What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Cause
The American Cause explains in simple yet eloquent language the bedrock principles upon which America's experiment in constitutional self-government is built. Russell Kirk, whose life and thought has recently been featured in C-SPAN's acclaimed American Writers series -- intended this little book to be an assertion of the moral and social principles upholding our nation. Kirk's primer is an aid to reflection on those principles -- political, economic, and religious -- that have united Americans when faced with challenges and threats from the enemies of ordered freedom. In this new age of terrorism, Kirk's lucid and straightforward presentation of the articles of American belief is both necessary and welcome. Gleaves Whitney's newly edited version of Kirk's work, combined with his insightful commentary, make The American Cause a timely addition to the literature of liberty.
125 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
28 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
About the author
Russell Kirk
185 books301 followersFor more than forty years, Russell Kirk was in the thick of the intellectual controversies of his time. He is the author of some thirty-two books, hundreds of periodical essays, and many short stories. Both Time and Newsweek have described him as one of America’s leading thinkers, and The New York Times acknowledged the scale of his influence when in 1998 it wrote that Kirk’s 1953 book The Conservative Mind “gave American conservatives an identity and a genealogy and catalyzed the postwar movement.”
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 19 reviews
December 22, 2020
The occasion for Russell Kirk's writing The American Cause gives helpful clarity into its content. During the Korean War (excuse me, the Korean Police Action), American soldiers captured by North Korean communists proved surprisingly susceptible to the propaganda of their captors, and the spectacle of American soldiers failing to understand or defend American values shocked American citizens. Kirk was commissioned by publisher Henry Regnery to write a book that explained "the American cause."
The American Cause, then, is part explication and part defense of the fundamental principles of American moral, political, and economic life. Like many of Kirk's books, it has gone through several revisions and releases, both during and after his life. Originally written in the late 1950s, it was republished a decade later as anti-American activism on college campuses became increasingly prevalent. And it was republished again in 2002, after the terrorist attacks of the previous year. At each republishing, the book has been intended to address a threat to American values (the Cold War, domestic radicalism, and international terrorism), and it is perhaps appropriate that once again we have need of this kind of defense of our foundational values.
For readers familiar with Kirk, there is much in The American Cause that will be familiar, but three themes stand out. The first is the imperfection built into the world and societies we inhabit. Early on, Kirk takes the reader on a theological journey of the brotherhood of man, sin nature, and their implications for human institutions. The existence of God and the basic equality of all mankind as His creation leads, Kirk writes, to the principle of the dignity that is the birthright of all people. So, too, our sin nature has created a less beneficent brotherhood, our equal proclivity to sin against God and each other. These two aspects of the Divine order create both duties that we have to each other in society, and ensure that such duties will never be perfectly fulfilled.
Therefore, the agitators who incessantly point out American society's failures are merely pointing out the failures of mankind at large, and despite their confidence they have no way of ending such failures once and for all here on earth. "Men who expect to create a heaven upon earth," Kirk writes, "in defiance of the laws of man's nature and the revelation of God, can create only hell upon earth."
This leads to the second theme, which is the need for balance in society. Understanding the inherent imperfections in human society, and the inability for us to secure perfection of any kind, the good society will be the one that secures justice, order, and freedom in their proper balance to each other. Kirk writes that justice, defined as the distributive justice by which men and associations are given what is due them and wrongdoers are punished, is "the first necessity of any decent society." This seems to contradict what Kirk would later write in Roots of American Order, that among the three "order has primacy" because it secures the other two, though he does offer similar sentiments here, writing that "Without order, justice rarely can be enforced, and freedom cannot be maintained."
But in a good society, all three are needed in the proper balance, which Kirk describes as a "regime of ordered liberty." Kirk explores each of the concepts in more detail, noting the idea of distributive justice, which protects true equality (equal rights under the law and to the possessions and expressions of each individual's unique nature) but militates against doctrinaire egalitarianism; the necessity to a good order of leadership and distinctions of role and function in society, which in effect is a balance between aristocracy and democracy; and the nature of freedom which, being not absolute license to do as one pleases, is in truth "obedience to the laws of God," and "the right of decent men, governed by conscience, to make their own principal choices in life." This devotion to finding and securing the proper combination of justice, order, and freedom, Kirk finds, is unique to America in world history, and though imperfect has still met considerable practical success.
