What do you think?
Rate this book
Russell Kirk's Concise Guide to Conservatism
The modern conservative intellectual movement began in 1953 with Russell Kirk’s groundbreaking book The Conservative Mind. Four years later, he published a pithy, wry, philosophical summary of what conservatism really means. Originally titled The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Conservatism, this little book was essentially a popular version of The Conservative Mind.
Now, a century after its author’s birth, this neglected gem has been recovered. It remains what Kirk intended it to be: an accessible introduction to conservative ideas, especially for the young. With a new title and an introduction by the eminent intellectual historian Wilfred M. McClay, Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism arrives with uncanny timing. The movement that Kirk defined in 1953 is today so contested and fragmented that no one seems able to say with confidence what conservatism means.
This book, as fresh and prophetic as the day it was published sixty years ago, is a reminder that no one can match Russell Kirk in engaging people’s minds and imaginations—an indispensable task in reviving our civilization.
Now, a century after its author’s birth, this neglected gem has been recovered. It remains what Kirk intended it to be: an accessible introduction to conservative ideas, especially for the young. With a new title and an introduction by the eminent intellectual historian Wilfred M. McClay, Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism arrives with uncanny timing. The movement that Kirk defined in 1953 is today so contested and fragmented that no one seems able to say with confidence what conservatism means.
This book, as fresh and prophetic as the day it was published sixty years ago, is a reminder that no one can match Russell Kirk in engaging people’s minds and imaginations—an indispensable task in reviving our civilization.
128 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1957
47 people are currently reading
406 people want to read
About the author
Russell Kirk
177 books297 followersFor more than forty years, Russell Kirk was in the thick of the intellectual controversies of his time. He is the author of some thirty-two books, hundreds of periodical essays, and many short stories. Both Time and Newsweek have described him as one of America’s leading thinkers, and The New York Times acknowledged the scale of his influence when in 1998 it wrote that Kirk’s 1953 book The Conservative Mind “gave American conservatives an identity and a genealogy and catalyzed the postwar movement.”
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
April 27, 2020
Wilfred McClay kicks off Russell Kirk's Concise Guide to Conservatism the way a lot of conservative books have started since 2016, by saying that conservatism is in something of a crisis of identity, a crisis revealed by Donald Trump's election as president. I, personally, find some of these statements to be a bit exaggerated. The truth is that conservatism is not just now reaching a crisis of identity, but has been undergoing one for decades. But where I wholeheartedly agree with McClay is that a widespread rediscovering of the work of Russell Kirk could go a long way towards helping American conservatives find our way back to center.
This book is in many ways a shorter version of Kirk's Prospects for Conservatives, even sharing a chapter title and several identical lines of text with various editions of that book. But the Concise Guide to Conservatism is mostly about the "what" of conservatism, less about the "why" and almost never about the "how." This is not a criticism, because this is intended to be an introduction to conservatism, somewhat in the vein of Roger Scruton's Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition and Robert Nisbet's Conservatism: Dream and Reality. Unlike those books, however, Kirk's work is not an overview of the history of conservatism, with a concomitant exposition of its principles, but a work directly about the principles themselves. In addition, it gives a glance of Kirk's rhetorical flourish, which is second-to-none.
Into 103 pages, Kirk crams 12 chapters, so this is not a heavy read. Still, he introduces heady topics - including religion, conscience, the family, education, community, individuality, property, power, and just government - and the conservative position on them. The essence of Kirk's take on conservatism in these chapters is that schemes to perfect society are fool's errands, and that therefore the rejection, en masse, of the traditions, customs, mores, and structures of a civilization (particularly of Western civilization) in favor of some untried Utopian philosophy is likely to result in the loss, without compensation, of the good that we currently have. Along these lines, Kirk is closest, perhaps surprisingly, to some of Thomas Sowell's works (especially A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles and The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy)
Therefore, Kirk's conservative, seeing himself as part of a moral order under God, and of a social order that spans the living, the dead, and the yet to be born, stands in defense not so much of the past as of the actual accomplishments of civilization. Such a man or woman is not opposed to progress, but is certainly not overawed by modernity's confidence in its ability to create a better world anew.
It's interesting to note that, while Kirk does discuss politics, this is not primarily a political book. Certainly, Kirk sides with the rights of the individual against an overreaching state (especially a centralized state), and in fact some of these passages strike this former libertarian as vaguely libertarian in themselves (may Kirk forgive me). Kirk, for instance, is much more willing here than elsewhere to embrace the enunciation of specific natural rights, though he's quick to point out that there will never be complete agreement on the exact boundary between the rights of the individual and the claims of the common good. He notes several times that the conservative, not being an ideologue, must not only understand his own principles, but the particular vices of his particular age (no age being perfect, and no people being perfectible) and work to address them. He allows that, in a different place and time, the conservative might need to fight against a false conception of individual rights, though he did not think that this was the greater threat at the time he wrote this book (1957), nor does it seem that the comparative dangers of freedom and tyranny have changed since them.
Even so, Kirk writes that the conservative is not an individualist in the modern sense of that term. Kirk is all in favor of individuality, but does not believe that means the kind of selfishness and "go it alone" spirit that is often encapsulated in the term "individualism." So, for Kirk, the conservative must submit himself to the voluntary (though, as Scruton reminds us, not necessarily chosen) duties of faith, family, and community, institutions that provide the order that the individual needs to thrive. The idea that rights come with duties and responsibilities is one that permeates Kirk's thought, and is one way that separates him from the libertarians he occasionally criticized. Kirk held in disdain the ideas of radicals and liberals that sought to separate man from his traditional duties, but he also observes that not all threats to these duties and the institutions that communicate them are intentional. Some, he writes, are the byproduct of economic progress, material gain, and the homogenization of art, entertainment, and culture.
