Finally!

With this, I bring down the curtain on the series dedicated to the sagacious writings of Russell Kirk, in general, and his ten principles of conservatism, specifically. I apologize, once again, for the circuitous and stuttering fashion with which this supremely important dissertation was presented but, sadly, with the affliction of "senile-onset attention-deficit disorder" (the great crippler of aging minds), one’s writings tend to go where one’s thoughts might currently be. While I get distracted at regular intervals, I do pride myself in eventually getting back to the matter at hand. And, with this, I bring the matter to its fitting, if tardy, closure.

It would seem to me that we should end this review of Dr. Kirk’s admonitions for the national conscience with his tenth and final observation. It is presented, thusly:

"Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old." [Emphasis mine]

Paleoliberalists has long been branded by their radical liberal nee socialist detractors as being "stuck in the past", "afraid of change" and anachronisms. As these righteous levelers scurry about, seeking their Holy Grail of what Kirk calls a "Terrestrial Paradise", they have scoffed at the foot-dragging they perceive on the part of those who would say "Whoa!" For when Leviathan’s chariots are flying to the shores of Acheron, helmed by academics, elitist gliterrati and the followers of Marx, it becomes a heresy to suggest that the speed and the destination just might call for periodic course adjustments. And, sadly, that onerous but necessary burden falls on the paleoliberal. For, while the changelings who seek the new, the different, the "innovative" (often under the pseudo-authoritarian, quasi-omniscient cloak of "scientific discovery"), it is the paleoliberal who know that when one begins to prune the branches of society, one never knows just how near the taproot one might be cutting.

Change is not anathema to the philosophy of the paleoliberal. This is contrary to the endless propaganda of those currently in possession of the reins of government and their adoring public, snouts firmly immersed in the government’s trough,. As Kirk observes (and Burke before him clearly noted), a civilization that does not change is dead upon the vine. What we few, we happy few, do object to is change for the sake of change.

Change is essential to the body social, the paleoliberal reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body. Otherwise, unrestrained change produces not health but a monstrous growth - a cancer - which devours its host. The paleoliberal takes care that nothing in a society should ever be entirely old, and that nothing should ever be radically new. This is the means for the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires (and can tolerate), and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

It should be obvious that certain aspects of a civilization require change (renewal, if you will) by different schedules. Just as the cells of the gastrointestinal tract are replaced every 3-4 days and red blood cells have a half-life of 120 days, institutions of a stable government must find a rhythm and a natural timing for which to renovate, advance and withdraw their purview. All the cells of the intestines do not, simultaneously, die in 3 days to be immediately replaced by all new cells; it is a gradual process. In government, some institutions periodically require expansion of services (e.g. defense in war time, social services in recessions, et cetera). Similarly, contraction of services are regularly required when their need is reduced and they have outlived their purpose. Another biological example: when the human body is infected by certain pathogens, the lymph nodes will expand to meet the needs of the organism; when the crisis has passed, they shrink back down to their natural size, so as to not continue to usurp the resources of the body.

Such should be the pattern of government. That which is prudent to establish in a given situation may be blatantly inappropriate - even harmful - in other times. That wonderful innovation which might have served a society to great benefit at some point in history might, after a time, hold it back, suffocate it or, in brief, be lethal at another. But man and, particularly, collectives of men (of which governments are the most odious examples) are loathe to disassemble that which was, for a time, advantageous. Even when clear evidence exists that the institution has outlived its usefulness (I offer the TVA and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as examples) and has even become a drain on prosperity, the innovators resist jettisoning the superfluous. Always in search of their next invention for the uplift of mankind, the masterminds seldom look behind to see what might no longer be necessary. These moss-covered, rusting monuments of past ingenuity are, thus, allowed to stand as testaments to the "wisdom" of man. And, alas, the Leviathan grows.

John Stuart Mill wrote in his "On Liberty" that: "Even progress, which ought to superadd, for the most part only substitutes one partial and incomplete truth for another; improvement consisting chiefly in this, that the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces. Such being the partial character of prevailing opinions, even when resting on a true foundation; every opinion which embodies somewhat of the portion of truth which the common opinion omits, ought to be considered precious, with whatever amount of error and confusion that truth may be blended."

Mills cogently observes that what is old, has truth in it, a priori. Change should be implemented by adding a brick or two to existing foundation for, though that upon which is built may only be a partial truth, "old things" have a palpable worth as part of the societal mores. In simplest terms, one does not reinvent the wheel; one makes the wheel better through prudent, stepwise and measured change. Some bricks in the ancient foundation, found faulty or having lost their usefulness, should be extracted; new bricks should be "superadded" to the established, familiar institutions as "new truths" as needs arise. It is always much easier to build upon the old than to lay new foundations for novel purposes, untested by time and good sense.

Thus, let it be declared that the true paleoliberal resists change only when it is proposed for the sake of cause celebre, in and of itself. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost in the contrary philosophy. For what is new gains no worth simply because of its "newness" or novelty. How many times does the Law of Unintended Effects need to be proven before government learns of its ubiquitous reach? How many times will Leviathan fashion the new for no other reason than to bedazzle the mob only to find that its shiny creation has produced deep fissures in the bedrock of our society?

The paleoliberal believes there is much in the wisdom of the species and the prevailing triumvirate of Burke’s "prejudices(1), prescription and presumptions (2)". He believed, as the modern paleoliberal believes, that there is little to be discovered of the nature of man nor in the science of government. Prudent change can renew the body politic but only when undertaken with care, trepidation and caution. Great leaps forward should not be sought or hoped for as the mind of man can invent little that the wisdom of the species has not already considered and cast aside.

In contemporary America, when government has usurped the power of the self-correcting "invisible hand" of capitalism and has begun to work its own man-made mischief, it would be wise for all to mark the results. Ancient institutions of finance, free enterprise and self-interest quake at the prospects. And the sinister specter of socialism asks: "What think ye of me?"

For when Leviathan steps from its Fortress on the Potomac and walks among the mob, we are all in peril.

____________________

(1) In the sense of Burke’s definition and as far from current usage as possible. Burke observed that prejudice originates in past, collective experiences and contains "the wisdom of the ages". Burke wrote of prejudices: "the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them".

(2) And Burke’s twin pillars, prescription and presumption: "which he took to be the basis of all government and authority—the prescription of ancient laws and authorities, and the presumption that what exists probably should exist.