Which brings us to the third theme, which is that while America is by no means a perfect nation, it has reason to be proud of its accomplishments even as it works to extend them. His points here are not some jingoistic set of talking points, but a repudiation of the idea, popular among radicals and political malcontents, that the country is defined by its failures and not its accomplishments.
He writes, "No nation has any right to be smug; for every nation's performance always falls short of that nation's duties. Yet, judged comparatively, America has some reason to be proud of her obedience to religious and moral truths. There always is immense room for improvement, anywhere. America's union of religious conviction with practical policy, nevertheless, has been as successful as most marriages can hope to be. Surely the fierce totalitarian regimes of our age have no claim to say, Pharisee-like, to America, 'I am holier than thou.'"
This message may seem, as other reviewers have noted, one-sided, but that is somewhat the point. This is a defense of America against radical ideologues, internal and external. In an age in which Americans are told that they should have nothing but embarrassment for their country and society, a fair but full-throated defense of our country becomes a necessity.
Kirk concludes, "Although nearly all Americans feel that these accusations [against America by revolutionaries] are unfounded, too often Americans have failed to reply coherently to such charges. The revolutionaries' intention is to give Americans a bad conscience, and to give the United States a bad reputation in the rest of the world; to confuse, to obscure the revolutionary aim by a barrage of petty and reckless insults to the United States. The radical propagandists are satisfied if, though failing to convince altogether, they succeed in establishing doubts about American society in men's minds; for the objective is not so much to win adherents as simply to weaken loyalty to the United States and to dishearten America's allies."
It perhaps should be comforting that the revolutionary's playbook has not changed in seven decades. It is undoubtedly disheartening that it continues to work. The American Cause is a reminder that American society, like all societies, is imperfect, but is worth defending.
The American Cause, then, is part explication and part defense of the fundamental principles of American moral, political, and economic life. Like many of Kirk's books, it has gone through several revisions and releases, both during and after his life. Originally written in the late 1950s, it was republished a decade later as anti-American activism on college campuses became increasingly prevalent. And it was republished again in 2002, after the terrorist attacks of the previous year. At each republishing, the book has been intended to address a threat to American values (the Cold War, domestic radicalism, and international terrorism), and it is perhaps appropriate that once again we have need of this kind of defense of our foundational values.
For readers familiar with Kirk, there is much in The American Cause that will be familiar, but three themes stand out. The first is the imperfection built into the world and societies we inhabit. Early on, Kirk takes the reader on a theological journey of the brotherhood of man, sin nature, and their implications for human institutions. The existence of God and the basic equality of all mankind as His creation leads, Kirk writes, to the principle of the dignity that is the birthright of all people. So, too, our sin nature has created a less beneficent brotherhood, our equal proclivity to sin against God and each other. These two aspects of the Divine order create both duties that we have to each other in society, and ensure that such duties will never be perfectly fulfilled.
Therefore, the agitators who incessantly point out American society's failures are merely pointing out the failures of mankind at large, and despite their confidence they have no way of ending such failures once and for all here on earth. "Men who expect to create a heaven upon earth," Kirk writes, "in defiance of the laws of man's nature and the revelation of God, can create only hell upon earth."
This leads to the second theme, which is the need for balance in society. Understanding the inherent imperfections in human society, and the inability for us to secure perfection of any kind, the good society will be the one that secures justice, order, and freedom in their proper balance to each other. Kirk writes that justice, defined as the distributive justice by which men and associations are given what is due them and wrongdoers are punished, is "the first necessity of any decent society." This seems to contradict what Kirk would later write in Roots of American Order, that among the three "order has primacy" because it secures the other two, though he does offer similar sentiments here, writing that "Without order, justice rarely can be enforced, and freedom cannot be maintained."