None of this is simply a call to "go back," as so many critics of conservatism in general and Kirk in particular are fond of saying. Kirk, again with his belief in human fallibility, is not insensitive to the need for reform. But he does believe that such reforms need to be kept within the context of traditions, and with a mood of humility about our ability to affect positive change simply through rationalism and legislation. "Progress," he writes, "though too rare in history, is real; but it is the work of artifice, of human ingenuity and prudence; it is not automatic. And progress is possible only so long as it is undertaken upon the sure footing of permanence."
Many of the principles that Kirk enunciates, then, are familiar to conservatives today, though the modern conservative movement departs quite a bit from aspects of his analysis. For instance, whereas conservatives are quite likely today to criticize government overreach, they're not as likely to criticize the effects that disordered economic priorities can have on the institutions, notably the family and community, that are vital to civilization, and therefore to conservatism. So there's plenty in this slim volume to challenge some popular notions within conservatism.
Bruce Frohnen and Ted McAllister observe in Coming Home: Reclaiming America's Conservative Soul that conservatism's identity crisis began when conservatives, perhaps justifiably, became a political movement, trading more philosophical considerations for politically-effective slogans that contained parts of the conservative message, but left others out. Whether we see the advent of President Trump as the manifestation of this crisis, or simply the most recent episode in its long chain of progress, we can feel fortunate that Russell Kirk is still here, in word at least, to exhibit the beautiful and complex full scope of conservatism. His Concise Guide to Consevatism is an excellent place for conservatives to begin that process of discovery which was, for me, very much like returning home.
This book is in many ways a shorter version of Kirk's Prospects for Conservatives, even sharing a chapter title and several identical lines of text with various editions of that book. But the Concise Guide to Conservatism is mostly about the "what" of conservatism, less about the "why" and almost never about the "how." This is not a criticism, because this is intended to be an introduction to conservatism, somewhat in the vein of Roger Scruton's Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition and Robert Nisbet's Conservatism: Dream and Reality. Unlike those books, however, Kirk's work is not an overview of the history of conservatism, with a concomitant exposition of its principles, but a work directly about the principles themselves. In addition, it gives a glance of Kirk's rhetorical flourish, which is second-to-none.
Into 103 pages, Kirk crams 12 chapters, so this is not a heavy read. Still, he introduces heady topics - including religion, conscience, the family, education, community, individuality, property, power, and just government - and the conservative position on them. The essence of Kirk's take on conservatism in these chapters is that schemes to perfect society are fool's errands, and that therefore the rejection, en masse, of the traditions, customs, mores, and structures of a civilization (particularly of Western civilization) in favor of some untried Utopian philosophy is likely to result in the loss, without compensation, of the good that we currently have. Along these lines, Kirk is closest, perhaps surprisingly, to some of Thomas Sowell's works (especially A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles and The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy)
Therefore, Kirk's conservative, seeing himself as part of a moral order under God, and of a social order that spans the living, the dead, and the yet to be born, stands in defense not so much of the past as of the actual accomplishments of civilization. Such a man or woman is not opposed to progress, but is certainly not overawed by modernity's confidence in its ability to create a better world anew.
It's interesting to note that, while Kirk does discuss politics, this is not primarily a political book. Certainly, Kirk sides with the rights of the individual against an overreaching state (especially a centralized state), and in fact some of these passages strike this former libertarian as vaguely libertarian in themselves (may Kirk forgive me). Kirk, for instance, is much more willing here than elsewhere to embrace the enunciation of specific natural rights, though he's quick to point out that there will never be complete agreement on the exact boundary between the rights of the individual and the claims of the common good. He notes several times that the conservative, not being an ideologue, must not only understand his own principles, but the particular vices of his particular age (no age being perfect, and no people being perfectible) and work to address them. He allows that, in a different place and time, the conservative might need to fight against a false conception of individual rights, though he did not think that this was the greater threat at the time he wrote this book (1957), nor does it seem that the comparative dangers of freedom and tyranny have changed since them.
Even so, Kirk writes that the conservative is not an individualist in the modern sense of that term. Kirk is all in favor of individuality, but does not believe that means the kind of selfishness and "go it alone" spirit that is often encapsulated in the term "individualism." So, for Kirk, the conservative must submit himself to the voluntary (though, as Scruton reminds us, not necessarily chosen) duties of faith, family, and community, institutions that provide the order that the individual needs to thrive. The idea that rights come with duties and responsibilities is one that permeates Kirk's thought, and is one way that separates him from the libertarians he occasionally criticized. Kirk held in disdain the ideas of radicals and liberals that sought to separate man from his traditional duties, but he also observes that not all threats to these duties and the institutions that communicate them are intentional. Some, he writes, are the byproduct of economic progress, material gain, and the homogenization of art, entertainment, and culture.
None of this is simply a call to "go back," as so many critics of conservatism in general and Kirk in particular are fond of saying. Kirk, again with his belief in human fallibility, is not insensitive to the need for reform. But he does believe that such reforms need to be kept within the context of traditions, and with a mood of humility about our ability to affect positive change simply through rationalism and legislation. "Progress," he writes, "though too rare in history, is real; but it is the work of artifice, of human ingenuity and prudence; it is not automatic. And progress is possible only so long as it is undertaken upon the sure footing of permanence."
