Thanks for posting this article, Orrin. Like the others who have replied before me, it has encouraged some healthy introspection. While I agree with much of the article, I have a nagging concern that has its roots in another article, by F. A. Hayek, called “Why I Am Not A Conservative”. The article is free to read online. Essentially, Hayek claims that a conservative falls prey to the prevailing “wisdom” of his time, acting as a brake to slow social change, but not providing a true alternative direction of his own. This reminds me of one of Chris Brady's blog posts some time ago commenting that modern republicans (and conservatives here in Canada) have moved toward the political left as the “progressives” gain more and more sway. Russell Kirk talks about the importance of deliberate, thoughtful change taking into account the society's historical values, institutions, etc. My concern is that if the society is not thoroughly grounded in absolute principles, following this axiom can still lead to immoral values and institutions. All that is required is a slow progression of small measures toward that end, allowing such measures to slowly become entrenched in society's history and build upon themselves. My question for you, Orrin, is do you think I am being consistent in agreeing with both Russell Kirk's article and Hayek's at the same time? Are the two articles using the word “conservative” in different contexts, perhaps Kirk in the moral context, and Hayek in the political? Is it even possible or wise to separate the contexts? Thanks, Rob