UPDATE: Conservative Book Club rambles on

I wanted to post an update following my initial item about using Facebook to create a conservative book club that would allow people to discuss the roots of conservatism and better form their understanding of their personal philosophy.

I have been a little suprised at the diversity of members that have come to join the group.  We are up to 47 members and welcoming more each day.  Group members come from all over the United States and one member from overseas.  Their backgrounds are as varied as the books they chose for our first book to read.

We started with a broad list of books that were recommended by group members or suggested by an article on conservative books in the National Review online as well as a speech Russell Kirk gave at The Heritage Foundation.  In the end, The Conservative Mind won the balloting by a nose, but several books received one or two votes, indicative of the wide range of interests group members share.

We're in the process of discussion the first part, but I thought I would post some of the discussion questions that I shared with the group.  Even if you choose not to join the group, I'd be interested to read any responses you'd like to share to some of the questions we're considering in the comments below:

1. Kirk posits six principles of conservatism, borrowing from F.J.C. Hearnshaw's twelve principles in his "Conservatism in England". Do you feel these principles adequately cover the scope of conservative thought? Should any be excluded or are there other principles that should be included?
2. Kirk also identifies several lines of attack that have been used to undermine conservatism. Do any of these lines of attack resemble forces within conservatism today? If so, should this force be considered dangerous to conservatism or should it be adopted and embraced by conservatism?
3. Kirk suggests that the relative stability in England and the United States (no revolution since 1790), merit study of conservatism. Should the Civil War (or War Between the States) be considered a revolution. If so, does this fact undermine Kirk's presumption that the United States has enjoyed relative political stability compared to other major states?
4. Kirk wrote this introduction following World War II. At the time he writes that conservatism has been handed a unilateral defeat. From what you've read so far, do you think Kirk would have considered Reagan's victory in 1980 or the change in leadership in the House of Representatives in 1994 as victories for the conservative movement?
5. Kirk postulates two reasons for the demise of conservatism, 1) "Conservative ideas, however sound, cannot resist the unreasoning forces of industrialism, centralization, secularism, and the leveling impulse," and 2) "Conservative thinkers have lacked perspicacity sufficient to meet the conundrums of modern times." Do you agree with either of these sentiments? Do you believe that conservatism has suffered from a staggering decline? Why or why not?

You're also welcome to join the discussion at our Facebook group site.

Thanks,

Derek Pillie