Rating: 
Summary: Don't you hate oxymoronic titles?
Review: This book should be relegated to the category of exploded myths.
Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding read
Review: This book should form the cornerstone of every Conservative's library. A breathtaking book enabling the reader to "stand on the shoulders" of some of the greatest thinkers in the past 225 years. This book will inspire in most readers that most coveted of all reading experiences, that "ah-ha!" moment when you gain insights that, had you been left you your own devices, might never have occurred to you.
This is the sort of book that inspires you. I loved every page. Kirk recounts the modern conservative movement from Edmund Burke to nearly the present. He explores, in depth, the pedigree of the modern conservative mind. IMO, there is no finer introduction to conservative thought than this particular book and in general ANY book by Russell Kirk.
In addition to being a compendium of conservative thinking this book is an articulation of the author's own take on the conservative mind. I believe that this book is a must read for any young curious man or woman intent on developing their critical faculties. The book demands your attention while stimulating it at the same time. It is almost a perfect teaching tool.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
Rating:
Summary: Moral Absolutism and Natural Aristocracy
Review: You don't have to be a Conservative to like this book. I found it very useful in understanding the basic worldview from which a Conservative might operate; and from that, one can make good assumptions as to how Conservatives view Liberals. Kirk's thinking is profound, his reading extensive, and his arguments well-written. The major points I took away from this discussion are:1) The Conservative assumes that the design of the world is not by accident, but by transcendental purpose. Metaphysical, permanent standards of Right and Wrong exist: moral standards are not relative. Similarly, the structure of society is not arbitrary. We should not attempt to alter society using science or social engineering, because we are strictly human, and our understanding is limited. Change, when it happens, should be modulated in such a way as to limit its effects on society. 2) A "natural aristocracy" exists in any society. It consists of the best and brightest individuals, and perhaps those born with reserves of wealth. No legislation or voter majority can eliminate it. John Adams defines a member of the natural aristocracy (in a Democracy) as anyone who has the power to influence at least one vote other than his own. 3) Individuals are born with certain Natural Rights, consisting primarily of property rights. Government should always act to protect property rights, especially in a Democracy, where the poorest elements of society may employ their voting power to redistribute the possessions of the wealthy few. A Democracy that gives unmitigated power to the people quickly deteriorates into the worst kind of tyranny. 4) Instincts and prejudices frequently have meaning: the individual may be foolsh, but the species is wise. The thinking of a few bright persons should not take precedence over tradition. Most of this comes out of Edmund Burke. The Natural Aristocracy theory is primarily from John Adams. The dozens of other conservative thinkers that Kirk discusses tend to modify or enhance the thinking of Burke and Adams. De Tocqueville, for example, sounds the alarm over the potential "Tyranny of Democracy", but that seems to follow from Burke's thinking on natural rights. I had a few exceptions with some minor points. Kirk argues, for one, that the American Revolution was somehow a "conservative revolution"; but I think you could make a more convincing case that it was in fact an Enlightenment-Liberal revolution. Also, he has a tendency to lump all of the different Liberals and Leftists together into a single agglomeration of "Benthamites" (after the British utilitarian/socialist philosopher Jeremy Bentham). On the whole, however, I can recommend this one to any reader interested in understanding how people think politically.
| 
