A Case for Conservatism

by John Kekes

In his recent book Against Liberalism, philosopher John Kekes argued that liberalism as a political system is doomed to failure by its internal inconsistencies. In this companion volume, he makes a compelling case for conservatism as the best alternative. His is the first systematic description and defense of the basic assumptions underlying conservative thought.

Conservatism, Kekes maintains, is concerned with the political arrangements that enable members of a society to live good lives. These political arrangements are based on skepticism about ideologies, pluralism about values, traditionalism about institutions, and pessimism about human perfectibility. The political morality of conservatism requires the protection of universal conditions of all good lives, social conditions that vary with societies, and individual conditions that reflect differences in character and circumstance. Good lives, according to Kekes, depend equally on pursuing possibilities that these conditions establish and on setting limits to their violations.

Attempts to make political arrangements reflect these basic tenets of conservatism are unavoidably imperfect. Kekes concludes, however, that they represent a better hope for the future than any other possibility.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy

256 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1998

About the author

John Kekes is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University at Albany, SUNY, and Research Professor at Union College, Schenectady, New York. He is a noted conservative thinker, with interests mostly in ethics and political philosophy.

Reviews

[James S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you're trying to figure out why anyone would be conservative, this book is a good place to start. It's worthwhile because it gives a cogent intellectual defense of a political movement that has a tendency towards anti-intellectualism. However, overall it was rather dry. More examples from reality would have enlivened the argument.

[Alex Tsiatsos · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough refutation of egalitarianism.