BRADFORD

In this happy season, our hearts lifted by the experience of vindication after long exile from the seats of power, it is quite possible that some American conservatives might, in their fresh enthusiasm for the political figures connected with this November 1980 achievement, forget their larger debt to the intellectual champions who, during the past thirty years, laid a groundwork for such triumphs and, we can assume, will continue to refresh our spirits, invigorate our will, and inform our reason when (as they must) dark times come again.

It is very difficult for American conservatives to overestimate the debt which they owe to Russell Kirk. And most particularly conservatives of the traditionalist variety, who, though they appreciate the advantages of a free-market economy, are not primarily linked to the rest of their confrères on the Right by the fragile calculus of enlightened self-interest or the crude simplicities of Jeremy Bentham and his kind. Thanks to the New Right, we are hearing a lot of talk about “social” conservatism and the role of the churches in the recent election. The gentleman from California made a point, from the beginning of his campaign in the primaries, of enlisting under his banners a host of Americans not ordinarily comfortable with merely economic Republicanism. The preconditions for this migration had been established in the last four presidential elections. To understand the events of the past months and those earlier campaigns, and the kind of majority assembled behind President-elect Ronald Reagan, it is necessary for us to consult not only Adam Smith but also Edmund Burke, not just Milton Friedman but also Russell Kirk.

Featured Tags

Manage following

National Review

Russell Kirk

In this happy season, our hearts lifted by the experience of vindication after long exile from the seats of power, it is quite possible that some American conservatives might, in their fresh enthusiasm for the political figures connected with this November 1980 achievement, forget their larger debt to the intellectual champions who, during the past thirty years, laid a groundwork for such triumphs and, we can assume, will continue to refresh our spirits, invigorate our will, and inform our reason when (as they must) dark times come again.

It is very difficult for American conservatives to overestimate the debt which they owe to Russell Kirk. And most particularly conservatives of the traditionalist variety, who, though they appreciate the advantages of a free-market economy, are not primarily linked to the rest of their confrères on the Right by the fragile calculus of enlightened self-interest or the crude simplicities of Jeremy Bentham and his kind. Thanks to the New Right, we are hearing a lot of talk about “social” conservatism and the role of the churches in the recent election. The gentleman from California made a point, from the beginning of his campaign in the primaries, of enlisting under his banners a host of Americans not ordinarily comfortable with merely economic Republicanism. The preconditions for this migration had been established in the last four presidential elections. To understand the events of the past months and those earlier campaigns, and the kind of majority assembled behind President-elect Ronald Reagan, it is necessary for us to consult not only Adam Smith but also Edmund Burke, not just Milton Friedman but also Russell Kirk.