But in a good society, all three are needed in the proper balance, which Kirk describes as a "regime of ordered liberty." Kirk explores each of the concepts in more detail, noting the idea of distributive justice, which protects true equality (equal rights under the law and to the possessions and expressions of each individual's unique nature) but militates against doctrinaire egalitarianism; the necessity to a good order of leadership and distinctions of role and function in society, which in effect is a balance between aristocracy and democracy; and the nature of freedom which, being not absolute license to do as one pleases, is in truth "obedience to the laws of God," and "the right of decent men, governed by conscience, to make their own principal choices in life." This devotion to finding and securing the proper combination of justice, order, and freedom, Kirk finds, is unique to America in world history, and though imperfect has still met considerable practical success.
Which brings us to the third theme, which is that while America is by no means a perfect nation, it has reason to be proud of its accomplishments even as it works to extend them. His points here are not some jingoistic set of talking points, but a repudiation of the idea, popular among radicals and political malcontents, that the country is defined by its failures and not its accomplishments.
He writes, "No nation has any right to be smug; for every nation's performance always falls short of that nation's duties. Yet, judged comparatively, America has some reason to be proud of her obedience to religious and moral truths. There always is immense room for improvement, anywhere. America's union of religious conviction with practical policy, nevertheless, has been as successful as most marriages can hope to be. Surely the fierce totalitarian regimes of our age have no claim to say, Pharisee-like, to America, 'I am holier than thou.'"
This message may seem, as other reviewers have noted, one-sided, but that is somewhat the point. This is a defense of America against radical ideologues, internal and external. In an age in which Americans are told that they should have nothing but embarrassment for their country and society, a fair but full-throated defense of our country becomes a necessity.
Kirk concludes, "Although nearly all Americans feel that these accusations [against America by revolutionaries] are unfounded, too often Americans have failed to reply coherently to such charges. The revolutionaries' intention is to give Americans a bad conscience, and to give the United States a bad reputation in the rest of the world; to confuse, to obscure the revolutionary aim by a barrage of petty and reckless insults to the United States. The radical propagandists are satisfied if, though failing to convince altogether, they succeed in establishing doubts about American society in men's minds; for the objective is not so much to win adherents as simply to weaken loyalty to the United States and to dishearten America's allies."
It perhaps should be comforting that the revolutionary's playbook has not changed in seven decades. It is undoubtedly disheartening that it continues to work. The American Cause is a reminder that American society, like all societies, is imperfect, but is worth defending.
February 28, 2022
There's nothing wrong with this book, Kirk is fantastic per usual. The only thing I would say is that it's obviously written at a different time and we as Americans face different challenges that Kirk was up against when writing this. While our times might be similar in the sense that he is writing to help people ignorant about our history or our "project" he is still able to draw on (as my friend called it) shared social capital that now is either run out or is close to it. It's good however to see how times have changed and to see what arguments worked then, so we ourselves can learn from them and maybe see if any apply to the challenges that we face today or at the very least try to begin to build the social capital reserves so we can speak the same language again.
May 9, 2019
A shockingly one-sided propaganda piece originally written in 1957, in the black and white era of America = good, Russia = bad. While that narrative may have had some usefulness (and truthfulness) it has trained Americans to always see things through that narrative, in which we, defenders of freedom and liberty, are always "the good guys." But anyone who has spent even a little bit of time studying US history knows this to be false, whether it's domestic or foreign policy we are talking about.
Apart from being dated, the book is simply unwilling to examine the possibilities that America has erred either in its deliberate actions (manifest destiny, fake news wars with Mexico and Spain, Monroe Doctrine, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) or that there could be flaws in the founding (absolutely zero mention regarding slavery or treatment of natives, the Marshall intervention to make the Supreme Court superior to the other 2 branches of government, only the most passing of references to the War Between the States, in which the entire premise of America was fundamentally questioned, and answered in an authoritarian and predictable manner). Kirk's piece is an unapologetic apologia for America as the height of civilization, without remembering that all the references to Greece and Rome littered throughout the text point towards civilizations that failed at some point, for various reasons, and whatever the faults of the Greek and Romans and their empires they cannot be compared to the bullying, threatening, world policeman US empire, which is due for a fall, if not now, if not tomorrow, sometime. No empires last, except in Russell Kirk's imagination.
