Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Pragmatism of Russell Kirk Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_pragmatism_of_russell_kirk#3632 Post contents: "I am less pessimistic than some that there is an American conservative tradition upon which to call." On rereading, that is confusing. What I mean is that I believe America does have a conservative tradition upon which to call. The reason I brought up the Catholic issue is because, in my experience, many of the "America has no conservative tradition" folks are Catholics who think that America was corrupted/inherently liberal because of our Protestantism. So as they try to create a conservative tradition, they artificially want to impose a Catholicism on it that is not really organic. See my point? I certainly run into more Catholics who claim we lack a true conservative heritage than royalist who are still sore about the revolution. Despite the many strains and the liberalization of the Mainline denominations, I do think America has a primarily Protestant ethos, for better or for worse (and it is some of both). Samuel Huntington would agree, and I believe Dr. Gottfried agrees as well. I think that has something to do with our embrace of capitalism, our veneration of "success," and the Protestant work ethic, among other things. I think that mainstream liberals (Trilling comes to mind), neocons, and some grumpy paleos all believe that America is inherently liberal. Ironically, it is other paleos, (many of them of the Southern variety), certain religious right types, and radical liberals (America was founded on the backs of blah, blah, blah ...) who think America was conservative. Clearly there were liberal elements and a lot of liberal rhetoric, but the average man on the street and the actual society on the ground was not liberal. As Mark Henrie said when describing paleos/traditional conservative, it was a liberal conservatism. Someone make the case that it was not. I have some thoughts on Kirk and pragmatism that I will post later. Sent at: 2008 09 06