Thank you for this thoughtful background on conservative wisdom. Russel Kirk has fallen out of favor with many these days, so I appreciate you bringing him back into the discussion. Your prudent perspective on politics needs to be shared as today’s hate-filled choruses are taking us down dangerous paths.
Thank you, Wes! I was years into the "movement" before I heard of Kirk, and only then it was during a period of self-learning, when I decided to stop, turn around, and ask myself "why" about a great deal of things. And when I did, he made meaning of it all, rather than conservatism just being personal preferences or reactions to things. And what surprised me most about him? He had moonlighted writing ghost stories ... I wish I could get a copy of one!
Yes! I was able to meet him, and he was as calm as you would imagine. Personally, what struck me was “The Roots of the American Order.” It tied together the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman order in a way that helped me understand the foundation of Western thought.
I noticed that when you reached your last section, Moral Foundations of Conservatism and Progressivism, you substituted "liberal" for "progressive," the term you had defined and used throughout the piece. I am not sure if this was a deliberate equivocation or just using Haidt's terminology without a cautionary comment. "Neoliberal," "left-liberal," "classical liberal," "democratic liberalism," "Western liberalism," and others so crowd the field, that, perhaps, that honored term is one that should not be substituted for what we today mean by "Progressivism," the notion that society can and should be centrally planned by social engineers.
Good point, Jule! I was both -- inadvertent AND using Haidt's term (he uses "liberal" in his study rather than progressive ... so when I started writing about his study, that word clung to my own langauge). I've vacillated on which to use, to tell you the truth, and have lately settled on progressive mainly because it's what the people in that movement wish to call themselves. I believe, for the most part, in calling people what they wish to be called, unless it's totally nuts. Personally, I think the word "collectivist" fits in many ways (I used it a few times in the essay, too).
Thank you for this thoughtful background on conservative wisdom. Russel Kirk has fallen out of favor with many these days, so I appreciate you bringing him back into the discussion. Your prudent perspective on politics needs to be shared as today’s hate-filled choruses are taking us down dangerous paths.
Thank you, Wes! I was years into the "movement" before I heard of Kirk, and only then it was during a period of self-learning, when I decided to stop, turn around, and ask myself "why" about a great deal of things. And when I did, he made meaning of it all, rather than conservatism just being personal preferences or reactions to things. And what surprised me most about him? He had moonlighted writing ghost stories ... I wish I could get a copy of one!
Yes! I was able to meet him, and he was as calm as you would imagine. Personally, what struck me was “The Roots of the American Order.” It tied together the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman order in a way that helped me understand the foundation of Western thought.
I noticed that when you reached your last section, Moral Foundations of Conservatism and Progressivism, you substituted "liberal" for "progressive," the term you had defined and used throughout the piece. I am not sure if this was a deliberate equivocation or just using Haidt's terminology without a cautionary comment. "Neoliberal," "left-liberal," "classical liberal," "democratic liberalism," "Western liberalism," and others so crowd the field, that, perhaps, that honored term is one that should not be substituted for what we today mean by "Progressivism," the notion that society can and should be centrally planned by social engineers.
Good point, Jule! I was both -- inadvertent AND using Haidt's term (he uses "liberal" in his study rather than progressive ... so when I started writing about his study, that word clung to my own langauge). I've vacillated on which to use, to tell you the truth, and have lately settled on progressive mainly because it's what the people in that movement wish to call themselves. I believe, for the most part, in calling people what they wish to be called, unless it's totally nuts. Personally, I think the word "collectivist" fits in many ways (I used it a few times in the essay, too).