Various LOL moments throughout the text include:
"...the American cause has become the cause of all high culture." (p. 15)
"The United States is a Christian nation." (p. 17)
"From the first, then, we have been a Christian nation." (p. 36)
(quoting William O. Douglas) "We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary." (p. 37)
"...we Americans have recognized that it is neither right nor expedient for us to dictate, in politics or in religion, to the rest of the world." (p. 40)
"...as a political power the United States has not been appointed the keeper of the world's conscience." (p. 40)
"...not caring to become a Don Quixote among the nations, generally does not try to set other nations in the path of righteousness." (p. 41)
(straw man argument - no Christian nation has ever attempted such a thing) "It simply is not possible for political authority to enforce Christian morality, or any other sort of morality, in the everyday concerns of every man and woman." (p. 43)
(this is a complete "Enlightenment" novelty that has no basis in Christian judicial theory) "It is one of the great premises of American political theory that all just authority comes from the people, under God." (p. 67)
(ignoring the fact that 1861-1865 completely invalidate this point) "The United States are united voluntarily, and are united only fur the purposes, and under the conditions, described in the federal Constitution." (p. 69)
(regarding state governments) "Only a few matters of national importance are left to the jurisdiction of federal authority." (p. 72)
(completely untrue; the overwhelming majority of citizens of states cannot name their state song, motto, bird, etc.) "The American states, in short, are very like the Swiss cantons, autonomous for many purposes, and proud of their distinct identity. Many Americans continue to think of themselves as Virginians or Californians or Massachusetts men first, and citizens of the United States second."
"The belief in states' rights, the view of government which is called 'particularism' or 'Regionalism,' remains strong throughout the country." (p. 72)
(a false choice argument against having principles) "If, then, it sometimes is said that American parties seem to have no enduring principles, nevertheless we need to remember that neither do they have enduring fanaticisms and errors." (p. 85)
(an appeal to the impoverished Puritan work ethic, devoid of any spirituality and meaning beyond material gain, which is American's true summum bonum) "The more industry, thrift, honesty, and ingeniousness the world can encourage, the better off the whole world is." (p. 99)
"America is the least imperialistic, probably, of all great powers in all history." (p. 136)
Dr. Kirk is either willfully ignorant of the facts or just dishonest, but here are some words by Maj. General Smedley Butler, writing more than 25 years before Kirk penned this book:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Yet, there were some solid thoughts here and there:
"Civilization grows out of religion: the morals, the politics, the economics, the literature, and the arts of any people, all have a religious origin." (p. 18)
"For every right we receive from God, we have a duty toward God; for every right of ours that others respect, we are bound to respect the rights of others." (p. 26)
"The American Revolution was intended to secure in a practical fashion the American institutions and rights that already existed, the French Revolution was an attempt to turn a nation upside down and create something that had never before had existed." (p. 48)
"Every man has the natural right to his own abilities and to what he has inherited from his forefathers." (p. 55)
"John Adams...defined an aristocrat as any man who could influence two votes - his own and someone else's...a natural leader, qualified by intelligence, charm, strength, cleverness, industry, wealth, family, education, or some other resource to influence the opinions of his neighbors." (p. 59)
(quoting Dostoevsky) "If one begins with unlimited freedom, he will end with unlimited despotism." (p. 65)
(non ironically) "Braggart nations, like braggart men, generally are disliked; and smugness is a dangerous mood for any country, no matter how great is natural resources may be." (p. 109)
"Kierkegaard remarks somewhere that envy is unconscious and suppressed admiration." (p. 127)
But it's not worth reading this book to get to these few gems. Pass. And if you're actually interested in learning more about American history, foreign and domestic, you can check out Chalmers' Johnson's Blowback or Charles Coulombe's Puritan's Empire, respectively.
