Refuting the Canons of Conservatism, Part I
July 14, 2009 1:22 PM Subscribe
Refuting the Canons of Conservatism, Part I
Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and What Liberals Can Learn from Kirk's Six Canons of Conservatism. A philosophical series focused on critiquing the core of conservative philosophy.
I am not a licensed philosopher (IANAP?), but I'd been thinking about political books in my local bookstore and how a lot of the books aimed at conservatives are aimed at dismantling "liberalism" as a whole, while books aimed at liberals are focused on attacking this or that conservative policy, but don't really try to attack conservative philosophy all at once. Anyhow, this series is my attempt to critique traditionalist conservatism as a whole, using Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind as a starting point. I'd appreciate any feedback on how to make my arguments more watertight and also more accessible to the general reader.
Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and What Liberals Can Learn from Kirk's Six Canons of Conservatism. A philosophical series focused on critiquing the core of conservative philosophy.
I am not a licensed philosopher (IANAP?), but I'd been thinking about political books in my local bookstore and how a lot of the books aimed at conservatives are aimed at dismantling "liberalism" as a whole, while books aimed at liberals are focused on attacking this or that conservative policy, but don't really try to attack conservative philosophy all at once. Anyhow, this series is my attempt to critique traditionalist conservatism as a whole, using Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind as a starting point. I'd appreciate any feedback on how to make my arguments more watertight and also more accessible to the general reader.
Conservatism is more frightening and scary than I thought, and that's saying a LOAD.
posted by kldickson at 12:20 PM on July 15, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kldickson at 12:20 PM on July 15, 2009 [1 favorite]
I gotta say that I think you kind of missed the point. The books that attack "Liberals!" in general do so via emotional arguments, painting "Liberals" as the frightening Other. They're fear-mongering and willfully blind. The whole point is to avoid any kind of serious, thoughtful dissection of beliefs. The analogues on the liberal side of things would be those Bush dartboards or the collections of stupid misquotes from His Shrubness. That sort of thing, y'know?
I mean, go to, by all means, but what you've got here is another of the careful piecemeal arguments and not an answer to the blowhards. (Well, at least not something that would have a similar effect.)
I will say that the first couple of entries read a lot like, "He said THIS, but I say THAT." That is, you have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the author of the Canon. Presuming you are liberal in your politics, I have to say that is unsurprising. However, you don't really "prove" them wrong. You just disagree with them (eloquently and clearly, of course.)
posted by Scattercat at 12:31 AM on July 16, 2009
I mean, go to, by all means, but what you've got here is another of the careful piecemeal arguments and not an answer to the blowhards. (Well, at least not something that would have a similar effect.)
I will say that the first couple of entries read a lot like, "He said THIS, but I say THAT." That is, you have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the author of the Canon. Presuming you are liberal in your politics, I have to say that is unsurprising. However, you don't really "prove" them wrong. You just disagree with them (eloquently and clearly, of course.)
posted by Scattercat at 12:31 AM on July 16, 2009
The last post is especially useful and starts to build a common language from which liberals can argue. Nicely thought out.
posted by Miko at 8:16 PM on July 21, 2009
posted by Miko at 8:16 PM on July 21, 2009
« Older How a Girl From the 'Burbs Became a Drug Kingpin... | Awkward Authors... Newer »
posted by HumuloneRanger at 3:57 PM on July 14, 2009