Is John McCain a Burkean Conservative?:
Jonathan Rauch makes the case over at TheAtlantic.com. I hope he's right. Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Did I miss something or did Mr. Rauch neglect to attempt to reconcile Senator McCain's support for initiating the Iraq War with Burkean skepticism about such an undertaking?
(I don't suppose so.)
Burke has much to offer; he's read too little by Americans; and his critique of theoretical politics is a gift to us from the Gods.
(McCain supporters and fence-sitters may want to read Peter Stalins's collected writings of Burke this summer to see what they think of the comparison. Obama supporters may not want to do so . . . yet. I don't think they'll find that Burke could endorse the claim that Obama seeming smart and supporting the right policies is legitimate reason for giving him political power.)
This is interesting stuff. But a bit of a minefield. Burke could not have been "a conservative," since that was a term applied to politics only in the wake of the French Revolution. Burke could never have called himself "a conservative," so it may be best to refrain from doing so.
The question of whether McCain is "Burkean" in his approach to politics--whatever label we want to use for that approach--is, however, a very interesting question. Herbert Parmet makes the case in his biography of GHW Bush that Bush I was a Burkean "conservative." I'm curious to see what the VC thinks on the McCain question..
According to Rauch, then, James Dobson and Barry Goldwater - the two men who, along with Reagan, define the modern conservative movement - aren't 'real conservatives', but Burke and John McCain are. Seriously. The only way he can claim that John McCain is 'conservative' is by redefining the term to exclude basically every single Republican in existence.
Fortunately, McCain doesn't have to be a 'real conservative' to get my vote - he just has to not be a Democrat and not be a traitor (oh, but I repeat myself). Still, this is a pathetic puff-piece by Rauch, one that tears down McCain's party in order to celebrate McCain, and so plays into the worst of liberal propaganda about the Republican Party's supposed lack of conservative principles.
That's pretty hilarious. Is it any surprise that the author did not actually quote Burke for any of his claims?
"There was never a discussion about political philosophy or great thinkers" he said, "We were just trying to make it through the day."
Well now that just about describes every single member of Congress regardless of their partisan stripes.
Using his logic is like driving a car in a circle so you can twist a bolt in.
Hit the books Johnnie!!
While Moynihan did serve in a variety of administrations, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 (defeating the incumbent James Buckley, brother to Bill). Thus while he may have attended White House meetings during the Carter and Reagan Administration, it was in his capacity as a United States Senator.
I would also note that with the possible exception of UN Ambassador, none of Moynihan's positions had Cabinet rank. On the other hand, James Schlesinger served in the cabinets of Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter; Donald Rumsfeld served in the cabinets of Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Bush43, and Edwin Stanton served in the cabinets of Presidents Buchanan, Lincoln, and Johnson. And of course, Vice President Cheney had Cabinet rank as White House Chief of Staff under President Ford, as SecDef under President Bush41, and in his current job (and who likely has attended more cabinet meetings in those three jobs than Moynihan ever did).
Sounds about right to me re Dobson, unless your definition of "conservative" consists of 2 or 3 "correct" positions on hot button social issues.
My definition of 'conservative' includes the understanding that reverence for God is the foundation of any free and stable society, that concepts like 'law' and 'justice' cannot be understood without reference to the great Definer of such concepts, and, with regard to American conservatism specifically, that God (and not the American government) is the source of all 'human rights' and 'natural rights' Americans possess, and so that what those rights are can only be understood by referring to the Bible, not to judically invented 'Constitutional penumbras'. Dobson understands this. McCain probably doesn't, but he's willing to throw us some bones in the form of judicial appointments, which is as good as we're likely to get.
An 'atheist conservative' is a contradiction in terms - respect for tradition and individual rights demands respect for the God of the former that guarantees the latter. What precisely would an atheist conservative be? Christopher Hitchens? The very idea of sharing a philosophy with that drunken blasphemer makes my skin crawl.
Burke, that is to say, rather than being opposed to James Dobson (as Rauch would like to claim) would have been his staunch and reliable ally in the fight against government secularism.
So, Rauch gets his facts wrong about (1) conservatism (it's not Burkean anymore); (2) Burke (Burkean conservatism isn't even Burkean conservatism as Rauch describes it); and (3) McCain (who, judging from his record, isn't really a conservative in either the genuine or Burkean senses). Why does this guy get to write for the Atlantic again?
... oh, yeah, that's the rag that hires Andrew Sullivan. Never mind.