Apart from being dated, the book is simply unwilling to examine the possibilities that America has erred either in its deliberate actions (manifest destiny, fake news wars with Mexico and Spain, Monroe Doctrine, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) or that there could be flaws in the founding (absolutely zero mention regarding slavery or treatment of natives, the Marshall intervention to make the Supreme Court superior to the other 2 branches of government, only the most passing of references to the War Between the States, in which the entire premise of America was fundamentally questioned, and answered in an authoritarian and predictable manner). Kirk's piece is an unapologetic apologia for America as the height of civilization, without remembering that all the references to Greece and Rome littered throughout the text point towards civilizations that failed at some point, for various reasons, and whatever the faults of the Greek and Romans and their empires they cannot be compared to the bullying, threatening, world policeman US empire, which is due for a fall, if not now, if not tomorrow, sometime. No empires last, except in Russell Kirk's imagination.
Various LOL moments throughout the text include:
"...the American cause has become the cause of all high culture." (p. 15)
"The United States is a Christian nation." (p. 17)
"From the first, then, we have been a Christian nation." (p. 36)
(quoting William O. Douglas) "We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary." (p. 37)
"...we Americans have recognized that it is neither right nor expedient for us to dictate, in politics or in religion, to the rest of the world." (p. 40)
"...as a political power the United States has not been appointed the keeper of the world's conscience." (p. 40)
"...not caring to become a Don Quixote among the nations, generally does not try to set other nations in the path of righteousness." (p. 41)
(straw man argument - no Christian nation has ever attempted such a thing) "It simply is not possible for political authority to enforce Christian morality, or any other sort of morality, in the everyday concerns of every man and woman." (p. 43)
(this is a complete "Enlightenment" novelty that has no basis in Christian judicial theory) "It is one of the great premises of American political theory that all just authority comes from the people, under God." (p. 67)
(ignoring the fact that 1861-1865 completely invalidate this point) "The United States are united voluntarily, and are united only fur the purposes, and under the conditions, described in the federal Constitution." (p. 69)
(regarding state governments) "Only a few matters of national importance are left to the jurisdiction of federal authority." (p. 72)
(completely untrue; the overwhelming majority of citizens of states cannot name their state song, motto, bird, etc.) "The American states, in short, are very like the Swiss cantons, autonomous for many purposes, and proud of their distinct identity. Many Americans continue to think of themselves as Virginians or Californians or Massachusetts men first, and citizens of the United States second."
"The belief in states' rights, the view of government which is called 'particularism' or 'Regionalism,' remains strong throughout the country." (p. 72)
(a false choice argument against having principles) "If, then, it sometimes is said that American parties seem to have no enduring principles, nevertheless we need to remember that neither do they have enduring fanaticisms and errors." (p. 85)
(an appeal to the impoverished Puritan work ethic, devoid of any spirituality and meaning beyond material gain, which is American's true summum bonum) "The more industry, thrift, honesty, and ingeniousness the world can encourage, the better off the whole world is." (p. 99)
"America is the least imperialistic, probably, of all great powers in all history." (p. 136)
Dr. Kirk is either willfully ignorant of the facts or just dishonest, but here are some words by Maj. General Smedley Butler, writing more than 25 years before Kirk penned this book:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Yet, there were some solid thoughts here and there:
"Civilization grows out of religion: the morals, the politics, the economics, the literature, and the arts of any people, all have a religious origin." (p. 18)
"For every right we receive from God, we have a duty toward God; for every right of ours that others respect, we are bound to respect the rights of others." (p. 26)
"The American Revolution was intended to secure in a practical fashion the American institutions and rights that already existed, the French Revolution was an attempt to turn a nation upside down and create something that had never before had existed." (p. 48)
"Every man has the natural right to his own abilities and to what he has inherited from his forefathers." (p. 55)
"John Adams...defined an aristocrat as any man who could influence two votes - his own and someone else's...a natural leader, qualified by intelligence, charm, strength, cleverness, industry, wealth, family, education, or some other resource to influence the opinions of his neighbors." (p. 59)
(quoting Dostoevsky) "If one begins with unlimited freedom, he will end with unlimited despotism." (p. 65)
(non ironically) "Braggart nations, like braggart men, generally are disliked; and smugness is a dangerous mood for any country, no matter how great is natural resources may be." (p. 109)
"Kierkegaard remarks somewhere that envy is unconscious and suppressed admiration." (p. 127)
But it's not worth reading this book to get to these few gems. Pass. And if you're actually interested in learning more about American history, foreign and domestic, you can check out Chalmers' Johnson's Blowback or Charles Coulombe's Puritan's Empire, respectively.
