Buckley's Rag: Still Cringe
Reflections on the Enlightenment have been challenged by National Review in a recent philosophical justification of their ideology. It was Russell Kirk, in his book The Conservative Mind, who defined the foundation of post-war conservatism. This became the standard throughout the 20th century, uniting a range of thinkers from De Maistre to Edmund Burke. Contrasting with National Review’s critique on the modern right, their investment lies in 18th and 19th century philosophy. More specifically, they insist on absolving the revolutionaries that opposed monarchy and disciplinary elements within the theology as a whole.
One of the figures they defend is French aristocrat Denis Diderot, infamous for his contribution to the Encyclopédie. Framing the Enlightenment from a secular perspective allows a majority of its legacy to be minimized against the religious tradition that was being uprooted. Diderot also shared sentiment with Thomas Jefferson in his skepticism, prompting swift action by the Catholic Church. Despite the overlap a figure like Diderot may have with a 21st century conservative, it is an ideology based on the framework of the Protestant reformation. Many of its descendants can be found in the secular strands of the modern right and promoted by mainstream outlets. Ironically, National Review is a publication that has also had a fair amount of contributors stepping outside the Burkean paradigm while pleading with its audience on the merits of the Enlightenment.
Peter Travers defends Rudyard Kipling, claiming that he deserves a fair hearing regardless of his racialist views. A standard the think tank would never be willing to carry out themselves. Selecting his patriotic words as a way to promote, “classical conservative ideas through reasoned argument and entertaining presentation of first principles.” This is what earns him a safe space as an intellectual, despite almost no philosophical justification to apply his work to the modern day. Furthermore, he would be thrown to the same wolves trained by NR if he had uttered anything outside his literary work. As stated in the thesis, both philosophers “demonstrate the imperative of supporting National Review Institute.” Their words represent their ideology and they are inheriting the legacy started by the 18th century skeptics.
Hysteria in the current era, as Travers puts it, is responsible for the setbacks in conservatism. The American Right has gone through many phases throughout its intergenerational development. One of the most influential forms prevalent in the 21st century, thanks in no small part to NRI founder William F. Buckley, was the fusionist conservatism popularized by the Ronald Reagan era.
The big tent incentive on the right became a crutch rather than a strategy. Despite the social conservatives having the largest stake in the nation, other groups emerged as the prime concern for bureaucrats. What Richard Nixon described as the silent majority became the leftover voting bloc reduced by a Nelson Rockefeller-esque utopia. An environment where moderation was the goal in every policy favored by him and catered to his liberal side over his conservative counterpart. While we never won the presidency, his influence had already created the standard for bipartisan dealmaking in Washington.
As time marches on, these men would’ve been buried by history yet are only known after their descendants revive the books and ideology they tried to spread abroad. Their legitimacy depends on the validation of modern commentators and pundits. Otherwise, they will not stand the test of time as tradition and localism have.
The defining question among conservatives continues to be how they will adapt to the 21st century moving forward. As Pat Buchanan suggests, we are experiencing a redux of the 1960’s culture wars. Complete with political wedges between every factor of identity and an increasing secular population, the overlap is overwhelming. Nixon managed to persevere with a coalition of Catholics and Protestants. Ultimately, this religious sentiment carried enough weight for the electorate. This is the missing link in National Review’s priorities. What amounts to a fixation on classical art and literature leaves little to no room for the divine role of government. Dating back to the French Revolution, a clear watershed moment reveals the current dilemmas within conservatism.
In 1793, the Goddess of Liberty temporarily took the physical space of the Virgin Mary altar at the Notre Dame cathedral. The cathedral, along with many others, were also visually turned into “Temples Of Reason” after the influence of the revolution This was temporary yet most of the world still has taken that leap back to faith and the social standards are still cemented in liberty over Christianity.
All of this represented a cultural shift of norms in the wake of radical reform subverting the church and its tradition. Many were swept up in the social views promoted by 18th century philosophers who left a long shadow across history and normalized the likes of Diderot and Kipling. Until this paradigm is addressed with undiluted attention, many will still find new ways of defining conservatism.