Many of the principles that Kirk enunciates, then, are familiar to conservatives today, though the modern conservative movement departs quite a bit from aspects of his analysis. For instance, whereas conservatives are quite likely today to criticize government overreach, they're not as likely to criticize the effects that disordered economic priorities can have on the institutions, notably the family and community, that are vital to civilization, and therefore to conservatism. So there's plenty in this slim volume to challenge some popular notions within conservatism.
Bruce Frohnen and Ted McAllister observe in Coming Home: Reclaiming America's Conservative Soul that conservatism's identity crisis began when conservatives, perhaps justifiably, became a political movement, trading more philosophical considerations for politically-effective slogans that contained parts of the conservative message, but left others out. Whether we see the advent of President Trump as the manifestation of this crisis, or simply the most recent episode in its long chain of progress, we can feel fortunate that Russell Kirk is still here, in word at least, to exhibit the beautiful and complex full scope of conservatism. His Concise Guide to Consevatism is an excellent place for conservatives to begin that process of discovery which was, for me, very much like returning home.
December 19, 2020
Good primer on traditional conservatism. For Kirk, conservatism is "the negation of ideology." As such, it is reluctant to overturn the tried and tested inheritance of our civilization in order to better fit in with the latest academic radical.
A conservative seeks harmony within a society, not a leveling. Extraordinary individuals merit extraordinary status. Ordinary individuals, such as myself, get to live in a stable and harmonious society.
A conservative seeks harmony within a society, not a leveling. Extraordinary individuals merit extraordinary status. Ordinary individuals, such as myself, get to live in a stable and harmonious society.
February 22, 2020
This book provides a short, readable introduction to what conservativism is and the values that they seek to hold on to. A conservative is defined as a person that seeks to "conserve the elements in civilization that make life worth living." They ensure "some coherent body of ideas [resist] the leveling and destructive impulse of fanatic revolutionaries." Some of these include religious faith, conscience, individuality, family, community, just government, and private property.
The conservative position is set in contrast to liberalism (progressivism/collectivism) which is defined as a person "who thinks that human beings are by nature good and trustworthy, and that everything is sure to get better and better by mere lapse of time, provided only that we rid our lives of unfortunate social maladjustments..." (88).
I found this book and other short writings I've read by Russell Kirk to really help me understand conservatism better. I'm sympathetic towards libertarianism but now I see that the best that libertarianism offers (individuality, conscience, freedom) are all found in conservatism. However, conservatism is more robust in that it believes that there are more beliefs and institutions which are worth preserving than just human freedom (though it defends that too).
To help make this distinction in views clearer let me give an example of the three main approaches to marriage.
-The conservative says: that's a sacred institution which is the backbone of the family and is good for society. Therefore, let's preserve it for human flourishing.
-The liberal says: marriage (traditionally defined) is socially oppressive and it needs to be redefined (gay marriage) or disregarded (couples living together without marriage).
-The libertarian says: that's an individual's choice—do whatever makes you happy.
After reading this book, I feel more comfortable calling myself a conservative (whereas before I would say I'm a mixture of conservatism and libertarianism). I care about human liberty, but I care about human flourishing too. Because humans are sinners, if freedom is the only thing we preserve then we will have a toxic culture that cannot survive. We must preserve the beliefs and institutions that "make life worth living" which are primarily those that come from our creator.
The conservative position is set in contrast to liberalism (progressivism/collectivism) which is defined as a person "who thinks that human beings are by nature good and trustworthy, and that everything is sure to get better and better by mere lapse of time, provided only that we rid our lives of unfortunate social maladjustments..." (88).
I found this book and other short writings I've read by Russell Kirk to really help me understand conservatism better. I'm sympathetic towards libertarianism but now I see that the best that libertarianism offers (individuality, conscience, freedom) are all found in conservatism. However, conservatism is more robust in that it believes that there are more beliefs and institutions which are worth preserving than just human freedom (though it defends that too).
To help make this distinction in views clearer let me give an example of the three main approaches to marriage.
-The conservative says: that's a sacred institution which is the backbone of the family and is good for society. Therefore, let's preserve it for human flourishing.
-The liberal says: marriage (traditionally defined) is socially oppressive and it needs to be redefined (gay marriage) or disregarded (couples living together without marriage).
-The libertarian says: that's an individual's choice—do whatever makes you happy.
After reading this book, I feel more comfortable calling myself a conservative (whereas before I would say I'm a mixture of conservatism and libertarianism). I care about human liberty, but I care about human flourishing too. Because humans are sinners, if freedom is the only thing we preserve then we will have a toxic culture that cannot survive. We must preserve the beliefs and institutions that "make life worth living" which are primarily those that come from our creator.
November 21, 2021
Kirk's short guide to conservatism from the 1960s is surprisingly prescient for what he was to say to 2021, especially on questions of technology, and the relationship of capitalism to liberalism and liberalism and conservatism.
April 17, 2025
Excellent little book. I got the sense that conservatism is a mentality rather than an ideology. Central to the mentality is the desire to conserve whatever has been historically proven good, beautiful, and true, and to be cautious and resistant to calls to demolish and replace it with the untried and novel. It is also taking seriously the historical fact that utopian ideologies, while sounding so good in theory, have resulted in tyranny from a small class of individuals who are driven to obtain power above all else. Also, it is the recognition that attempts to reconstruct human nature have played out quite terribly.
Interestingly, I consider myself a classical liberal because I am committed to conserving elements that I believe are worth keeping and making for a better society. It seems the founders of our country had a mix of the conservative and the liberal mentality. On one hand, they were rebelling against England and seeking to create something new (rather liberal), but it was largely in part to an astute study of history and human nature that drove them to create something new based upon what they felt were the best from the past (conservative).
