A Conservative of the Old School

Living amidst the deprivations of the severe rural poverty of upstate Michigan during the Depression could have been an intellectual and spiritual misfortune. Yet, here, despite the region’s backwardness, Kirk found his spiritual home and the central focus of his work, roots community where he felt spiritually linked with his ancestors who had originally settled the area. This bleak environment, remote and harsh, permitted him to witness human nature in sharp relief. The human oddities he found there and the local legends would become grist for Kirk's literary mill.

I was Russell’s assistant and a frequent visitor to Piety Hill (as he called his residence in Mecosta, MI) from 1969 to 1980. The last time, I spent an extended period of time at his residence was during the summer of 1985. I assisted him with several books, including Eliot and His Age and The Viking Portable Conservative Reader.

While working on my master’s thesis during the summer of 1969, I slept on the second floor of Kirk’s library, an old converted toy factory. Kirk worked the graveyard shift then. At about midnight, he would begin his nocturnal tasks, sitting in his straight back chair behind a sturdy wooden table. The chair looked so uncomfortable that I was convinced that it had been deliberately designed to mortify the flesh. Gazing distractedly off into space, he would puff on his thick cigar while he collected his thoughts. Then he would pound furiously away on his antediluvian Remington electric typewriter from which words would pour out steadily until about five or six in the morning. Finished, he would look up from his typewriter to ask me, “Mr. McDonald, care to go for donuts and coffee?” If I couldn’t make it through the night and had retired early, he would go upstairs to fetch me from my cubbyhole. We would stroll down to the town bakery as the sun peaked over the horizon. At about eight in the morning, we would both turn in. Kirk would sleep for about four hours before rousing himself to begin the day’s routines.

Kirk always kept his deadlines. William F. Buckley once noted in a tribute to him that his columns for National Review unfailingly arrived on time. He did not allow even his honeymoon, according to Buckley, interrupt his work.

The last time I was a long term guest at Piety Hill was in 1980 when I was using his library to begin my work on a study of his social and political thought.

Since Kirk was often away on lecture tours, we students (there were several of us) were left largely on our own. The highlight of our day came in the morning, when we would pick up the mail at the Mecosta Post Office and bring it back to the Kirk kitchen. At the kitchen table, we would read both our personal mail and the newspapers, and engage in lively discussions about current events. Then, I would walk over to the library where I would sort out Kirk’s mail and start on my own work. If Kirk was home and had guests, we would all gather in the evening in his large dining room for the main meal.

Kirk fancied himself a gentleman farmer. He had a peculiar obsession, in my opinion, with planting saplings all over Piety Hill. His habit of randomly sticking pathetic looking twigs into the ground, with the expectation they would eventually become trees, had little to do with the art of landscaping. Rather, it was a personal reforestation project in which he was trying to undo some of the damage done by his ancestors who had logged out the area. These saplings, many of which have become lovely, majestic trees, were also his gift to posterity.

Liberty defined as the absence of limitations placed on the individual will and appetite implies that liberty and order are incompatible. Order in the soul means that a certain quality of impulses, those originating in the arbitrary or selfish will of the individual, must be disciplined with reference to the individual's ultimate spiritual purpose. The order of the commonwealth, likewise, involves a similar disciplining of the arbitrary, unchecked will of the sovereign (regardless of whether sovereignty resides in a single individual or a majority of the citizens) with reference to the basic constitutional law of the regime. But does this disciplining power entail a loss of liberty, or should it be viewed as a necessary precondition for true liberty? Without it, would liberty descend into license? Would the ensuing anarchy become so intolerable that people would eagerly embrace the grim order of the authoritarian state to escape its horrors?

Kirk made the case for order as a precondition of liberty. He argued that liberty is possible only when most citizens have disciplined their selfish and antisocial passions. A direct relationship between the range of liberty which a people can beneficially enjoy and their capacity for individual self discipline was a fundamental principle of Kirk. As Edmund Burke, one of the great founding fathers of the conservative tradition, wrote: "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitutions of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." There must exist control of will and appetite both for the individual and the government. "Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection." These passions are disciplined by social, moral, and religious restraints. The ability of the bulk of citizens to bring inner control over their passions seems to determine, as the American Humanist Irving Babbitt pointed out, "the degree to which any community is capable of political liberty." The task of the statesman, then, is to mediate between order and liberty. This task, Burke knew, can never be settled in the abstract but must be adjusted to circumstances. Liberties and restrictions, he wrote, "vary with times and circumstances, and admit of infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle." An individual is qualified for liberty in proportion to his ability to live a life of self discipline. No appeal to an abstract principle, divorced from the actual concrete circumstances of a particular situation, can be a sufficient moral basis for granting liberty. "Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty?" asked Burke. "Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights?" Rights and liberties then, contrary to the arguments of Lockean liberals, the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates of abstract individual rights, do not exist apart or against society since, as Kirk stressed, they “can only exist within a social order—that is, in community.” Therefore, when community begins to fail entirely “the most fundamental civil liberties, including the life, cannot be secured.” There are worse things than loss of liberty, as people who have lived through great political and social upheavals know well. In such circumstances, it is not unusual for a desperate people to embrace even a totalitarian master rather than endure continual fear of loss of their property and maybe their lives.

