It has been my pleasure, now that I have come to the United States of America (more specifically the city that gave origin to the longest running soap opera in history) to gain some small familiarity with the work of a very important intellectual, in the good sense of the word, which has been of capital importance to the conservative thought and also to conservative politics over the last decades. Of course I'm talking about Russell Kirk.
Dr. Kirk's "Conservative Mind" is the book in question, and I'm constantly surprised to see that the intellectual history of conservatism is filled with greatness, much more than I could have ever imagined, given my Brazilian education in the humanities (mostly a mix of godlessness and leftist propaganda). Not only that was surprising, but also the fact that many conservatives, as shown by Dr. Kirk, defended that democracy was not the only and best form of government thinkable, but also showed that in some ways democracy is a shortcut to tyranny.
The main idea is that the unchecked democracy is a sure road to a chaos of legislation regarding the most trivial matters, the necessity to consult the public opinion and to enforce it against good sense, all of those leading to disorder in society. The people (the sovereign people, if you wish) ends up looking for the first man or group clever enough to promise some sense of direction in exchange for obedience in every way.
This kind of anti-democratic thinking was something to be loathed when I was in college. Both law and philosophy professors (I'm a Law graduate who also studied philosophy whenever a chance appeared) abhorred the idea that anything else was possible, and rapidly reminded us of the three hundred or something terrorists arrested and killed during the military dictatorship in Brazil (of course I'm pretty sure that the terrorists that escaped to Cuba got to kill their share of people too, since that regime killed more than one hundred thousand people). That was so automatic that I never saw anything remotely different from democracy as less than murder.
One begins to wonder about such things when one gets in contact with the philosophers and try to make out their reasons for one or the other position (democratic or anti-democratic, that is) and the results of their work. Plato is one of the best examples of how one begins to question the validity of democracy. He was born during a time of social instability and soon he witnessed a political crisis in Athens, precisely the home and cradle of democracy. He saw as the democratic ideal had a propensity to the fostering of tyranny. His political ideas were the result of his disappointment with the rule of the majority and his perception that the people should be ruled by the best, not by the mob.
That kind of elitist thinking is rather odd to the modern ear, because of the argument for equality, which is so unquestionable nowadays. However, our experience shows that equality is a fallacy, or better, it only applies in the context of the Christian equality before god: "I am a debtor[the apostle Paul owes the gospel, that is] both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish." (Rom. 1:14). An equality in every other respect seem more like a plan of the devil to pervert the equality willed by God. It is obvious that the idea that all can be equal in most respects, when there are so many differences as there are people, is madness.
When Plato rejects equality, he suggests that some people are fit for the government, other for the arts, other for commerce, and so on. One should know oneself before believing to be able to impart some of his or her wisdom to society on every possible matter proposed. This kind of order in society requires that people be honest with themselves and with others, in a way that is very hard to believe today. The modern man honestly believe (because of the equality lie) that he is entitled to every benefit and every exercise of power possible in a given society, and gets rather frustrated when reality tells him otherwise.
The conservative knows that life is not about having rights without obligations, that privilege comes with responsibility, that men are not equal and thy should not wish to be, for that would be tyrannical. It's realistic, it's human, it fits. It's not that democracy and conservatism are incompatible. As long as democracy can be checked by prejudice and the accumulated wisdom of experience, as well as a distaste for sudden changes, the two of them can live side by side. But only because the conservative will be alert to any kind of derailment of democratic power, any exercise of that power that tries to enforce itself too rapidly or to deeply into the body politic.
I mourn for Brazil as i think of such things, because most people are being fooled by demagogic democratic rhetoric, mainly because, it is flattering for the people to hear that it has power, even when it is only the power to install chaos.
Image:
"Democracy .. a challenge." Illinois WPA Art Project. Work Projects Administration Poster Collection (Library of Congress).