The Contemptible Alan Wolfe

It should be noted here that Wolfe's original piece was far from coherent and readable. His response to his critics is a great deal clearer even if the arguments remain facile. For example, Wolfe spends nearly 800 words discussing Kirk's best-selling work of fiction, The Old House of Fear, when the book and Kirk's fiction are not part of the collection under review nor do they factor into Wolfe's critique of Kirk in any significant sense. It is just another rambling pot shot at Kirk. One has to read nearly 1300 words in before you come to a semblance of a point. This is not criticism but logorrhea.

It is also worth pointing out that Wolfe huffily claims that his critics refused to engage his arguments and instead offer a defense of his character. Perhaps they were moved to do so because Wolfe attacks Kirk at every turn including a snotty insinuation that Kirk watched pornography. In fact, when it comes to sum up his piece Wolfe savagely attacks Kirk without any substantive basis:

George W. Bush once called himself a compassionate conservative. Russell Kirk is a contemptuous conservative. Kirk is contemptuous of people, or at least those whose very existence prevents gentlemen aristocrats from sitting in front of the fire reading Aristotle while their slaves, or their wives, prepared their dinner. He is contemptuous of ideas, or of those ideas with which he disagrees, and prefers caricaturing them to arguing with them. He is contemptuous of the world in which he lived, always exaggerating the bad and having nary a word to say about the good. He is contemptuous of the truth, mangling his facts and distorting the history of the country he claims to love. His is not the conservatism of the country club; Kirk is no northeastern aristocrat determined to protect the exclusivity of his turf. His is the conservatism of George Babbitt, not Irving Babbitt: provincial, resentful, bigoted. If you collected all the grumblings in a small-town drugstore by men convinced that somehow the world had passed them by, and then added a few literary and historical references, you would have The Essential Russell Kirk.

Gee, I wonder why friends and students of Kirk reacted the way they did? Wolfe writes a hit piece dripping with contempt - there's that word again - and full of ignorance and wonders why critics didn't respond to his "arguments."

Fine, let's take up Wolfe so called arguments - not that they were coherently laid out in his original piece - as he numbered them in his response.

(1) his decision to treat only left-wing ideas as ideological is itself ideological;
This is a potentially interesting point and one that has been the subject of much debate within the various factions on the Right. Too bad Wolfe never really makes an intelligent argument. Instead he offers this:

Since ideology can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, to locate it on only one side means that reality will have to conform to a priori assertions, to dogmatic definitions.

That may or may not be true, but it is beside the point as Kirk never attempted to do such a thing. What Wolfe fails to see is that Kirk was attempting to construct a vision of a particular kind of conservatism. Kirk never argued that on some simple political spectrum everyone to the right was prudent and practical while everyone on the left was a fanatical ideologue.

Kirk was focused on leftist ideology for most of his career because that was the threat posed at the time (Socialism, Communism, etc.). And as Wolfe even admits, Kirk frequently clashed with those on the right who argued that an ideology was needed to counter the dangerous dogmas of the left. He later came to see dangerous tendencies in aspects of neo-conservatism and libertarianism

BTW, Wolfe fails to differentiate between conservative and Republican, but he might find it interesting that Kirk supported Buchanan in his primary challenge against President George H.W. Bush.

(2) his characterization of leftwing ideology as marked by infallibility and universality stands in contradiction to his respect for Catholicism, which believes in both;

Again, Wolfe makes you wonder if he even read any Kirk in the course of preparing his attack. The entire point of Kirk's argument against ideology is that it is a substitute of man-made ideas for divine revelation. The church can claim universal truths because it is attempting to communicate God's will on earth. But ideology substitutes the worship of God with the worship of man and seeks to impose this false religion on others through politics. This is not only heretical; it is the motivation behind the bloodbath of the twentieth century.

When there is nothing bigger than you, nothing that stands outside you, there are no restraints. If human nature doesn’t exit and man can be molded and perfected then all available tools should be leveraged to bring heaven on earth.

In contrast, in Kirk’s view politics was the art of the possible. Healthy and stable cultures built their polity using the traditional mores and beliefs handed down through the generations. Prudence change was based on an understanding of history and experience not abstract notions disconnected from time and place. Universalist dogmas uprooted these traditions and paved the way for ideology and frequently tyrany. His respect for, and eventual membership in, the Catholic Church in no way undermines this argument despite Wolfe's implication.