February 4, 2016
In his quest to prove why America is an exceptional nation (perhaps the exceptional nation) Russell Kirk puts forward a series of abstract conceptions (e.g., tradition, order, etc.) which he thinks define America. But this mode of inquiry shows its faults right way. In Kirk's understanding, America is good because it is based on principles that Russell Kirk likes. In lieu of trying to more fully understand the Founders as they saw themselves, Kirk instead puts his own understanding front and center. One can almost hear the constant noise of back-patting as one reads through this short book.
Kirk's silence on elements of the American Founding of which he is skeptical or disapproves is evidenced in his absolute silence regarding the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. (In an introduction for a biography of Jefferson written by Albert Jay Nock, Kirk writes that it was good that Nock did not spent too much time discussing the Declaration since it "is not conspicuously American in its ideas or its phrases.") Instead, along with Stephen Douglas, Kirk understands the Revolution to be not much of a Revolution at all. Americans were simply claiming their rights as Englishmen.
Though sections on the evils of Marxism and communism are worth while, Americans reading this book will not come away with any clearer ideas about why their nation is exceptional.
Kirk's silence on elements of the American Founding of which he is skeptical or disapproves is evidenced in his absolute silence regarding the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. (In an introduction for a biography of Jefferson written by Albert Jay Nock, Kirk writes that it was good that Nock did not spent too much time discussing the Declaration since it "is not conspicuously American in its ideas or its phrases.") Instead, along with Stephen Douglas, Kirk understands the Revolution to be not much of a Revolution at all. Americans were simply claiming their rights as Englishmen.
Though sections on the evils of Marxism and communism are worth while, Americans reading this book will not come away with any clearer ideas about why their nation is exceptional.
January 5, 2023
Unlike Kirk's other work, this number isn't a five-star must read. He sheds some of his normally rigorous thought and scholarship to score rhetorical points. All well and good given the circumstances, but today it's largely stale and almost utopian.
On one hand, you can read it to appreciate how far America has fallen. On the other, it's useful to assess the conservative idealism of the day; the vital remnants they could conceivably revive or repurpose.
The final two chapters of the book are the brightest parts- his description of Communism's subversion and potential American answers to it are rock solid. If only more Americans of his day took note.
The afterward is equally superb in its summary of America's amazing national achievements. Achievements we don't tend to give ourselves enough credit for.
On one hand, you can read it to appreciate how far America has fallen. On the other, it's useful to assess the conservative idealism of the day; the vital remnants they could conceivably revive or repurpose.
The final two chapters of the book are the brightest parts- his description of Communism's subversion and potential American answers to it are rock solid. If only more Americans of his day took note.
The afterward is equally superb in its summary of America's amazing national achievements. Achievements we don't tend to give ourselves enough credit for.
August 11, 2023
"Good natured ignorance is a luxury none of us can afford."
Russell Kirk
Very informative and enjoyable read. Especially for those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the good in America, this book is a must-read. Russell Kirk discusses each aspect of American exceptionalism and lays out in plain language the great achievements of our country. I wholeheartedly agree with Kirk: the United States is an exceptional nation and the American cause is worth fighting for.
Russell Kirk
Very informative and enjoyable read. Especially for those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the good in America, this book is a must-read. Russell Kirk discusses each aspect of American exceptionalism and lays out in plain language the great achievements of our country. I wholeheartedly agree with Kirk: the United States is an exceptional nation and the American cause is worth fighting for.
September 3, 2022
Excellent book. Although short, it's well organized, well researched, and well presented. Every American should read this book.
.
"The American cause is not to stamp out of existence all rivals, but simply to keep alive the principles and institutions which have made the American nation great."
- Russell Kirk, The American Cause
.
"The American cause is not to stamp out of existence all rivals, but simply to keep alive the principles and institutions which have made the American nation great."
