574
PARTISAN REVIEW
The total attack on liberalism is almost as ill-conceived as the com–
ments on science. When conservatives ask what, basically, they want
to conserve, one of the first things they should think of is the liberal
tradition. Ortega, who is called by Mr. Kirk, "an observer as shrewd
as the twentieth century possesses," could be his teacher in this, when
he writes: "The past has reason on its side, its own reason.
If
that
reason is not admitted, it will return to demand it. Liberalism had its
reason, which will have to be admitted
per saecula saeculorum.
But it
had not the whole of reason, and
it
is 'that part which was not reason
that must be taken from it. Europe needs to preserve its essential liberal–
ism. This is the condition for superseding it." Ortega sensed, too, that
there is an essential aristocracy in the liberal tradition at its best. He
knew that it is the liberal discipline that habituates rulers to restraint
of their own power in dealing with minorities, and that permits them
the strength to bow out of office when they are out-voted, instead of
reaching for their guns. Liberalism, after all, has put its faith in
indi–
vidual liberty and reason, and in the development of self-discipline; it
is no paradox to see its faith as aristocratic. The conservative, with his
belief that individual action cannot seriously affect society, and
his
dependence on institution and tradition, has some natural affinity for
the masses and the mass-mind, akin to their obstinate refusal to con–
sider any possibility not hardened in the cake of custom, and their easy
dependence on force.
It means little to believe in the "natural aristocrat," as Mr. Kirk
does (and Jefferson did), when one clings to a class structure rigid to
the point of caste. Classes of one sort or another are not only desirable;
they are necessary to society; and liberal thinkers of any stature have
said so. But the doctrine of "natural aristocracy" has its fulfillment in
practice only when there is sufficient access to education and vocational
opportunity ("social mobility" in the best sense) for the aristocrat to
find his proper niche in society. Mr. Kirk, like so many conservatives
who disdain aristocracies of birth or wealth, as Burke did, seems to
parade the doctrine of "natural aristocracy" while rejecting its practice.
Religion, for Mr. Kirk, is somehow always mixed in the liberal–
conservative controversy, and is explicitly part of the conservative canon.
Does he mean that liberals cannot be religious and that religionists can–
not be liberal?
If
not, what is the issue? "Social planners" and utopians
are excoriated throughout this book, as though they were always liberals.
(One sometimes feels that these issues are only about names.) But