As for the issues of Israel and immigration, Kirk rarely spoke about them. Near the end of his life, in a lecture given at the Heritage Foundation, he complained that the Neoconsevatives too often seem to "mistake Tel Aviv for the capitol of the United States." (This remark provoked a furious response from Midge Decter.) The issue of immigration has become more important since Kirk's death. I believe that if he were alive today that he would be troubled the present US policy on immigration. A policy of "open borders" immigration would threaten the preservation of traditional American culture and values. If left unchecked, it would amount to a kind of alien invasion.

Kirk was an old fashioned Robert Taft Republican as is Buchanan. As such, they both opposed the notion, popular in certain neoconservative circles, that America has a moral responsiblity to fight wars for global democracy. Kirk was against the Gulf War and I think, if he were still alive, would have expressed even stronger opposition to the current Iraqi entanglement.

Continual warfare and uncheck immigration are bringing about radical changes in American culture, traditions and sense of community. Kirk, then, would have dreaded these alterations in the fabric of our society.

1.) Why did Kirk refer to himself as a "Bohemian Tory?" Considering his great admiration of Burke, why not Whig?

2.) Do you think Kirk's works lend themselves to classroom use? If so, what works in particular?

3.) What did Kirk think of Leo Strauss and his influence on American conservatism?

Thanks for the time -- I look forward to reading your book.

W. Wesley McDonald:
    1. In Burke's day, the Tories were the party of the King and the Whigs were the party of the middle classes. After the French Revolution, these parties were transformed and the Tory Party in its opposition to Jacobin ideology espoused Burkean principles. Today, the Whig party is more closely associated with the liberal tradition.

2. I would recommend Roots of American Order, which was intended to be a college textbook, and The American Cause, which ISI recently republished. The Prospects for Conservatives is a good summary of conservative principles.

3. Kirk strongly criticized Strauss's interpretation of Burke's thought and considered his teachings to be abstract and ahistorical. The Struassians stress equality and natural rights at the expense of custom, tradition and prescriptive institutions. Kirkians and Straussians are usually poles apart on most important issues.

Burke, as Hazlitt put it, "applied the habit of reflection, which he had borrowed from his metaphysical studies, but which was not competent to the discovery of any elementary truth in that department, with great facility and success, to the mixed mass of human affairs. He knew more of the political machine than a recluse philosopher; and he speculated more profoundly on its principles and general results than a mere politician."

That all sounds reasonably fair-minded. He's critical of Burke's limitations, but he admires him quite a bit. But I want to quote another passage, which goes to the point that Mr. McDonald just addressed. Burke supported the American revolution and opposed the French. And Hazlitt thought that made Burke a hypocrite at best. So here's the tough love:

"Mr Burke, the opponent of the American war, and Mr Burke, the opponent of the French Revolution, are not the same person, but opposite persons -- not opposite persons only, but deadly enemies. In the latter period, he abandoned not only all his practical conclusions, but all the principles on which they were founded. He proscribed all his former sentiments, denounced all his former friends, rejected and reviled all the maxims to which he had formerly appealed as incontestable. In the American war, he constantly spoke of the right of the people as inherent, and inalienable: after the French Revolution, he began by treating them with the chicanery of a sophist, and ended by raving at them with the fury of a maniac.....The burthen of all his speeches on the American war, was conciliation, concession, timely reform, as the only practicable or desirable alternative of rebellion: the object of all his writings on the French Revolution was, to deprecate and explode all concession and all reform, as encouraging rebellion, and as in irretrievable step to revolution and anarchy. In the one, he insulted kings personally, as among the lowest and worst of mankind; in the other, he held them up to the imagination of his readers, as scared abstractions. In the one case, he was a partisan of the people, to court popularity; in the other, to gain the favour of the Court, he became the apologist of all courtly abuses."

And with that, Hazlitt was just getting started.....Anyway, now that we've had equal time for the opinions of the extreme left wing (circa two hundred years ago), let's go back to the Q&A's still in progress.

Reactionaries opposes all change, but conservatives recognize that unyielding resistance to the pressures for change would be futile. In his social, cultural, and moral thought, the conservative instead strives to balance the competing needs for permanence and change by endeavoring "to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions" and "reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time." The standard for a statesman must be, as Burke wrote, the "disposition to preserve," combined with "an ability to improve." Whether the conservative should be an advocate of reform or an opponent of change depends on the specific circumstances. Change can either renew a society or bring about its ruination.

