Comments on: What Might a “Burkean Conservatism” Look Like?

By: John Carter

John Carter — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:36:36 +0000

It is sad that it is almost considered passé to honor the Constitution, to be a supporter of the rule of law, to love one’s country. When I was a youngster, I didn’t see the purpose for certain liturgical garments or rubrics, didn’t know what they were for or their history and was perfectly fine with relegating them to the rubbish heap of history. I suppose many see no purpose behind an alb or a stole and would be glad to scrap them since they speak more to a history that excludes those ignorant of their meaning and use. The laws of our land, like the sacraments of our churches, have a deep history and importance worthy of preservation. Much of today’s Tea Party, just like much of today’s Left, is all too ready to embrace a Cromwellian iconoclasm. They would destroy what they do not understand. This is not conservatism; it is radicalism which is all too susceptible to anarchism.

By: In American Conservative Politics, What is Authentic? » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:34:26 +0000

[...] of authenticity for any of our country’s newish and modern temporal mental exercises. And so, despite efforts to source American conservatism in the anti-ideology of Edmund Burke and others figures skeptical [...]

By: Rewriting history: Paul vs. Burke

Rewriting history: Paul vs. Burke — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:59:34 +0000

[...] beliefs stand in clear contrast to the beliefs of Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism. The 18th Century British statesman was a reformer, but hated [...]

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:38:05 +0000

“Change” as a campaign pledge is a double negative. That this whipsawed generation of sore winners might be shanghaied by such a simple ruse is a particularly acute demonstration that in America, you really can fool all of the people all of the time. Or , at least, enough of them to create an inferior opposition that upholds the principle in place.

Granted a Burke in this time, we would roundly ignore him because his stories are not jejune enough for the sunbeams we aspire to be.

By: Tweets that mention What Might a âBurkean Conservatismâ Look Like? » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:54:32 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mick's Media, Roger Cook. Roger Cook said: New shared item: What Might a “Burkean Conservatism” Look Like?: Yuval Levin, a researcher of the fractured relati… http://bit.ly/aT6SVg [...]

By: Thomas M

Thomas M — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:47:19 +0000

Excellent observations, Dr. Jones.

By: Andrew B.

Andrew B. — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:21:11 +0000

What Burke contributed to my conservatism (granted, mostly second hand by way of Russell Kirk) is a profound respect for the bindings of society (civic institutions, religious groups, tradition, history, etc.) and how quickly those bindings can be destroyed if changes are made callously.

There’s a paragraph that comes early in “The Conservative Mind” that strikes me as being particularly brilliant and the sentiments it contains have largely guided my conservatism since I first read it:

“Burke has no expectation that men can be kept from social change, or that a rigid formalism is desirable. Change is inevitable, he says, and is designed Providentially for the larger conservation of society; properly guided, change is a process of renewal. But let change come as a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun abstractions….Even ancient prejudices and prescriptions must sometimes shrink before the advance of positive knowledge, but the Jacobin mind is unable to distinguish between minor inconvenience and actual decrepitude. The perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the man who loves change is wholly disqualified, from his lust, to be the agent of change.”

I wish I could have pasted that under every Obama “Change” poster.

I’m also reminded of a story that I think is from G.K. Chesterton, but I can’t find it and can’t remember where I first read it, but basically a man comes to a wall in the middle of a road and says “whats the point of a wall in the middle of a road? Let’s knock it down.” Another man walks up and replies “Well, someone spent an awful lot of time building that wall, and until you know what its purpose is, it would be best to let it stand.” Ignorance of purpose is not justification for destruction.

I feel as though a good understanding of these ideas would go a long way towards establishing a Burkean conservatism. Many of the political questions of the day practically answer themselves. “Comprehensive Reform” of just about anything is to be opposed (Fin Reg, Immigration, Healthcare, etc.) Gay marriage and non-traditional families ought to be regarded with extreme skepticism. Exercises in democracy building abroad are to be recognized as almost certainly futile, or at the very least as being extremely difficult. Any man promising abstract hope and abstract change should be rejected reflexively. The tea party’s hatred of the establishment is to be met with great skepticism. Etc.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:19:06 +0000

Mr. Jones, I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed this blog. I would hope that somewhere in the resistance exhibited against, first the GOP during the recent primary elections, and in a few weeks against the Democrats in the general election, the Tea Party people might capture something of the essence of Burke’s thought. If they are smart enough to include Burke’s thought into their platform, they may be around for a while.