- Russell Kirk, The American Cause
October 24, 2025
Excellent read! Should be required reading for all high school history classes. Helps to give a good understanding of The American Cause and what it is, what it means and what’s required of us today 250 years later to keep it going. As I read this book I could definitely think of things we are failing in. Hope we can get back on track and continue this great cause.
February 13, 2019
I read this for my Federal Seminar class.
January 23, 2016
A short and eloquent book by one of the fathers of American conservatism, Russell Kirk. Written in the mid-1950s, The American Cause serves as a sort of primer on what makes America special. What was remarkable to me was the assumptions that Kirk could make in the 1950s--the importance of family, the wide-spread practice of religion, the assumption of the primacy of the state (as opposed to the federal government), the general acceptance of values like thrift, hard work, self-reliance, etc. These areas of American life have frayed beyond anything the Communists (the enemy at the time of this book's writing) could have hoped for in their most ardent fantasies of world conquest.
This book is a quote garden; I underlined and starred and checked dozens of passages. In the interest of brevity, I will provide just one that seemed especially poignant: "Minds ignorant of principle easily are vanquished by ideology." Now, ideology in and of itself is not a band thing. My definition of ideology is a group of related principals. When one holds principals that conflict, ideology is more difficult to maintain, which is what leads so many people to be political independents. Kirk is correct, though, in anticipating our modern day's lack of coherent principles, and the vanquishment of many good people's ability to think clearly by the numbing drone of our cartoon like media. Most people have (uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed) opinions, strong feelings about 'them', and a desperately shallow understanding of our nation's history. It's little wonder that our politics are so small, so mean, and so dismaying.
I have said many times that I would like to build a time machine and go back to 1945 to raise my family in America's Golden Age. Russell Kirk is a voice from that era. I am glad he's not hear to see what we've become.
This book is a quote garden; I underlined and starred and checked dozens of passages. In the interest of brevity, I will provide just one that seemed especially poignant: "Minds ignorant of principle easily are vanquished by ideology." Now, ideology in and of itself is not a band thing. My definition of ideology is a group of related principals. When one holds principals that conflict, ideology is more difficult to maintain, which is what leads so many people to be political independents. Kirk is correct, though, in anticipating our modern day's lack of coherent principles, and the vanquishment of many good people's ability to think clearly by the numbing drone of our cartoon like media. Most people have (uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed) opinions, strong feelings about 'them', and a desperately shallow understanding of our nation's history. It's little wonder that our politics are so small, so mean, and so dismaying.
I have said many times that I would like to build a time machine and go back to 1945 to raise my family in America's Golden Age. Russell Kirk is a voice from that era. I am glad he's not hear to see what we've become.
May 22, 2009
This would be a good book for the George Fox University senior capstone class. Either when they're doing "Islam and the West," or "The American Dream." It's simple enough that they could understand it, and it's short, it's repetitive, and it's a good summary of what makes America worth upholding. It argues against communism, but that material is probably as useful as ever, given our lurch toward statism.
June 28, 2012
This book was written in 1957. It's shocking how many things have changed in this country since then. Many of the points he made about this country and why we are great have been lost over the years. It just reinforces in my mind that we are on the wrong course and could end up not being the preeminent power in the world in the foreseeable future unless some things change.
March 30, 2015
The Godfather of the Conservative movement wrote a magnificent explanation of American exceptionalism. It is Kirk at his best. The last two chapters should be read aloud every day in the United States Congress.
Currently reading
April 13, 2009concise, clear and reminds me of why i am such a flag-waver.
Read
November 21, 2009Has Ben sold this?
September 10, 2011
A well made case for the claim that American political principles are a unique and informed expression of classical Western traditions with careful consideration given to practical circumstances.
Read
October 18, 2022If I were to say it should be compulsory for every American to read this book I will have learned nothing from it. Every American should read it though.
June 12, 2016
This is a superb little book explaining what American exceptionalism is (and isn't). It's just as relevant today as it is half a century ago when Kirk wrote it. Highly recommended and quick to read.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 19 reviews