Burke Weeps
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Barack Obama Is Not Edmund Burke | Edmund Burke — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Consider the following from Larissa MacFarquhar on Barack Obama:
In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative. There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good. Take health care, for example. "If you're starting from scratch," he says, "then a single-payer system"--a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment--"would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside."
Uh huh. Read on below for my take, which . . . er . . . differs from MacFarquhar's.
The concept of Obama-as-a-Burkean is a popular one these days . . . at least in the world of punditry. Much ink has been spilled and many pixels have been devoted to advancing this meme. It is a favorite of Andrew Sullivan's (that link is but one example, there are other examples to be found here), though, of course, it should come as no surprise to find that Andrew Sullivan is working to redefine conservatism to mean "stuff that Andrew Sullivan agrees with."
We will see a lot more of the Obama-as-a-Burkean meme if, as expected, the junior Senator from Illinois becomes the nominee. But there is a fundamental flaw in the characterization. It is nice and good to say that Obama "distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections," but aren't his speeches filled with just that? Oh sure, he tells us that hope is not a whimsical thing or an expression of naïveté. He tells us that he knows how hard it will be to effect his plans and policies. But apart from the standard fare from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, he really doesn't offer much in terms of specifics regarding those plans and policies, now does he?
Far from it. When one's ambition exceeds one's resume, specifics are hard to come by, after all. But that's no excuse for not demanding more from Obama. We should tell him that if he really wants to be a Burkean, he ought to show that he can offer more than "abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections." Words are pretty and Senator Obama's speeches are lovely. But they are not Burkean. We ought to demand proof that Obama "thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good." We certainly don't get that impression from his speeches, which promise a new American governing majority and which aim to impress the listener with Obama's desire to create a transformation in society--one that will be far more amenable to Obama's theory of government than society currently is. Transformative language is pretty and Senator Obama's speeches are lovely. But they are not Burkean.
And until some big development comes along to prove me wrong, I am going to go out on a limb and proclaim that Barack Obama is no disciple of Edmund Burke. He has no obligation to be, of course. He can be as transformative and paradigm-changing as he wants to be. But he shouldn't camouflage his true stance by claiming--or by standing idly by while acolytes and the media (but I repeat myself)--claim that Barack Obama is a Burkean.
That argument does not pass the laugh test. And yes, we all know why it is being tried; so that Obama can attract independents and Republicans to his campaign. Tactically, one can understand this. Philosophically, one should have trouble accepting that this kind of project is on the level. To be sure, when conservatives proclaim that they are Burkeans, they are dismissed as being old and stodgy. When liberals do it--or have it done for them--they are praised for being refreshingly realistic. This further helps explain why Barack Obama may have an interest in being viewed as a Burkean. But again, it shouldn't excuse this shoddy intellectual sales job, or help hide all the reasons why no one even remotely familiar with Burkean political philosophy ought to buy into the meme of Obama-as-Burke.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Can We Call It "Swiftboating"? — Comments (22) »
Burke Weeps 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
now I'm inviting you to step through it.
Andrew Sullivan is working to redefine conservatism to mean "stuff that Andrew Sullivan agrees with."
How would YOU (re)define conservatism in America at this moment in history? This question is the shadow that hangs over the waning days of the Bush administration and still threatens to derail McCain's hopes of becoming president.
There may be much to object to in Sullivan's version of conservatism, but at least he's forthright enough to offer a definition of the term and base his critiques accordingly. He even wrote a book doing exactly that. If you're going to suggest that Sullivan is insufficiently conservative to make such judgments, please offer something resembling a definition of conservatism and how it fails to apply to Sullivan.
doesn't seem to have an inkling of what Burke stood for, apart from catch phrases he misuses, wants gay marriage,[I's sure Burke would have loved that ], fails to mention Obama's support for post-abortion infanticide, [ another biggie for Burke to be sure], misreads Burke on his support for the American Revolution, he favored reconciliation with the colonies, admires Obama despite his constant invocation of change, the very thing Burke was most prudent about, and last, values Obama's rhetoric more than his record. I doubt Burke would agree with Obama's politics however he chooses his words.
Burke wrote a few works of his own. I daresay they will, they have so far, outlast Sullivan's tome.
Maybe you can tell me what is meant by the quote, "if everyone is family then no-one is family". Does that imply the difference in customs and tradition, practices and prejudices that Burke favored not only in England but in other countries as well? The guidance and wisdom of the past, or rather the congealing and blurring of regional and personal differences and preference? Or is it just mealy mouthed crap? The sort of thing that sends a shiver up Sullivan's leg, so to speak.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Apart from those of us, on both sides, who actually pay attention more often than just once every two to four years around the beginning of Autumn, is anyone going to understand or even care what this discussion is about? Arguing about whether Obama can call himself a disciple of Burke is not going to impress the vast majority of voters and if their more politically active friends try to use this as a point of persuasion, they will get blank stares in return.
Not an elitist, just calling it like it is...
Be not afraid
on this issue? If I follow your post am I to believe we are only to discuss what the owners of blank stares are aware of.
Are we to be limited by their ignorance? If so this would be a barren site, restricted to homilies about "change", "bringing people together", "getting the country moving again", "the children", and other banalities designed for the semi-conscious mind.
Pejman's commentary does quite well in expressing the negative importance of Barack's dog and pony show, his charade. No need for me to expand on it except to say, as Richard Weaver said, Ideas Have Consequences. They are not to be mangled, distorted, & falsely appropriated by the willfully ignorant{ hello Mr Sullivan}. Better not used, even forgotten, by those who would twist them for those others who practice contempt for Burkean principles while hiding behind his greatness.
I might add, until they get into office.
There have to be places where some seriousness about history and ideas exist, otherwise what's left?
No offense, but I'm not about to join the mob.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I have nothing negative to say about the main post's premise. But I think we need to spend SOME time addressing ourselves to people like my mother-in-law who voted for McCain because "he's my age". There are way more of them (folks like my MIL) than there are of us. And a depressing number of them are going to vote for Obama for lack of a message they can understand. So, to answer your question, I care what "they" think.
Be not afraid
a campaign based on Burke. Assuredly messages can be tailored to a mass audience, hopefully without descending to far down the ladder. In the meantime may there always be venues for debate & ideas of a better sort, one reason Redstate is here.
Sorry for the stridency & nothing personal intended.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Ah, Pejman,
Yesterday, at the above-referenced debate, Cass Sunstein defended Obama as a Burkean traditionalist who walks into Hollywood to complain about sex and violence in movies, and into black churches to emphasize self-reliance over welfare.
Richard Epstein went apoplectic over Obama's indefensible views on free trade and taxes, regardless of the fact that his proposals on global warming and the mortgage crisis are at least more market-based than the average Dem's.
And this is from Obama's former colleagues who both respect his intellect (only Cass is swooning, though).
Obama, Burkean?
The most important part of Obama's resume' is the part he leaves off. The man has spent his entire life among radicals. He was raised by one; he was mentored by one as a boy. He hung around with radicals at college. He was employed by radicals, and mentored by another as a young organizer. He secured support from radicals to obtain his seat in the State House. He continues to speak with radicals, serve on boards with radicals, vote with radicals.
Barack Obama is certainly a Socialist, and possibly a full-bore theoretical Marxist. We don't know, he doesn't say, but it is not possible that he spent his life achieving the goals of radical socialist organizers and did not adopt their view of the world.
Call him "Burkean" again, and poor Edmund's head will explode, up there in 18th century heaven.
I wrote about Obama's background on my blog. Check it out.