Mr. "I'm slightly happy to be gay, as long as it doesn't cost me" Rauch declares his love for Senator McCain.
Dance, dance, dance...the conservative moment in time is ending faster than I thought.
Burkian conservative...please. I've read Burke, Mr. McCain, and you are no Burke. Thank the gods. Burke was ten times the thinker this pretender could hope to be.
I lick my lips for November. I've waited for this moment for a long time. Even if the closet liberal wins, this moment will stand forevermore as the death rattle of the conservative movement.
I recall what my more conservative and malicious friends told me in 2004: all that you dreamed of is at an end. Indeed. It appears the liberal moment has yet to begin. I bet more than a few posters wish they had voted for Senator McCain back in 2000, eh?
Perpetuating failed bureaucracies is neither conservative or liberal--just stupid. The modern (American) conservative movement is clearly misnamed, but it will have to suffice until a better name comes along. Most modern political labels are little more than flags to identify one team vs. the other.
It's like the weirdness of applying the "reactionary" label to anyone who rejects the particulars of a failed, 19th century, political-economic dogma. What up w'dat?
Re Hoosier's claim that it is inappropriate to think of Burke as conservative, Hayek, of course, made a similar critique, but I think "conservative" is a fair label for describing Burke's worldview, and that is now its traditional designation. I basically think that we would be served well by acknowledging that applying political frameworks from continental europe is of limited value in the Anglo-American tradition.
Re Ithaqua, I agree with all of the quotations of Burke that you included in your post, and I am pretty sure I could get some of my atheist conservative friends to agree to those statements too. Methinks that you are over-employing pure reason at the expense of observable reality if you think atheist conservatism is a category error.
In my experience, a lot of people who talk about the Christian origins of our legal system have too simplistic an understanding of what exactly that means, and that prevents them from accepting certain nuanced positions on religion-and-politics.
But for American liberals, the state is a deity. The UN is the ultimate failed bureaucracy, but I've several lefties have told me in all seriousness that it's infallible. And, yes, I checked to make sure they knew the definition of infallible.
Prediction: all the True Conservatives on the net who think McCain is a closet liberal will conveniently forget this as soon as the Dem primaries are done with the last rererererererecount and the big guns swing his way. Kinda like Regan, amnesty bill and all, sounds a lot more conservative when you recall how much he p***ed off the left.
Heather Mac Donald.
I recall what my more conservative and malicious friends told me in 2004: all that you dreamed of is at an end. Indeed. It appears the liberal moment has yet to begin. I bet more than a few posters wish they had voted for Senator McCain back in 2000, eh?
Well said, Alec. I think you (and others) will enjoy this (Sept. 2004) post by Grover Norquist. I can't help smiling every time I read it.
Just to give you a taste, it starts off like this:
The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.
No brag. Just fact.
Any my apologies to all for taking this thread slightly off topic.
The Grover Norquist article is here
He's is also factually wrong in criticising conservatives for being "revolutionary". Burke was a revolutionary in many respects, not simply a blind defender of the status quo. For instance, he was an early advocate for the abolition of slavery.
McCain is no conservative, and still less a libertarian. He's just another big government liberal, even if from the FDR/Scoop Jackson wing of that movement.
I think we need a sort of Godwins Law to deal with Andrew Sullivan. The average anonymous comenter at VC is a much more credible soure than this unfortunate individual.
Not neccesarily. Conservatism regards man as more than merely a dying animal. That has usually implied Christianity in the West, but there is no reason this outlook cannot be grounded in philosophy or in a different religion.
McCain is a seasoned, instinctual "conservative" - quotes denoting a soft irony - and too much the self-affected maverick on occasion, so it's good to know he reads some Burke, who can provide a certain gravity. What McCain decidedly is not is one who is willing to employ a pseudo-liberal, soft messianism, a la BHO or Gore; absolute bare minimum, there's a sufficiency in that and one which does substantiate some conservative bona fides, certainly so in the present era.
Jonathan Rauch is a great guy, and a smart guy, but this is a very weak piece. Perseus already noted the disconnect between what Burke might have thought about the war in Iraq and McCain's position. Another oddity is that Rauch doesn't even mention the single issue that gets McCain into the most trouble with conservatives: immigration.
A great thinker. But not a great writer, alas.
It's good to know that he has people on his staff who can feed him Burke lines, at any rate. By all accounts McCain is one of the dimmer bulbs in a Senate not noted for being intellectual.