Growing Up Conservative?

I read with great interest the Circe Institute article entitled "Growing Up Conservative?" (posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011). It mirrored some of my concerns regarding the foundation of modern education.

There is much in this article to ruminate upon.  Andrew Kern explores the "elephant in the room" that many conservatives refused to speak of publicly, that is, the innocent ignorance or willful disregard of conservatism's most esteemed contributors throughout history  (i.e. Kirk, Burke, de Toqueville) in favor of the louder and more embarrassing voices of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh represents conservative thought to our age. When you go to school, you learn something between the Whig and the French Revolution version of history and humanity... [The student will] be compelled to study analytical approaches to normative subjectives for years. If his soul survives at all, it will have a respect for tradition and simply tune out the hyper-analysis of the modern university. But it won’t have been given the good food it so craved.

But in a way, it’s the liberals’ fault that conservatives are so reactionary. We’d like better thinkers to follow, but they’ve convinced us there aren’t any, if only by removing them from the curriculum.

Kern begins to address a serious problem within the conservative side of modern politics but rather than giving a deeper analysis, he instead panders to the ego of a conservative readership. Why are conservative-minded people unaware of these great men; men who agreed on the self reliance of the individual and the promotion of a social liberty in which the individual is free to find a success or failure?  According to Kern, it's all someone else's fault, not ours. Kern extols the virtues of those who wrote in the conservative tradition yet departs from their central philosophy as soon as the light of self introspection becomes too painful to bear.  He adopts the banner cry of modern victim politics: it's all someone else's fault, not ours.

It must be pointed out that the Circe Institute's core mission is educational and it makes perfect sense that Kern would focus on the weaknesses found in modern curricula.  And it is understood that his primary audience is concerned with reviving a superior mode of education.  But the Circe Institute is also read by many non-educators and Kern's article had the potential for a greater impact, but by not fully addressing the very problem he brings to light (and courageously so, I must give him that), I feel he helps perpetuates the sad state of affairs.  If we accept the philosophy of self reliance and rugged individualism, we must accept the responsibility for our own failures.  The university system has never stopped anyone from entering a library and reading Kirk or Burke.

It isn't "the liberals’ " fault that conservatives are so reactionary.  Conservatives are reactionary because they so freely give themselves over to these pop-conservatives and refuse to even question them. It is as simple as that. These lesser people are given a place of honor they have not earned. It is an indulgence on the part of conservatives.

Kern is accurate when he describes the modern approach to social sciences:

He’ll be compelled to study analytical approaches to normative subjectives for years. If his soul survives at all, it will have a respect for tradition and simply tune out the hyper-analysis of the modern university. But it won’t have been given the good food it so craved.

And later...

We’re only given the calculators (i.e. analysts, pragmatists, skeptics) to read.

Russell Kirk 1918 - 1994

This was my experience as a student of political science.  However, I do not blame a curriculum or a university system for my lack of exposure.  Any deficiency on my part I considered my fault if I refused to inquire further.  In order to make the best grades possible, was it not my responsibility to do my homework and research as thoroughly as I could?  It was the hunger for an older and higher excellence that was always just out of reach (and still is) that drove me into the arms of Aristotle, Cicero, Russell Kirk, and Shakespeare.

At this moment in American culture the pop-conservatives mentioned by Kern (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Beck) carry more clout and are relied upon more heavily among the average conservative.  In contrast, humanities educators are viewed with great skepticism especially those in the social sciences.  So if we must blame someone other than ourselves, it makes little sense to point the finger at the university.

Kern's article gives us the perfect platform from which to ask why Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have never done an on-air study of G. K. Chesterton or Russel Kirk.  Kern's article gives us the perfect platform from which to ask why Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have never debated Noam Chomsky as did William Buckley.  The simple reason is that these modern opinion leaders simply do not have the intellectual ability despite their never ending, self-glorifying bombast. In order to maintain their media constructed image of "leader", they necessarily must avoid drawing listeners' attention to the greats. Kern's article is the timely platform from which to start openly discussing the fact that Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have more opportunity to impart virtue to their loyal followers than even the best curriculum, yet they do not.

If we are going to preach personal responsibility we need to practice it ourselves.