Did Russell Kirk Just Have His Day In The Conservative Party Via Trump? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

He did support Buchanan in '92 and voted socialist in '44. 

How interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Typically interesting intellectual post.

Isn't Trump the antithesis of that whole Buckley tree?

 

[rockaction]

Typically interesting intellectual post.

Isn't Trump the antithesis of that whole Buckley tree?

Thanks, bud. Yeah, Trump is the antithesis of the whole Buckley tree. But what makes this so interesting are so many things: 

1) They were (Kirk and Buckley) both Catholic/libertarian, and their world views were so similar, yet so different. Buckley was so worldly, yet not, and Kirk was really worldly, yet acted remarkably provincial.  

2) Kirk represents a part of a Luddite revival on the right that goes back to...driving cars.

3) Kirk was heavily influenced and maybe edited a book called Ideas Have Consequences, which would sum up the modern Midwest conservative movement in a nutshell

4) Kirk was from Michigan, and probably had the Midwest conservative movement dialed

5) Kirk was an admirer of Edmund Burke, much like our current president claims to be (Obama loves Burke, much to the chagrin of the more progressive fans of his...)

There's a ton more, but everything I read of Kirk -- and I'm lacking in Kirk philosophy, which is why I posted -- seems to point to the rise of Trump as not Hitler, but as a conservative . And that's all I can I say. I ignored my Kirk in my twenties. 

Damn me.  

 

[rockaction]

There's so much about the free movement of capital that conservatives haven't explored yet, but that makes sense to vox populi. 

You know what I mean? 

It-it-it-it-it's like there's a federalist system that allows for states to experiment, but they but up against the federal government is so many coercive ways that the rise of the Reform Party was inevitable in a way. 

And...and that's all Trump is. He's a Reform Party candidate from the '90s. He's a relic before being ahead of his time, if that makes any sense.  

 

[rockaction]

And clearly Kirk and Buckley are and were never on the same page, at least if you're not counting editorially.    

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thanks, bud. Yeah, Trump is the antithesis of the whole Buckley tree. But what makes this so interesting are so many things: 

1) They were (Kirk and Buckley) both Catholic/libertarian, and their world views were so similar, yet so different. Buckley was so worldly, yet not, and Kirk was really worldly, yet acted remarkably provincial.  

2) Kirk represents a part of a Luddite revival on the right that goes back to...driving cars.

3) Kirk was heavily influenced and maybe edited a book called Ideas Have Consequences, which would sum up the modern Midwest conservative movement in a nutshell

4) Kirk was from Michigan, and probably had the Midwest conservative movement dialed

5) Kirk was an admirer of Edmund Burke, much like our current president claims to be (Obama loves Burke, much to the chagrin of the more progressive fans of his...)

There's a ton more, but everything I read of Kirk -- and I'm lacking in Kirk philosophy, which is why I posted -- seems to point to the rise of Trump as not Hitler, but as a conservative . And that's all I can I say. I ignored my Kirk in my twenties. 

Damn me.  

First of all you may be posting above the bell curve of the FFA here but we'll see. It's educational for me for sure.

I did not know that about Obama & Burke. Love Obama the idealist, I think maybe he's governed more like Woodrow Wilson though.

I still don't see how Trump becomes transmogrified into a conservative, though you may be thinking of a Classic conservative. To tell you the truth I'd say Trump is almost like a Hobbesian fiction come to life. But we don't know what he is yet - fish, foul, marsupial or leviathan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's so much about the free movement of capital that conservatives haven't explored yet, but that makes sense to vox populi. 

You know what I mean? 

It-it-it-it-it's like there's a federalist system that allows for states to experiment, but they but up against the federal government is so many coercive ways that the rise of the Reform Party was inevitable in a way. 

And...and that's all Trump is. He's a Reform Party candidate from the '90s. He's a relic before being ahead of his time, if that makes any sense.  

I cop to being unfamiliar with Kirk but reading that wiki page I like him. I have old line natural law roots. And I could see how you're right if you're saying Buckley is a different tree.

But personally I think Trump is a different orchard altogether.

 

[rockaction]

SID, I think you're right, but limited to this. 

1) Picture Buckley on a scooter, driving through NY sans helmet, writing pieces about his ocean boats and Overdrive. Picture Kirk against all moving vehicles -- because they hurt people and move. 