To preserve continuity, Burke advised a cautious approach to reform. Although change is necessary to conservation, the alteration of present institutions and customs should proceed only after careful deliberation. Change in society should occur like the growth of a great oak tree. A human observer hardly senses any change at all, but the oak does grow. Burke saw that reform carried out in a civilized spirit was absolutely necessary to the continued vitality of society: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve." On the other hand, whirlwind alteration in which the past is rudely cast aside precipitates destructive social upheavals.

It is part of the duty of the statesman to carry out alteration with caution and a veneration toward long established institutions.

A characteristic of Kirk’s brand of conservative thought then is its non-political inspiration. Of primary concern for him instead was the discovery of and apprehension of the “permanent things,” those eternal moral norms that give meaning to and enrich the quality of life. A conservatism identified with a mere laundry list of public policy issues, he believed, would not long endure. The battle for the future direction of America cannot be won by “conservative” political victories either in Congress or at the ballot box when the things of the heart and mind are neglected. Kirk also had no faith in the capacity of politics to cure the moral and spiritual ills of society. One reason that Kirk was sometimes ignored is because of the difficulty that conservatives and liberals alike have in grasping the decisive importance he assigned to culture. Because he never offered specific programs on health care, tax-cuts, foreign policy, market deregulation, crime reduction, his work appears irrelevant. For Kirk, culture precedes politics, and unless a healthy, vibrant civilized culture exists, no amount of “conservative” political victories will have long term significance.

Therefore, Kirk is rarely mentioned by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or the like because he didn't speak to issues that interest them. Also, when was the last time a traditionalist conservative was invited as a guest on Fox News? Kirk is largely incomprehensible to academics because he did not always express opinions that they would typically identify as "conservative."

Aside from his published work, Kirk’s legacy lives on through his disciples. From the early 1950s, a continuous stream of young persons found their way to Piety Hill to work with Kirk as literary interns. Most, like me, were apprenticed to him from several months to several years assisting with his research, correspondence and other library chores. Some who admired his work simply arrived unannounced at his door and were nearly always welcomed. During his tenure as the Marguerite Eyer Wilbur Foundation’s President (1979-1994), Kirk through its Fellowship Program mentored another legion of young people. The program enabled graduate students to receive university credit while working on research projects under Kirk’s direction. The network of Kirk scholars and students solidified and expanded in the 1970s and 1980s through seminars held in his old library under the auspices of The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). Kirk, the focus of these gatherings, would engage the participants in discussions about a variety of literary, historical and political topics.

Likewise, many of the minds first cultivated by Kirk at Piety Hill would become the bearers and purveyors of “the permanent things” long after he had passed from this vale. “By the Nineties, there were dispersed throughout the United States a great many people in their middle years or their careers who had read” his works “and had been moved thereby,” he wrote near the end of his days, “Of the disciples who at one time or another had beaten a pathway to Piety Hill, some had become lawyers, and some teachers, some journalists, some professors; some were in the book trade, others had been ordained, yet others obtained posts in government. They might leaven the lump of American society.”

After his death, his widow, Annette Kirk and their son-in-law, Jeffrey Nelson, founded The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (http://www.kirkcenter.org), to preserve and perpetuate the legacy of Kirk. Its headquarters is located at the Kirk residence and a branch office was established in 2003 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Students continue to travel to the remote village of Mecosta to study and learn as they did during Kirk’s lifetime. Although the books from Kirk’s original library were removed to nearby Hillsdale College, many would later be replaced. His vast correspondence and other papers are now housed in the Kirk Library where they will someday, after they have been catalogued, become available to researchers. Scholars and students still do research in the library. The Center hosts seminars, colloquia and the Residential Fellows Programs for college students, scholars or anyone with a serious interest in Kirk’s work. Also, the Center manages and edits The University Bookman, a quarterly review of books founded by Kirk in 1960, and now edited by Jeffrey Nelson.

There is evidence of Kirk’s legacy elsewhere as well. ISI continues to publish the quarterly journal, Modern Age, founded by Kirk in 1957. The Heritage Foundation, a Washington based think-tank with ties to the Republican Party, maintains a “Hall of Fame” web site in his honor where biographical information, transcripts of the major Heritage Foundation lectures he delivered between 1989 and 1993, and his “six canons of conservative thought” are posted. Kirk’s achievement will not be measured solely by his influence on transient policy issues. Rather, he will be remembered because he championed those enduring norms of social interaction without which civilized existence is rendered impossible. Without the guidance of these “permanent things,” order in the soul and commonwealth quickly evaporates. He reminds us that if conservatism is to survive in the twenty-first century as more than just a label, then conservatives must clearly rethink what it is they are trying to conserve. They cannot forget, without losing their reason for being, that sound political reform depends upon a healthy cultural environment.