans of mere man.

Robert Kennedy, another favorite of the left, said (paraphrasing): "Some see what is and wonder why. I see what is and wonder, why not?" I, in stark and vivid contrast, see the world through clearer, more pragmatic lenses. I am convinced that what is exists for a reason and that reason is simple enough. Man is Homo sapiens: brutal, cruel and self-interested. He is never to be completely tamed nor perfected above his flaws. He is one step removed from the woods, the jungle and the savagery of the wild. To hope for better is mere hubris.

In these treatises, I will refer, principally, to Kirk’s The Politics of Prudence , a bible for the wandering, unbowed paleoliberal. As for format, I will proceed in several parts, each listing one or more of the ten founding principles of conservatism (my "paleoliberalism"), as posited by Dr. Kirk. These are wise words for they come not just from the brilliant mind of Kirk but are, in truth, a distillation of 2500 years of human wisdom. Along our journey, I will be annotating personal observations when the spirit moves me. I do not claim to ascend, miraculously, to the level of Kirk and those ancients who breathed life into his words, as my wisdom is not up to the task. But, perhaps, where wisdom falters, passion may suffice.

1. "It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be."

What more need one say? Do you, assuming you are conscious, aware citizen, not see the yawning abyss of Kirk’s warnings in today’s world? Our modern society is terminally infected with the hedonistic, "me-too" virus of carpe diem. We are "morally adrift", to be sure. Allow me to confess, early on, that I am not a "good" Christian, Unlike Kirk (and many before him), I do not house my morality within the House of the Divine Mandate. I do not fear the threat of awaiting fire and brimstone for my acts on this earth. In fact (and it pains me to confess even this superficial kinship), like most of the left, I must concede that I am a bit of an agnostic. As such, I do not feel man must rely solely on a "higher power" for guidance in moral matters. The moral compass of man does not, by necessity, depend on a deity to point it to a true reckoning.

I do believe in an "enduring moral order". I believe that, based on whatever authority you might wish (The Ten Commandments, the Koran, Buddha or whatever), man has an "inner light" - a moral sense - to guide him. Much like David Hume , I hold that man has an innate sense of morality - i.e. "right" and "wrong". [One can argue from whence it came until one is blue in the face but, for our purposes, the precise epistemology is moot.] It may be diminished in some who strike out against their fellow citizens and murder, steal, rob and rape their brothers and sisters but, for all but the truly insane, the moral light remains. Just as we can overcome the savagery and self-interested parts of our nature to form civil society and create beauty in art and music, we can also suppress (and, temporarily, extinguish) what makes us social animals at our core. We are in such a time now and, consequently, our society has begun to decay from within.

I seek not a religious revival for religion has, over the millennia, worked much maleficence among mankind. I crave, instead, a time to look within and ask that most thorny of questions: "What am I?" There is a bell curve, in my mind’s eye, that might graphically depict our possible replies. At one end, your answer is that you are a beast of the wild and seek only personal pleasure and self-gratification, whatever the cost to others. At the other, is the rational, evolved man who seeks comfort but not opulence and is willing to work an honest day’s labor to achieve it. I fear the curve is shifting, and rapidly so, toward to the left - to that of the self-interested primal man and away from those who want to preserve our innate morality and, with it, a flourishing society.

"Democracy", as Winston Churchill might have said (and Aristotle would have agreed), "is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". And he was right. Democracy can be just as evil, suppressive, stifling to the imagination, suffocating for individual rights and fail like every other system of government that has been imagined when the people in that system are morally vacuous. Given a citizenry that is "morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites", a President of such a democracy can do more harm than a absolute monarch or a dictator. When the people have no bearings - no anchorage - no sense of brotherhood, purpose or a "strong sense of honor and justice", neither does the larger whole, that is: society, government or a civilization.

It is not the form of the government that makes it effective; it is the underlying sense of what is acceptable and "right" in the hearts of the people and the imposition of their will, vigorously and unceasingly, on their rulers. Which is to say, to see that their sensitivities are mandated by those in power - whatever form that system of rule may be - to make a "good" government. When "we, the People" cease to be vigilant of government, mischief is afoot. For man is corrupted by power and democracy (as do all governments) grant power to the few. Glorious though it may have began, republics can (and do), ultimately, fall from apathy.

When the citizens are bored, sated, distracted, fearful or (dare I suggest it?) irremediably ignorant, even government by angels can fail.