(3) his reverence for the Constitution cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's separation of church and state, not, at least, when Kirk simultaneously insists that religion is a necessary prop of social order;

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Wolfe imposes his view of the world on Kirk and then crows about the inconsistency. But this is solipsism and sophistry dressed up as argument. Kirk believed that religion was a necessary foundation for a stable society. That only when men's souls are ordered could society be ordered. The best cultures and polities have organic traditions and modes of living that grow out of the moral and spiritual beliefs and practices of their faith.

The protestant faith and experiences of the Founders played a critical role in the development of the American system and culture. Thus a political movement that was antithetical to these beliefs and customs was, at its heart, bent on destroying the system it claimed to be supporting.

The vaunted separation of church and state is not inconsistent with this view – the extreme view so espoused by liberals is really an example of such a danger - because the religious beliefs exist outside of and independent of the political system. They in fact, act as a foundation for that system; part of what Kirk called the unwritten constitution. Kirk was not calling for a state sanctioned religion or denomination but rather a government that reflects the deepest beliefs of its people.

Kirk did not call for the same arrangement for American as Burke did for England because they had different histories – despite sharing a common cultural heritage. America had a written constitution while England did not. Wolfe’s clever trap is empty.

(4) his conviction that Southern slave-holders were virtuous men is difficult to square with their love for and defense of slavery;

This is such a lazy canard it is hard to believe that Wolfe makes it. So anyone tainted with slavery can't be virtuous? I guess we must throw out everyone from Moses and the patriarchs to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This is just another example of the constant moralism of Wolfe. In his view if you are a failure in one area – particularly slavery or race - everything you wrote and said is to be cast aside as tainted.

This is, to quote a phrase, nonsense of stilts and Wolfe should know better. Perhaps Wolfe might look into the fact that for many years the vast majority of liberal heroes - intellectual and political - were racist in one way or the other. I guess we can safely ignore the opus of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., since his heroes were all morally flawed in significant ways.

(5) his dismissal of the very notion of human rights would have made it difficult for him to find slavery a moral evil even had he bothered to discuss it;

Yes, because until the world discovered "Human Rights" the moral evil of slavery was incomprehensible. Thank God, those devoutly religious Englishman discovered the philosophical principle of human rights! That's what the movie Amazing Grace is all about, right?

Wolfe refuses to consider that perhaps Kirk was attacking the ideology of Human Rights which is part and parcel of modern liberalism and which ratchets up these “rights” beyond morality to things like the right to housing, a fair wage, safe working conditions, and even the right to be free of fear.

Kirk approaches this question not from the perspective of a political theorist but from an appreciation of the moral and spiritual traditions of the West. For Wolfe liberals are the defenders of Human Rights so they get to puff themselves up about slavery. For Kirk the danger was in turning political theory into progressive dogma. He was not blind to the evils of men but neither was he blind to the destruction that revolution brought even when it was driven by morality or good intentions. One can understand the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount without Human Rights. One can mourn the evil of slavery without welcoming the bloodbath of a revolution to end it.

Kirk I am sure loses points with Wolfe because he doesn't pontificate on Wolfe's chosen subjects. When you discuss historical figures you simply must genuflect at liberal pieties like human rights. Since Kirk discusses men involved in this history without such genuflection he is suspect. How dare he discuss Calhoun and Brownson without castigating them for their unwillingness to overthrown their own civilization in the name of Human Rights!

(6) his notion that conservatives are pragmatists contains no explanation of why pragmatists are generally liberal;

Switch the terms around and Wolfe is guilty as charged. I don't want to waste space going into this particular bugaboo the folks at TNR have about pragmatism and liberalism. For liberals like Wolfe, they are the very essence of practical. All of their ideas are based on reality and rationality rather than dogma and belief. The conservatives are the ideologues!

Wolfe fails to understand Kirk's ideas about prudence and organic change. For Wolfe the Enlightenment is the height of pragmatism and even includes a mechanism for self-criticism. For Kirk that pragmatism – to say nothing of the philosophy of John Dewey - was based on a worship of rationality and what he called “desiccated” logic. There is a big difference between prudence and pragmatism.

Kirk attacked the utilitarianism of Benthem and the pragmatism of Dewey because it destroyed the mystery and imagination crucial to the deeper life. They seemed to believe that life could be “solved” as if it were a math problem or engineer quandary. Religion, literature, art, and the aspects of life that were worth celebrating get pushed aside in the name of science and politics.

