Forget About Burke
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
A few days ago, Richard Spencer mocked the new Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal. In my estimation, the mockery was well deserved. I’ve read my fair share of Burke, and, unlike the Burke Institute, I can’t recall any of Burke’s passages from which a strategy for Republican outreach to Latinos can be extrapolated. I furthermore doubt that many of the group’s Board of Governors are particularly knowledgeable about Burke or his ideas. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to the last time Michael Steele perused Letters on a Regicide Peace? A pattern is emerging in American political discourse; apparently every mainstream political movement now wants to be considered Burkean. Although I maintain my respect for Burke as a writer and statesmen, I think this trend further confirms my contention that “Burkeanism” is now at best a meaningless term, and at worst an dangerous ideal for the Right.
Of course, traditionalist conservatives have never wavered from their admiration of Burke. More recently, however, others have picked up the Burkean mantle. David Brooks, for example, now claims Barack Obama is a paragon of Burkean thinking. Sam Tanenhaus now claims the New Deal was a “Burkean correction.” Jonathan Rauch described John McCain as one of America’s most Burkean Republicans.
Burke fans should be careful not to assume that this new love for Burke signals any good signs for American conservatism. Regardless of whether it is an accurate description of Burke’s thinking (I don’t think it is), “Burkeanism” now means little else but “defending the status quo.” Leftists now appeal to Burke because they finally recognize that the current social order is thoroughly dominated by left-wing institutions and left-wing thinking. Given this accepted definition, conservatives should forget about being “Burkean.”
When Big Government liberals tell conservatives they need to be more like Burke, they mean conservatives should be gracious losers – this is hardly an accurate description of Burke himself, but I digress. In their mind, a “Burkean” Right is one that provides only minor speed bumps on America’s road to a centrally-planned utopia; to them, the ideal conservative is an erudite gentleman who pontificates for a few minutes, and then gets out of the way. They prefer conservatives like George Will, who bristle at any perceived “populism” on the Right, and they despise figures who would channel conservative anger into an effective political movement that actually threatens the present state of affairs.
Conservatives and libertarians who receive praise for their “Burkean” sensibilities should rethink their strategy. According to the contemporary definition, “Burkeanism” is now a synonym for “harmless,” and insipid organizations like the Edmund Burke Institute will do nothing to change that definition.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Very well put. I couldn’t agree more. I too had recognized all this new found admiration for Burke coming from decidedly non-conservative forces.
All quite right and well put. Another meaningless term of art is “Hamiltonian.” Frum and other Neo-cons use this to describe their preference for big government. If they were honest they would use Nixonian.
“Burkeanism” is indeed a meaningless word right now. You can hate Leon Wieseltier — I don’t like him much myself — but he put it rather well:
“The idea of changing everything and the idea of changing nothing are both merciless, and unempirical, and futile for politics. We are all Burkeans and all not Burkeans, all preservers and all reformers, all liberals and all conservatives; we all have our preferred acceptances and our preferred remedies; we all do not wish to create or to destroy the world. We must all climb down from our glittering generalities and justify what we propose in the particular.”
Tanenhaus’s dichotomy of Burkeans and revanchists is pejorative and borders on the historically illiterate (confusing French desire for revenge on Germany with the intransigence of the French right with respect to the Revolution and the Republic).
There is a difference between those who want to patch and mend and correct current abuses and malfunctions, and those who seek to fulfill or complete some larger design, to bring reality into conformity with some blueprint or program. The former course is more “conservative” in the “small c” sense, but of course, it is true that liberals will present their own innovations into part of the structure to be preserved, rather than as prior patches and stitches which may or may not help.
There’s a cycle in politics though. You start out trying to fix real abuses or malfunctions — good and useful work. When you’ve dealt with what you can, you go further afield in search of ways to change things, and those later changes aren’t as urgent or perhaps as valuable as what you were elected to do in the beginning.
Burke has nothing to say about outreach to the Latinos? Maybe not, but how about his outreach to the Irish? Or to the American colonies?
Nothing changes. Just the names.
The point taken strictly as it is is entirely fair.
However, if it should be expanded explicitly to mean conservatives should support classical liberal principles dogmatically even if it means thrashing established traditions and institutions, then it is problematic.
Well, the question is, “what is it that “conservatism” seeks to conserve.” It seems to be that for at least some conservatives, it seeks to conserve not Burke’s values, but the values of the Enlightenment. This is to say, it conserves Liberalism. No wonder the movement is so often incoherent.
For an intelligent discussion on Burke, see:
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/07/21/mark-levin-skewers-peter-berkowitz-review-skewering-mark-levins-book/
You are right, John, that is the source of much ideological confusion.
There are universal conservative principles which may be realised in different and peculiar ways depending on the situation, but only within adherence to their principles. If supporting strict constructionism has no, or loses its, connection to a conservative vision of society (immaterial moral values, patriotism, authority & hierarchy, maintenance of social order, etc.), promoting the Constitution in and of itself, then it is a dogmatic liberal, not a conservative, position.
A look at the staff for the “Edmund Burke Institute”:
http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/staff.htm
Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Grace Vuoto, Loredana Vuoto. These three are also 60 percent of the speech-writing firm Eloquence:
http://eloquencellc.com/writer.html
Jeffrey Kuhner is the President of EBI, with Grace Vuoto as the Executive Director. Loredana Vuoto on the other hand is the President of their Eloquence firm. It is nice to see that they take turns with the top titles.
Speech writing is a cousin to prostitution: you push for someone else’s opinions, as long as he pays. Those who pay can then take credit for something they didn’t write, getting pats on the shoulder for their brilliant defense of the cause. Speech writers are the perfect symbol of the rot in today’s dishonest politics, where everything is just a costly show.
From the Eloquence website:
“At Eloquence, no event is too small. Whether you need to deliver a three-minute speech or an hour-long address, we can spellbind your audience.”
“Choose your preferred medium and desired topic and we will deliver outstanding results.”
“In business, there is no room for second best. Let Eloquence take you to the top.”
“Whether you are proposing to a loved one, making a toast at a wedding or giving an eulogy, Eloquence will set the proper tone for your intended audience.”
Isn’t that nice. Just pay, and you can get the right manipulation of your voters, your colleagues or your girlfriend. This blatant harpooning of all integrity may be eloquent – but it is not conservative.
And it is “a eulogy,” not “an eulogy.” Sloppy for a speech-writing firm. I am not even American, and I caught that one anyway.
The best thing for traditionalist conservatives to do is to hold fast to the Burkean legacy they have conserved for so long. Let Brooks and Tanenhaus try to co-opt Burke; real conservatives will always know that Burkean conservatism can’t be claimed by neocons or liberals.
By the way the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is hosting an Edmund Burke Revival Conference at the Russell Kirk Center in Mecosta, Michigan around Halloween. It will feature real conservatives such as Dr. George H. Nash and Dr. Peter J. Stanlis as well as Dr. Ian Crowe of the Edmund Burke Society of America. I would say patroning this event and investing in the programs at the Russell Kirk Center, ISI, and the Edmund Burke Society make more sense than supporting the Edmund Burke Institute.
And do not forget that ISI publishes the traditionalist journal, Studies in Burke and His Time.
Isn’t ISI explicitly classical liberal?
No, ISI is explicitly traditionalist. They publish a number of traditionalist quarterlies (Modern Age, The University Bookman, The Chesterton Review, Faith and Reason) and also publish numerous traditionalist books through their imprint, ISI Books. Their programs have a distinctly Kirkian flavor.