I do think the liberal and the conservative mentality are desperately needed today in society, for there is a golden mean between the extremes of revolutionary innovation and change, and maintaining the status quo no matter what. The conservative mentality can as stubbornly hold on to things that are not beautiful, true, and good as the liberal mentality (with the best of intentions) can completely trample the good, beautiful, and true and replace it with ugliness, incompetence, evil, misery, and dysfunction. As Ambrose Bierce wrote, "Conservative. (n.) A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
Both mentalities can be remarkably bad. But both can be remarkably good, too. Sometimes the status quo (take slavery) needed to be challenged and replaced by liberals, regardless of the upheaval. Sometimes, as in the case of eugenics, it was the liberal progressives who inspired Hitler and tried to institute unspeakable evil, and the conservatives who resisted.
Interestingly, I consider myself a classical liberal because I am committed to conserving elements that I believe are worth keeping and making for a better society. It seems the founders of our country had a mix of the conservative and the liberal mentality. On one hand, they were rebelling against England and seeking to create something new (rather liberal), but it was largely in part to an astute study of history and human nature that drove them to create something new based upon what they felt were the best from the past (conservative).
I do think the liberal and the conservative mentality are desperately needed today in society, for there is a golden mean between the extremes of revolutionary innovation and change, and maintaining the status quo no matter what. The conservative mentality can as stubbornly hold on to things that are not beautiful, true, and good as the liberal mentality (with the best of intentions) can completely trample the good, beautiful, and true and replace it with ugliness, incompetence, evil, misery, and dysfunction. As Ambrose Bierce wrote, "Conservative. (n.) A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
Both mentalities can be remarkably bad. But both can be remarkably good, too. Sometimes the status quo (take slavery) needed to be challenged and replaced by liberals, regardless of the upheaval. Sometimes, as in the case of eugenics, it was the liberal progressives who inspired Hitler and tried to institute unspeakable evil, and the conservatives who resisted.
January 26, 2022
Originally published in 1957, this is a thoughtful, literate, winsomely written short guide to traditional conservatism by one of its great advocates. A far cry for what passes as "conservative" now. Full review at my blog.
First read when it came out in the spring of 2019. Listened to the audiobook on my commute, January 2022. Even better the second time around. My original blog review doesn’t do it justice.
First read when it came out in the spring of 2019. Listened to the audiobook on my commute, January 2022. Even better the second time around. My original blog review doesn’t do it justice.
March 20, 2021
Kirk's concise guide is exceptional in its clarity and precision. The twelve short chapters provide a well crafted introduction to essential elements of conservative thought. Chapter ten - "Conservatives and Education" is particularly strong. Kirk raises the alarm over education existing too often of "dreary secular indoctrination ... substituted for the inquiring mind" (p. 77). He mourns the uniformity sought by many who focus upon state schooling. The love of variety (seen in diversity of thought, subsidiarity, federalism, etc) is indeed a core theme of the volume. A more well-written, concise, and edifying work on conservative thought would be hard to come by.
July 18, 2022
“… it is wiser to prefer the old and tried over the new and untried…”
“A Republic dies only when its citizens have neglected the wisdom of their ancestors and the methods of right reason.”
“The conservative respects the works of the mind; the radical, in our age, seems to be smugly content with cant and slogan.”
“Love of the Republic shelters all our other loves. That love is worth some sacrifice.”
great book with a lot of good insight on what it means to be a conservative. i especially loved the chapters on education, faith, and the Republic. a great read and definitely would recommend!
“A Republic dies only when its citizens have neglected the wisdom of their ancestors and the methods of right reason.”
“The conservative respects the works of the mind; the radical, in our age, seems to be smugly content with cant and slogan.”
“Love of the Republic shelters all our other loves. That love is worth some sacrifice.”
great book with a lot of good insight on what it means to be a conservative. i especially loved the chapters on education, faith, and the Republic. a great read and definitely would recommend!
March 10, 2021
This short yet weighty book should be required reading for all who wish to identify as conservative- as what constitutes a conservative in mainstream discourse and the real thing are quite different. Kirk manages to distill an incredible amount of insight and wisdom about humanity and society into a hundred pages of delightful prose. I think I highlighted 30% of the text. Despite its age, the book has only become more relevant to our current moment. Highly highly recommended.
March 30, 2025
As the back of the book says, this is an "accessible introduction to conservative ideas." It's just that those ideas are unimpressive. Kirk rightly points out that freedom is necessary on one page and on the next asserts that this means America should abolish the inheritance tax. There are too many logical jumps. How does an inheritance tax mean decadence? If Kirk agrees that people act in self-interest, then why should we leave welfare to the realm of private charity? Although Kirk may believe he is resisting ideology, these logical jumps betray Kirk's ideological rationalizations.
June 14, 2022
A decent summary, but America-centric (in the sense of focusing mostly on American society and institutions). Read The Conservative Mind to get the complete package.
February 15, 2024
The second to last chapter on permanence vs change was probably my favorite.
May 18, 2014
This is is a beautiful book of conservative thought in which Dr. Kirk reminds us: "Everything worth conserving is menaced in our generation. Mere unthinking negative opposition to the current of events, clutching in despair at what we still retain, will not suffice in this age. A conservatism of instinct must be reinforced by a conservatism of thought and imagination."