The liberalism of the Great Society is a perfect example. LBJ and the countless bureaucrats he employed all thought they were being incredibly practical in bringing the social "science" of the day to bear on acute problems. The only problem was that they failed to take into account the basic facts of human motivation and the local experiences and lives of the people the policies were aimed at. As a result the War on Poverty went a long way toward destroying the family and local communities around the country. Take a look at inner city Detroit to see how the pragmatism worked out.

(7) his defense of capitalism is in tension with his passion for tradition;

Wolfe once again is ignorant of the corpus of Kirk's work. Kirk was no fan of capitalism as such and his attack on it inspires paleocons and others to this day. Kirk defended free enterprise but warned of an ideology that worshiped the market and ignored the spiritual development crucial to a life worth living. While he understood the connection between economic freedom and political freedom, he was no blind fan of capitalism and a frequent critic of industrial society.

Kirk's thoughts on economics owed a great deal to Wilhelm Roepke who sought to blend market economics and with political tradition to create a "humane economy." Once again, Wolfe offers a cheap and ignorant drive by critique without substance.

(8) his case for religion is never accompanied by an argument on behalf of any particular religion, even though he does offer a discussion of why Judaism and Hellenism are inferior to Christianity;

Kirk never made an argument for a specific theological or denominational religion in the way Wolfe seeks because he believed that each culture and community needed to reflect their own faith. What is important for Americans is different in India and for those in the Middle East.

Kirk's point was that governmental structure and principles of stable and healthy societies reflect their religious underpinnings (see point three above). Wolfe is of course offended that Kirk was an orthodox Christian and believed that Christianity was the culmination and fulfillment of Judaism, but this is developed in order to show how America reflects the foundation of Western Civilization, which fused the ideas of Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. Hence, the title of the book The Roots of American Order. America had a specific history and culture based on Judeo- Christian ideas. Kirk believed that these basic ideas were unifying and so did not see the need to break it down into theological points.

Religion is important because it reflects the belief in a transcendent order; of a meaning larger than you. Modern liberalism rejected religion and substituted a worship of man. This ideology, for Kirk, is at the root of our problems. Kirk is not seeking theological purity but rather social stability and health. A rejection of religion undermines both.

(9) his worship of John C. Calhoun's conservatism fails to appreciate how radical Calhoun was when he opted for slavery over country;

I won't get into this argument again, but Wolfe fails to provide much more than a shallow pot shot at Calhoun. There is much to discuss about Calhoun's theories and ideas but Wolfe doesn't offer any.

(10) his sympathetic comments on Lionel Trilling conspicuously overlook the fact that Trilling was attacking him; and

Again, I am not an expert on Trilling but I believe Trilling was writing to bemoan the fact that Liberalism was running out of ideas and that, because conservatism in his view didn't offer an alternative, it must re-invigorate itself if it was to move forward. Kirk didn't agree with Trilling’s view of conservatism but he did agree that liberalism was dying. Trilling obviously believed that a renewed liberalism was the answer while Kirk believed a return to conservatism was the way forward.

Yes, they disagreed but they were addressing the same phenomenon: the decay of modern liberalism.

(11) his skepticism toward universalism gives him much in common with forms of multiculturalism today's conservatives say they oppose.

This is in fact true, but it means little in the way Wolfe thinks it does. In a fascinating new book, Gerald Russello explores Kirk's connection to postmodern thinking and notes that his perspective is different than many on the right. But again so what? Wolfe, unlike Russello, provides nothing of any substance or interest on this. It is no mark against Kirk that he is different than some present day conservatives and Wolfe offers no hint of who he thinks is right.

All of this I think reflects what all of Wolfe’s critics have noted: that Wolfe never offers intelligent discussion or criticism of Kirk and the conservatism he argued for and inspires today. Instead, Wolfe sneers and insinuates his way to 6,000 words that should embarrass a college student let alone a professor. Wolfe is ignorant of the large scope of Kirk’s work; the history of contemporary conservatism; and apparently basic notions of courtesy and civility.

Russell Kirk was an interesting and important figure in the history of conservatism. There is much to be learnt about the history and ideas of that movement by reading him. He was neither always right nor is his style one that everyone can enjoy. But he deserves, and repays, serious study and engagement. I will fully admit that present day conservatives have not done enough of this. But it is too bad that The New Republic offered such an embarrassing and shameful essay rather than an honest and intelligent critique. Perhaps, if they had offered the later more conservatives would have been willing to read it.