What is in a label?
Is this man a liberal, a conservative or neither? Some call him the father of conservatism. Some say, not at all, he is the father of liberalism. Some, like me, just like his approach-- maximize freedom, while protecting posterity and lives.
Of whom do I speak? Edmund Burke, (1729-1797).
What did he do?
Well, Edmund Burke was a member of the House of Commons in Britain during our Revolutionary War. He was a Commoner (had no title) and a great believer in English rights, freedoms and liberties.
He argued for us (the American colonists) and tried to persuade the Crown (King George III) to give us representatives at Parliament (taxation WITH representation). After the war begun, Mr. Burke tried to persuade the Crown to reach peace with us. He generally took our side in that particular "family" fued that ended in a spectacular public divorce (and the creation of the United States of America).
He also argued for Irish Home Rule, or at least a lessening of the restrictions on the Irish and Catholicism in Ireland. He may have lost his seat in the House of Commons for pushing for a lessening of trade restrictions on better trading rights for Catholic merchants.
He also advocated against the British slave trade and for freedom of the press.
So why would anyone call this man who so obviously pushed for things that were NOT part of anyone's status quo (at the time) the "hero of the modern conservative movement?" Indeed, at the time, most of what Edmund Burke argued FOR was considered radical (though today, most of us consider his arguments correct):
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/paletta200506160742.asp
Edmund Burke also advocated heatedly against the dangerous notion that England needed a revolution like the revolution that consumed France during his life-time.
He got into a famous spat with Thomas Paine (who in my opinion was a brilliant man, but also was flawed, almost blinded, by his great idealism which surfaces in his dispute with Edmund Burke). Thomas Paine was tried in England for his exceptionally good and well-written "Rights of Man" and its suggestion that even the King of England should be overthrown. He stood trial and argued for free speech, but was convicted. He fled to France.
Yet, before the trial of Tom Paine, there was his fight with Edmund Burke.
I side with Mr. Burke in this fight, so for years, I thought that meant I was a conservative (and I used to be a Republican).
Mr. Burke's point-- here it is in sum--
government becomes "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born." From Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Mr. Paine said no, that the living owed nothing to the dead and those yet to be born should create their own government and in no way be bound by the present generation.
Those are lofty words of Mr. Paine's, but in my opinion, those words are beyond idealistic.
For in any age, war is brutal and it leaves a scar for future generations. War should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary. Our founding fathers attempted without success to resolve their differences with the Crown of England and only resorted to war when all else had failed. War is choatic and the many do not prosper-- and in the chaos of war, wisdom is often lost and sometimes it takes quite awhile to find wisdom again (think of the long Dark Ages in Europe after the Fall of Rome).
Our founding fathers made the fateful decision to fight for independence (knowing that if they lost, they would probably all hang as traitors) as John Adams explained this way:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams
Our founding fathers made this choice for the future, not in spite of it.The French Revolution haunted me the moment I read anything about it. The senseless slaughter, the mobs hungrily waiting for more blood, the tumbrils rolling endlessly in Paris-- all combined to make me shudder at what can happen when we decide that there are no boundaries to what we can do..... I agree with Mr. Burke. But, I also agree with Mr. Burke (and Senator Obama) that inside of democratic institutions you are always struggling to create more liberty and freedoms, to protect the freedoms that you have-- to paraphrase Senator Obama, you are attempting to create a more perfect union. Those approaches can be radical, slow, or in between-- and they can work without violating our pact to the past, or to the future so long as we respect our institutions and obey our Constitution.
Indeed, our Founding Fathers GAVE US THE TOOLS to do exactly this and if we but obey our Constitution, we can do what we need to do to get our Country back on the right track. We can fix this mess AND respect our Constitution and so honor those who came before us AND protect our blessings for future generations as Mr. Burke argued so eloquently that all men had an obligation to do.
Respecting our institutions is not something that the RNC has done at ALL lately. This is the lie, I think, in the current conservative movement in America's adoption of Mr. Burke. We have seen the RNC disrespect our most crucial institutions--
some in the RNC have disrespected the very medals our Country gives for courage on the field of battle (maligning Bronze and Silver Star recipient Senator John Kerry's courage by undermining his right to receive those marks of military courage),
our current Republican administration has abused our Constitution (suspending the Great Writ, Habeas Corpus, creating the imperil Presidency with the newly invented "unitary theory of the executive"),
many in the RNC have treated some of our Justices horrifically and even suggested that violence may be appropriate (most notably Senator Cornyn of Texas did this when he suggested that Judicial activism might be expected to result in violence in response to a bill seeking greater security for Judges after a Judge's mother and husband were murdered because she passed harsh sentences against organized crime),
our current Bush administration has hired "Bushies" to operate throughout our government even though in many cases these people do not have the requisite knowledge to do their jobs (loyalty over merit),
and how about the way in which many in the RNC speak in such ugly terms about a United States Senator? Yes, Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee for President-- but a United States Senator is surely owed SOME modicum of respect simply by virtue of his position in a very important American institution.
and the list could be endless so I will stop it there.
No matter WHAT insulting word Senator McCain, or anyone choose to throw at Senator Obama-- it does NOT matter. What does matter is simple--Our Country is in a ditch and we need to get out of that ditch --and we need to do this while respecting, and obeying our Constitution and our great American institutions.There is only ONE candidate in the race who can do this-- Senator Barack Obama.
The other candidate, Senator John McCain, is too tied up in his own ideological adherence-- indeed, I could argue (and probably would if I had half the mind of Edmund Burke) that Senator McCain has a blind-spot just like Tom Paine had all of those years ago.He is an idealist, is Senator McCain-- he blindly believes (even in the face of all of the recent facts to the contrary) that deregulation IS the answer to everything (from health care to education-- this is Senator McCain's solution), and in any instance where you cannot deregulate, you lower taxes no matter what the problem is.We cannot afford to continue this blindness. We have been blinded in this way for decades now.
It is time to SEE CLEARLY. It is time to elect Barack Obama.
Comments are closed for this post.