And that: "A Republic dies only when its citizens have neglected the wisdom of their ancestors and the methods of right reason. There are more conservatives left among us than there were good men left in Sodom; and I think that, God willing, the conservatives will yet prevail. "
And that: "A Republic dies only when its citizens have neglected the wisdom of their ancestors and the methods of right reason. There are more conservatives left among us than there were good men left in Sodom; and I think that, God willing, the conservatives will yet prevail. "
May 6, 2022
Solid exploration of conservatism by Russell Kirk in the 50s... Relies heavily on the history of conservative thought, primarily through Edmund Burke and John Adams. He asserts that the foundation of conservatism is a foundation of morals, an insistence that a higher moral power does exist. The foundation of conservatism in society is evident from the Founding Fathers' personal religious allegiances, and it lends to the concept of conservatism even today. Conservatism without morals is not conservatism at all.
"If that healthy private conscience sinks into apathy or vice, there is no use talking about "social conscience": there cannot be a nation in which private morality is bad and public morality is good."
Further, he distinguishes between individualism and capitalism, citing individualism as a term for revolutionists of the disciplines of Godwin, Hodgskin, and Spencer. Their writing lacks the fundamental elements of conservatism, and yet conservatives have been accused of being "individualist." This declaration is damaging, as it defies the very essence of conservatism.
"The conservative, however, is an individualist in the sense that he believes in the primacy of the individual, the right of the human person to be himself."
This is deeply in contrast with an "individualism" that asserts a man is unto himself, that traditional religion and property are nonsense... There is little that could be less conservative. Yet opponents of conservatism have utilized the adjective of individualism to mean something very different than it does.
"I think, in short, that the conservative is all in favor of individuality, private rights, variety in society; and that the conservative is equally opposed to "individualism" as a radical political ideology, and to political systems that would make the individual merely a servant of the state."
Further, Kirk declares that family is a necessary and vital components to conservatism. As Burke once wrote, "The germ of public affections is to learn to love the little platoon we belong to in society." To establish a love for country or for society, we must first learn to love those in front of us. Love binds us together, and family is a necessary aspect of society. Collectivists have attempted to depreciate the value of the family with increasing organizational ties, public schooling, and a watered-down definition of marriage, but true conservatism sticks to the principle of families as the foundation of a republic.
Conservatives are not opposed to social good either. Rather, they believe that individuals must subscribe to helping the community. However, charity is a choice and not a mandate. Collectivism depreciates one man's beliefs and subscribes instead the "greater good" for the state as a whole. This is not what a conservative advocates. Rather, the conservative advocates community and love.
"For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed."
Neither is a conservative opposed to government - it is necessary, and it should be embraced. Conservatives fight against growing governments in times of excess, and they fight for the establishment of government in times of anarchy. This was the case with the federalists, who were certainly conservatives.
Private property is also necessary. This is not an economic struggle but rather a personal declaration of human rights. Human rights and property rights are not in conflict; rather, property right IS a human right. Abolishing property itself will never heal inequality; in contrast, it will increase the unrest of the state as a whole. Property should be utilized by individuals to love others, to dispense charity.
Further, conservatives contend that education should not be a rather subtle form of indoctrination. Instead, it should be an education of the mind and heart, an effort to help individuals and not just the state as a whole. Collectivists advocate the education of the masses as almost an equipping of robots; conservatives insist that diversity of thought is vital. Fundamental rights should be established, but children should be taught to think for themselves. Kirk contends that the modern education system is contradictory to even basic conservatism.
Finally, Kirk asserts that the struggle between forms of government is not merely an economic struggle. He asserts instead that it is a struggle of morals: between traditional society with moral and religious undertakings (a moral law) and collectivism, with its passion for reducing citizens to identical copies of one another. The economic struggle, he declares, is evidence of the underlying moral struggle. The battle is as much for money as it is for power in modern society, and this is due to the fallen nature of the human race. The conservative recognizes that as long as this earth continues the human race will be imperfect, and utopia is impossible. The collectivist, on the other hand, pursues a utopian front.
All in all, solid read by Russell Kirk. I rather enjoyed it. His reliance on past conservative sources is enlightening, and his writing is well-composed. I recommend.
"If that healthy private conscience sinks into apathy or vice, there is no use talking about "social conscience": there cannot be a nation in which private morality is bad and public morality is good."
Further, he distinguishes between individualism and capitalism, citing individualism as a term for revolutionists of the disciplines of Godwin, Hodgskin, and Spencer. Their writing lacks the fundamental elements of conservatism, and yet conservatives have been accused of being "individualist." This declaration is damaging, as it defies the very essence of conservatism.
"The conservative, however, is an individualist in the sense that he believes in the primacy of the individual, the right of the human person to be himself."
This is deeply in contrast with an "individualism" that asserts a man is unto himself, that traditional religion and property are nonsense... There is little that could be less conservative. Yet opponents of conservatism have utilized the adjective of individualism to mean something very different than it does.
"I think, in short, that the conservative is all in favor of individuality, private rights, variety in society; and that the conservative is equally opposed to "individualism" as a radical political ideology, and to political systems that would make the individual merely a servant of the state."
Further, Kirk declares that family is a necessary and vital components to conservatism. As Burke once wrote, "The germ of public affections is to learn to love the little platoon we belong to in society." To establish a love for country or for society, we must first learn to love those in front of us. Love binds us together, and family is a necessary aspect of society. Collectivists have attempted to depreciate the value of the family with increasing organizational ties, public schooling, and a watered-down definition of marriage, but true conservatism sticks to the principle of families as the foundation of a republic.
Conservatives are not opposed to social good either. Rather, they believe that individuals must subscribe to helping the community. However, charity is a choice and not a mandate. Collectivism depreciates one man's beliefs and subscribes instead the "greater good" for the state as a whole. This is not what a conservative advocates. Rather, the conservative advocates community and love.
"For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed."
Neither is a conservative opposed to government - it is necessary, and it should be embraced. Conservatives fight against growing governments in times of excess, and they fight for the establishment of government in times of anarchy. This was the case with the federalists, who were certainly conservatives.