2) Now picture Trump sweeping the Midwest on a campaign filled with evangelicals, against free trade, and speaking to the vox populi (again with the vox populi). But he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, are you kidding?????????

3) Kirk supporting the infancy of the Reform Party movement in Perot and Buchanan, whose coattails Trump rode in on. 

There's just a reason Trump swept long-standing ideas within conservatism. It's not that I support it -- it's that the side I was on -- within conservatives -- lost for the moment. 

Buckley will have his day. Trump will be not an embarrassment, but not great.

And we'll move on.

This is not going to be fascism. It'll be reactionary, but in its own way.  

God Bless Our Republic, frankly, with or without our current President.   

 

[rockaction]

 I have old line natural law roots.

I feel the same way.  

 

[McGarnicle]

I like puppies 

 

[rockaction]

I like puppies 

You're really quite as smart and astute as us (and there is no doubt on my end of that), you just have a different temperament. 

That's all. 

Happy Holidays, my friend.  

 

[bostonfred]

You're really quite as smart and astute as us (and there is no doubt on my end of that), you just have a different temperament. 

That's all. 

Happy Holidays, my friend.  

Wow

 

[rockaction]

Wow

Yeah, considering you've really insulted me in the past, I'm not going to take that well...

Uh, McGarnigle is a ####### genius, and I'm just giving him holiday props. How's that? 

Is that okay with you? 

Can I say..."Hey man, maybe you insulted me, but I love you?"

Okay?  

I think you're brilliant, too. How's that, bro?  

I just do.  

 

[rockaction]

JESUS BACK TO CAPS I WOULDN'T BE HERE IF I DIDN'T THINK THE PEOPLE HERE WERE BOTH BRILLIANT AND COOL AND THAT INCLUDES MXCGARNICLE AND BOSTONFRED AND ALL THOSE WHO THINK I DON'T LIKE THEM BUT I REALLY DO...

'NUFF SAID?  

 

[rockaction]

TRUMP!  

 

[McGarnicle]

Genius is a bit much. I'm well below the top tier around here -- Tim is obviously the smartest, then you've got Saints, you, Baloney Sandwich, and NCCommish, then I'm right there imo. But nowadays I'd gladly be blissfully ignorant.

 

[Dedfin]

Thanks, rockaction for your posts.  I have nothing to add since I know jacksquat about this, but

Why did you change your old-new avatar back to your new-old avatar?

 

[rockaction]

Thanks, rockaction for your posts.  I have nothing to add since I know jacksquat about this, but

Why did you change your old-new avatar back to your new-old avatar?

Thanks, man. I appreciate the compliment. 

I just changed back because it was time. I wanted to poke squistion a bit (holy crikey), cstu is not coming back, and though Sylvie looks great kissing the pigeon, the pigeon thing is over unless there's a real welcher around.  

Plus, it's Trump-aligned a bit on the board, and God knows I'm not a Trumpnik. I do, however, have respect for our new President.  I won't even call President Obama simply Obama. The office is too important and too tough to attain to not merit some sort of respect. 

And I'll get off my high pigeon now and come back to earth.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rock I don't think I've got the Kirk  part down yet, but one of these days the conservatives in this forum are going to have to have a convo about Trump.

Because as far as I can tell they're no longer conservative, or never were, and Trump is somewhere hovering around to the left of Sanders and just south of Andropov on several subjects.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Loved him in "Escape From New York"

 

[rockaction]

Rock I don't think I've got the Kirk  part down yet, but one of these days the conservatives in this forum are going to have to have a convo about Trump.

Because as far as I can tell they're no longer conservative, or never were, and Trump is somewhere hovering around to the left of Sanders and just south of Andropov on several subjects.

I'm up for it. Give me a year.

eta* And after SID's like. I've tried. Nobody wanted to take me on, really.  

 

[rockaction]

First, I would read and memorize this if we're to have a modern conservative movement at all. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223549/our-mission-statement-william-f-buckley-jr

 

[rockaction]

The Sharon Statement, as drafted and helped by Kirk's wife, two years before the Port Huron statement: 

Written by M. Stanton Evans with the assistance of Annette Kirk, wife of Russell Kirk, and adopted on September 11, 1960, the statement is named for the location of the inaugural meeting of Young Americans for Freedom, held at William F. Buckley, Jr.’s home in Sharon, Connecticut.

In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

We, as young conservatives, believe:

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the genius of the Constitution – the division of powers – is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?