CONSERVATISM RECRUDESCENT
513
referring to a noxious condition such as disease or pestilence. Thus
the meaning of the word suggests an analogy between conservatism
and an epidemic and encourages borrowing some of the techniques
of the epidemiologist; just as the latter tries to understand the basic
patterns of pernicious disease, so we might analyze the structure of
conservative thought to understand what its present resurgence im–
plies. I shall also try to point out why I believe the neo-conservatives
will
fail in their attempt to gain intellectual leadership. Their failure
is
implied in deficiencies-some new and others ancient-inherent in
the character and structure of conservative thought.
First of all, from an epistemological standpoint, one of the ef–
fects of the conservative virus is the toxic paralysis of reason. Al–
though the conservatives assert they do not detest reason but would
like to see more of it in political life, they want to be "realistic" and
prefer to recognize that political behavior
is
ruled by force rather than
by reason and discussion. Their "realism" expresses at least a half–
truth about politics, but enlightened conservatives recognize that
rule by force uncontrolled by reason and consent is a regime of
nihilism which they say they do not want. Nevertheless, Sorel and
others have spelled out for us the intimate relationships between
nihilism, violence, and the anti-rational thought patterns that are
called myth. On the other hand, if we believe that men are at least
potentially rational and
if
we wish to develop this potential and
stimulate or increase (as Mr. Kirk does) what rationality there is
in polities, we cannot do it by telling men that it is naive or dan–
gerous to believe that reason has anything to do with politics. Thus,
the conservative (and here I am not speaking of mixed conservatives
like Mr. Viereck but of those like Mr. Kirk whom I shall call "in–
tegral conservatives") who turns his back on reason and chooses to
be moved solely by the impulses of tradition, prejudice, and pre–
scription (these are Mr. Kirk's terms) invites a peril which Western
civilization has struggled to escape for over two and a half millennia.
This is the
political
danger of mythical thought.
I am not using myth here in a pejorative sense, but in the
technical sense found in the distinguished writings of scholars like
Cassirer, Frankfort, and others. Myth in this sense is a form of
symbolic expression, an attempt to objectify social emotions and ex–
press them in symbolic form. It transcends poetry, however, in pro-