Private property is also necessary. This is not an economic struggle but rather a personal declaration of human rights. Human rights and property rights are not in conflict; rather, property right IS a human right. Abolishing property itself will never heal inequality; in contrast, it will increase the unrest of the state as a whole. Property should be utilized by individuals to love others, to dispense charity.
Further, conservatives contend that education should not be a rather subtle form of indoctrination. Instead, it should be an education of the mind and heart, an effort to help individuals and not just the state as a whole. Collectivists advocate the education of the masses as almost an equipping of robots; conservatives insist that diversity of thought is vital. Fundamental rights should be established, but children should be taught to think for themselves. Kirk contends that the modern education system is contradictory to even basic conservatism.
Finally, Kirk asserts that the struggle between forms of government is not merely an economic struggle. He asserts instead that it is a struggle of morals: between traditional society with moral and religious undertakings (a moral law) and collectivism, with its passion for reducing citizens to identical copies of one another. The economic struggle, he declares, is evidence of the underlying moral struggle. The battle is as much for money as it is for power in modern society, and this is due to the fallen nature of the human race. The conservative recognizes that as long as this earth continues the human race will be imperfect, and utopia is impossible. The collectivist, on the other hand, pursues a utopian front.
All in all, solid read by Russell Kirk. I rather enjoyed it. His reliance on past conservative sources is enlightening, and his writing is well-composed. I recommend.
May 21, 2020
A quick, enjoyable read outlining Russell Kirk's principled vision of conservatism. It's less explicitly political (he doesn't propose a bucket list of policies) and more philosophical. Shamefully, the conservatism we see in media and government seems more enamored with Charlie Kirk rather than Russell Kirk.
As somebody from the center-left, I actually found a lot to agree with. Putting aside policy squabbles and looking for something deeper, the conservative disposition can be attractive. Conservatives recognize the need for social change to come from the traditions that informed our founders and our system, not new ideas outside of it. This focus on tradition moors the project and ensures that we’re rooted as a society, surely not a bad thing. However, he believes more in the power of morality and humility in regulating human affairs than the central government, which sets him apart from thinkers of the left. Conservatism according to Kirk comes from a transcendent view of human nature stemming from religion. There’s something graceful in the way he infuses religion into his ideas. Indeed, we're not able to perfect our worldly institutions, undermining dreams of utopianism. The beauty of Kirk's approach, especially in contrast with many of the fusionist thinkers that gained traction from the 1970s onward, is its humility. He recognizes the importance of mediating institutions as bulwarks against collectivism and as the real bases for human freedom. Kirk puts faith in the individual without idolizing individualism, a fine line to trod, but one he walks ably.
Nonetheless, I don't agree with his scorn for the inheritance tax (which applies to a tiny fragment of the population unlike the right would have you believe) or his approach to education, in which he claims that modern education is seen as a means of pushing a notion of the good society. In my opinion, the left does this, but so does Kirk! By advocating deep respect for traditionalism in education, he's inherently supporting a worldview too. The pretense to neutrality is thus faulty. This lines up with my overall critique of how he treats the left throughout. The book abounds with references to "collectivists", "radicals", and "socialists" used quasi-interchangeably. Perhaps the left of his time was more centralist, but he gives short shrift to the real diversity in left-wing movements. Instead, Kirk poses claims in opposition to a sloppily worded strawman of the left. Maybe his other works add detail and I'm unfairly judging a purposefully concise book, but that's what prevents me from giving it 5 stars.
However, Kirk is no hardcore free marketeer, which is the great eye-opening redemption of this work. He claims that unions can play an important role, that servile work isn't compatible with freedom (97), that we may need centralization in periods of anarchy (although he doesn't explain how to tell when such a period exists), that "The intelligent conservative combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform" (76), and that "Economic consolidation, monopoly, and what may be called 'private collectivism' are suspect to the conservative" (64). These principles, notably absent from today's GOP, could inform a new populist consensus. Kirk himself supported Patrick Buchanan, who had a reactionary streak about him but supported economic populism outside the fusionist mainstream. Here, you don't get any whiffs of xenophobia or racism that marred Buchanan or Trumpism today. Importantly, Kirk is right that property and communal institutions are essential to freedom. That's one of the most important lessons (as thinkers from Burke to the Southern Agrarians to John Médaille emphasize). In an era of crisis, the revival of Russell Kirk might help both parties rebuild America. I see projects like Oren Cass' American Compass as a recognition of the role conservatism can play. Maybe this confirms my own compatibility with a more rooted conservative philosophy (inner distribution perhaps?), even if not all the policies emerging from it. More left-of-center folks might feel the same way and emerge from this work with a newfound respect for the conservative disposition. That can't be a bad thing.
As somebody from the center-left, I actually found a lot to agree with. Putting aside policy squabbles and looking for something deeper, the conservative disposition can be attractive. Conservatives recognize the need for social change to come from the traditions that informed our founders and our system, not new ideas outside of it. This focus on tradition moors the project and ensures that we’re rooted as a society, surely not a bad thing. However, he believes more in the power of morality and humility in regulating human affairs than the central government, which sets him apart from thinkers of the left. Conservatism according to Kirk comes from a transcendent view of human nature stemming from religion. There’s something graceful in the way he infuses religion into his ideas. Indeed, we're not able to perfect our worldly institutions, undermining dreams of utopianism. The beauty of Kirk's approach, especially in contrast with many of the fusionist thinkers that gained traction from the 1970s onward, is its humility. He recognizes the importance of mediating institutions as bulwarks against collectivism and as the real bases for human freedom. Kirk puts faith in the individual without idolizing individualism, a fine line to trod, but one he walks ably.
