Russell Kirk

Why is cycling conservative?

So I’ve put forward the premise that cycling is conservative but I have yet to make the case. Of course my entire blog is designed to do that but I think it’s worth a separate post on the topic.

reagan-bike-wyman

Yep, that’s Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman!!

Why do I think cycling is conservative? One way — albeit a very hard way — to explain is to use Kirk’s ten principles of conservatism and apply them to cycling. I’ll give it a try.

“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order”. According to Kirk, “that order is made for man [humans], and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. This word order signifies harmony”. Cycling promotes that harmony, harmony with the machine, harmony with the environment, harmony with your fellow cyclists and other commuters, harmony with the urban landscape. Other activities do this as well, but cycling is an exemplar.

“Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire”. Cycling has a long history and has it’s established customs and rules. The basic technology itself has not changed in over 100 years.

“Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time”. I’ll cheat here and ask you to see above! It’s the same principle – history, tradition, longevity, the wisdom of our elder cyclists.

“Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. There is nothing more prudent than cycling – it is a relatively cheap and easy way to navigate the city.

“Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.” Cycling is a long-established social institution that resists conformity much to the chagrin of the Leftist who wants to make cycling a political activity with a “narrow uniformity” (e.g. you cycle so you must think like a Leftist) and “deadening egalitarianism” (e.g. cycle paths). Just look at cyclists in European cities – for the most part, they all ride the same style of bike and use the same bike lanes and ride at the same speed.

“Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man [humans] being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created”. The conservative cyclist denies we can create a cycling utopia and believes the attempt to create one will only lead to tyranny.

“Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.” We own our bicycles. They are a part of us unlike a subway or street car. Kirk adds” the conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully. The conservative cyclist obeys the rules of the road and keeps his or her bicycle safe and in good repair. I wonder how abused shared or Bixi/Citi bikes are?

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism”. The key word for the conservative cyclist is “voluntary” – we come together or not as we see fit locally. We resist government-sponsored or sanctioned associations. We rarely participate in Critical Mass rides – way too radical and authoritarian . We form associations based on mutual interest and are free to disassociate when those interests are no longer mutual. And we resist the call to make bicycles political tools of the Left.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions”...The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise”. Leave the government out of cycling. It’s one less thing for government to usurp from the people. Did you know that Ontario has an official cycling strategy?  http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling/ How ever did we survive as a province without a cycling strategy?

“Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects”.  The conservative cyclist agrees. Now I think I’ll enjoy a whiskey and a cigar and watch a classic movie.

5068ee79aa75cbbbd817227aabd49832.jpg

Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly on the set of “Rear Window”

What is conservatism?

Here are a few definitions of conservatism I’ve heard from a few of my lefty acquaintances:

–       they are for unfettered free-market capitalism

–       they represent reactionary elitism

–       they are religious fanatics and warmongers

–       they hate human rights, gay rights, “gay marriage”

–       feminists are not conservatives

–       they are all big businessmen and white guys in suits

–       they want no government at all

–       and they are imperialists and royalists and love the military

Of course, these definitions are all stereotypes and caricatures. My favourite insult is when conservatives are called Nazis. Why is it my favourite? Because it demonstrates immediately that I am dealing with someone who is utterly ignorant not only about conservatism, which is expected I suppose, but also about socialism and leftism. They are shocked when I inform them that Nazis were socialists and the farthest thing from conservatives. Nazis had more in common with communists.

So once these folks climb off the wall and ask me the question what is a conservative, here’s my response.

Conservatism is not an ideology, like communism or progressivism. It’s a disposition. There are no manifestos or guidebooks. It’s pragmatic but not dogmatic. It’s principled but not fundamentalist.

Conservatives come in many stripes and labels: fiscal, social, religious, cultural. And in different settings, they are different creatures. But what do they have in common? The best definition of conservatism comes from Russell Kirk, the father of American conservatism. I’m quoting Rod Dreher of the American Conservative magazine who cites Russel Kirk’s “Ten Conservatives Principles” in a September 22, 2012 blog post:

Dreher writes: “I should start by saying that I don’t think there is only one way to be a conservative. There is not conservatism; there are conservatisms, and they draw from each other. The best general definition of “conservative” that I know is Russell Kirk’s essay on Ten Conservative Principles. Kirk begins:

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims.

“I [Dreher] cannot improve on Kirk’s list, but I would say that for me, the first of his Ten Conservative Principles speaks deepest to why I am a conservative”:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Dreher adds: “I, for example, don’t see how anyone can call himself a conservative in a meaningful sense and be in favor of the unrestrained free market. But that’s an argument worth having. I don’t think it’s prudent or wise to declare that anyone who disagrees with me is therefore not a conservative. I don’t understand economics as well as I ought to, so perhaps I have something to learn from them. And, many free-market fundamentalists on the libertarian side don’t understand culture and society as well as they might, and have something to learn from people like me.

Anyway, as Kirk said, conservatism is an attitude toward the world, not a dogmatic religion. It irritates me to no end that the American conservative mind is so closed, even to thinkers and resources in its own tradition. As Kirk’s tenth canon says, “The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” That means that we have to be willing and able to think creatively about conservative principles, and apply them to new facts and circumstances.

I suppose one way to think about conservatism — sorry, conservatisms — is by asking the question, “What do you want to conserve?” Kirk once said that the traditional family was the institution most important to conserve. I agree with that, and most of my conservatism comes from that conviction. That’s why, for example, I don’t place as much value on economic liberty as many conservatives do. If an economic practice undermines the integrity of the family and the familist order (which itself depends on a strong religious sense), then I am likely to oppose it. One of the reasons I have come to be much more skeptical of the aggressively militaristic and nationalistic foreign policy many conservatives advocate is the effect of war on family life (that is, of soldiers deployed and returned), and of what the acceptance of torture does to our moral sensibility. Similarly, I am in principle willing to accept more involvement of the state for the sake of shoring up the family and the moral order than libertarians are.”

Here’s a link to Kirk’s essay: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/12/conservatism.html

Here’s a link to Dreher’s blog post: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-is-a-conservative/