Nonetheless, I don't agree with his scorn for the inheritance tax (which applies to a tiny fragment of the population unlike the right would have you believe) or his approach to education, in which he claims that modern education is seen as a means of pushing a notion of the good society. In my opinion, the left does this, but so does Kirk! By advocating deep respect for traditionalism in education, he's inherently supporting a worldview too. The pretense to neutrality is thus faulty. This lines up with my overall critique of how he treats the left throughout. The book abounds with references to "collectivists", "radicals", and "socialists" used quasi-interchangeably. Perhaps the left of his time was more centralist, but he gives short shrift to the real diversity in left-wing movements. Instead, Kirk poses claims in opposition to a sloppily worded strawman of the left. Maybe his other works add detail and I'm unfairly judging a purposefully concise book, but that's what prevents me from giving it 5 stars.
However, Kirk is no hardcore free marketeer, which is the great eye-opening redemption of this work. He claims that unions can play an important role, that servile work isn't compatible with freedom (97), that we may need centralization in periods of anarchy (although he doesn't explain how to tell when such a period exists), that "The intelligent conservative combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform" (76), and that "Economic consolidation, monopoly, and what may be called 'private collectivism' are suspect to the conservative" (64). These principles, notably absent from today's GOP, could inform a new populist consensus. Kirk himself supported Patrick Buchanan, who had a reactionary streak about him but supported economic populism outside the fusionist mainstream. Here, you don't get any whiffs of xenophobia or racism that marred Buchanan or Trumpism today. Importantly, Kirk is right that property and communal institutions are essential to freedom. That's one of the most important lessons (as thinkers from Burke to the Southern Agrarians to John Médaille emphasize). In an era of crisis, the revival of Russell Kirk might help both parties rebuild America. I see projects like Oren Cass' American Compass as a recognition of the role conservatism can play. Maybe this confirms my own compatibility with a more rooted conservative philosophy (inner distribution perhaps?), even if not all the policies emerging from it. More left-of-center folks might feel the same way and emerge from this work with a newfound respect for the conservative disposition. That can't be a bad thing.
December 1, 2020
I read this because I remember reading and enjoying Kirk on conservatism in college. But this was a disappointment. One good point is that the original book is from the pre-Trump era, so it doesn't have the sardonic or hostile tone of current American political discourse. Yet it's still more polemical than scholarly. For example, why list only the so-called religious Founding Fathers--including Nathaniel Hawthorne!-- and not mention radicals like Thomas Paine? It's also nonsense to call Lincoln "a devout though independent theist," when he had no religious convictions. Such claims discredit the book.
In sum, the book sums up conservative thinking, which I appreciate, and which I believe is a necessary corrective to liberal thought. But Kirk never discusses liberalism; it's always "socialists" or "radicals." So he's set up straw men to knock down. Also, this was originally published in 1957, in response to Bernard Shaw's Intelligent Women's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, and during the Cold War with the Soviets. So it's obviously dated in its choice of nemesis.
Finally, I notice a contradiction in Kirk claiming that, unlike Pollyanna socialists, more realist conservatives don't believe that men are necessarily good. Yet he says the conservative believes only in voluntary charity, not in government-imposed welfare programs, which recent conservatives called transfer payments. If so, why would selfish men voluntarily help the poor, or rich capitalists pay more than a subsistence wage? Well...historically, they refused until radicals and "socialists" forced them to, and liberal Christians and atheists attacked their conscience and hypocrisy. This goes too for Christian slaveowners who claimed that slavery is part of God's plan.
That is why I'm a moderate politically. I think that conservatives have as much to answer for (the brutal capitalism of Dickens and Hugo) as do communists (totalitarianism).
In sum, the book sums up conservative thinking, which I appreciate, and which I believe is a necessary corrective to liberal thought. But Kirk never discusses liberalism; it's always "socialists" or "radicals." So he's set up straw men to knock down. Also, this was originally published in 1957, in response to Bernard Shaw's Intelligent Women's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, and during the Cold War with the Soviets. So it's obviously dated in its choice of nemesis.
Finally, I notice a contradiction in Kirk claiming that, unlike Pollyanna socialists, more realist conservatives don't believe that men are necessarily good. Yet he says the conservative believes only in voluntary charity, not in government-imposed welfare programs, which recent conservatives called transfer payments. If so, why would selfish men voluntarily help the poor, or rich capitalists pay more than a subsistence wage? Well...historically, they refused until radicals and "socialists" forced them to, and liberal Christians and atheists attacked their conscience and hypocrisy. This goes too for Christian slaveowners who claimed that slavery is part of God's plan.
That is why I'm a moderate politically. I think that conservatives have as much to answer for (the brutal capitalism of Dickens and Hugo) as do communists (totalitarianism).
January 29, 2021
Pithy. Polemical. Profitable.
In this "concise guide" Kirk provides the essence of conservatism, as he sees it, in 12 short chapters. Readers will be pleased to find each section readable and straight to the point. Whether it's "Conservatives and the Family"(ch.5), "Conservatives and Power" (ch.9), or any other chapter in the book Kirk shows his command of the subject by presenting his political convictions with brevity and sufficiency.
Another aspect readers will hardly be able to ignore, and may enjoy more than others, is the polemical tone in this work. Polemics, as a method of contrasting competing views, can be a great strategy, as it can, among other things, bring out points of contention that otherwise may never enter the reader's observations. However, if it's wielder does not possess a healthy amount of self control it can be overused and damaging to the overall message of the book. Here I feel Kirk goes overboard, and too often, and at many times unnecessarily, resorts to using this device to the book's determent.
Nevertheless, with all its polemics, along with historical and theological issues (both not mentioned in this short review) readers should be able to finish this book cover to cover to their benefit. I know I did thanks to Kirk's knowledge of the subject and his ability to briefly, yet forcibly communicate the essence of conservatism.
In this "concise guide" Kirk provides the essence of conservatism, as he sees it, in 12 short chapters. Readers will be pleased to find each section readable and straight to the point. Whether it's "Conservatives and the Family"(ch.5), "Conservatives and Power" (ch.9), or any other chapter in the book Kirk shows his command of the subject by presenting his political convictions with brevity and sufficiency.
Another aspect readers will hardly be able to ignore, and may enjoy more than others, is the polemical tone in this work. Polemics, as a method of contrasting competing views, can be a great strategy, as it can, among other things, bring out points of contention that otherwise may never enter the reader's observations. However, if it's wielder does not possess a healthy amount of self control it can be overused and damaging to the overall message of the book. Here I feel Kirk goes overboard, and too often, and at many times unnecessarily, resorts to using this device to the book's determent.
Nevertheless, with all its polemics, along with historical and theological issues (both not mentioned in this short review) readers should be able to finish this book cover to cover to their benefit. I know I did thanks to Kirk's knowledge of the subject and his ability to briefly, yet forcibly communicate the essence of conservatism.
December 13, 2024
This was an extremely disappointing book.
As someone who is appreciative of the author and feel myself to have been deeply influenced by his impressive magnum opus: The Conservative Mind, I knew I shouldn't expect too much from this much shorter volume and that it'd likely be composed of, among other things, condensed points from his aforementioned masterwork, however I believe that this volume is often painfully lacking in substance and highlights some of Kirk's shortcomings as an author and scholar without displaying any of his virtues.
I suppose this was written for a more general audience who may get more (barely more) out of this than I have. But if you are a more serious reader who is capable of tackling semi-difficult books, I would advise that you don't waste your time on this and just read The Conservative Mind or some of his other better works instead.
Honestly, even for the purposes this book was written for (i.e. a shorter and easier introductory read for less seasoned readers) i can think of a couple books just off the top of my head that do such better, especially How to be a Conservative by Sir Roger Scruton.
As someone who is appreciative of the author and feel myself to have been deeply influenced by his impressive magnum opus: The Conservative Mind, I knew I shouldn't expect too much from this much shorter volume and that it'd likely be composed of, among other things, condensed points from his aforementioned masterwork, however I believe that this volume is often painfully lacking in substance and highlights some of Kirk's shortcomings as an author and scholar without displaying any of his virtues.
I suppose this was written for a more general audience who may get more (barely more) out of this than I have. But if you are a more serious reader who is capable of tackling semi-difficult books, I would advise that you don't waste your time on this and just read The Conservative Mind or some of his other better works instead.
Honestly, even for the purposes this book was written for (i.e. a shorter and easier introductory read for less seasoned readers) i can think of a couple books just off the top of my head that do such better, especially How to be a Conservative by Sir Roger Scruton.
November 7, 2020
Кратка книжка, разясняваща отношението на консерватора към основни теми - религиозната вяра, съвестта, индивидуалността, семейството, обществото, управлението, частната собственост и т.н. Полезно четиво, но за мен в твърде ужасна форма. Струва ми се прекалено индоктринерска. За човек, който е абсолютен лаик, вероятно би била интересна, за мен е изпълнена с твърде много излишности. Тя е и писана за друг тип публика тъй или иначе. Лично аз не харесвам и дори се дразня от проповедническия стил на изразяване на американците (единствения минус, който намирам в Кисинджър, но го усещам значителен), който очевидно произлиза от вярата им в провиденческата им роля.
Във всеки случай хубаво е, че този наръчник съществува.
Във всеки случай хубаво е, че този наръчник съществува.
November 8, 2020
This is an interesting little book, pithy, eminently quotable, but a little repetitive (especially in its praise of caution and slow change), somewhere between a catechism and a pep talk. It is very light-weight compared to "The Conservative Mind", which I have been reading concurrently, but I think that's the whole point of the book: not so much an "Intelligent Woman's" guide to conservatism (to quote its original title) as a distillation of Kirk's magnum opus for readers who might consider it "TLTR".
May 7, 2021
Clarified what conservativism is and is quite convincing. Unfortunately, many of Kirk's predictions are coming true in the current events of American society as we see the decline in conservative values and the decline of the great republic which is the United States.
October 22, 2024
Short, concise, something covered in his other work so not worth saying much about. It's simplistic, intentionally slow. I'm glad they changed the title from targeting "Intelligence Women" because that, and the original George Bernard Shaw book that prompted the name, is hideous.
May 10, 2019
A clear brief statement of old conservatism.
Read
September 13, 2019A brief book on the conservatism that Kirk advocated. Listened to this via audio.
April 10, 2021
The perfect introduction, short and sweet, for anyone interested in learning the basics of conservatism.
January 3, 2022
Has not aged one bit.
Should be required reading in the U.S. and Canada.
Every single point is extremely important to the continued survival of both countries.
Should be required reading in the U.S. and Canada.
Every single point is extremely important to the continued survival of both countries.
December 30, 2023
Kirk at his most concise and assessable. Highly recommended as an introduction to Kirk.
April 23, 2024
A concise explanation—not a defense—of what conservatism is. Required reading for all those who want to avoid straw men.
June 28, 2024
Concise.
August 27, 2024
Read it for a project. I learned what I needed to from it, but wouldn’t necessarily read again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews