I’m not recommending that you actually read it, but I am oath-bound to inform you that earlier today David Brooks said of the Founding Fathers that:
Their ethos was beautifully described in one of the most impressive sentences in the history of English language, written by Edmund Burke…
Seriously, aren’t there other quotable conservative thinkers or whatever it is that Burke was? Were Oakeshott and Hayek a bit leaden-tongued or what?
KG
From Brooks:
Wasn’t someone saying the other day that Obama has brought back a certain demeanor that’s pretty close to what Brooks is talking about? Or am I confusing the places I read?
Also, that was one hell of a sentence, a few too many semi-colons for my taste, but to each his own.
Comrade Stuck
I am lost and don’t know what to say.
Sad_Dem
haaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *gasp* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Oakeshott and Hayek are elitist, foreign sounding names, hard to remember, difficult to spell correctly, and likely to run afoul of spell-checking software in unintentionally hilarious ways. Burke on the other hand is easy to remember and sounds like a brand of cheap beer. Or the sound you would make after drinking it.
Keith G
I clicked the link and got smacked in the face by this:
WTF?
I stopped reading. That told me everything I needed to know.
schrodinger's cat
Who the hell is Burke and why should I care about what he has to say. Was he the David Brooks of his time?
DZ
The founders were not inspired by Burke, they were inspired by Rousseau.
DZ
@Sad_Dem:
I’m not part of the ruling class, but your post pretty much described certain of my attributes. Why do you laugh? BTW, I am a left-wing Democrat.
Frank
Wait a minute. What was John Locke? Chopped liver?
Sad_Dem
“In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”
“so many of the people in the areas here were underprivileged anyway, so this is working out quite well for them.”
“Today I can say that we will not need additional funds. These problems are behind us. We will not return to the market.”
“We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
“The phony soldiers.”
“I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”
cleek
inside every conservative is a scared little child, looking for someone he can admire and obey.
Xenos
Burke is so full of crap it is just stunning. Look at the first two clauses twhere Burke describes the founding fathers that Brooks quotes:
Sure, being a slave-holder on a plantation is a great way to be born in a place of estimation, but owning and exploiting wretched people involves seeing “nothing low and sordid from one’s infancy”?
And how about the critically important founding fathers who rose to positions of prominance, like Benjamin Franklin who was nothing if not working class in his origins? Or John Adams, who came from a well established but hardly elite lineage?
The more I learn about Burke the more he seems like a conservative blogger.
Lev
They’d quote Buckley, if he’d ever said anything that didn’t require a thesaurus and several hours to read.
The funny thing was that Hayek was no conservative and Burke was “conservative” in that he wasn’t radical and believed in tradition and preserving institutions. By Burkean standards, it’s Obama that is conservative. Gore Vidal had it right when he said that our politics is evenly split between conservatives and reactionaries.
JR
Unless Brooks meant “impressive” in the way that the stink of a baby’s shit is impressive (in that it can stink worse than that of a Steelers fan after five hours of chugging PBR and scarfing hot wings), then I think he used the wrong word.
“Long and unnecessarily complicated” does not always impress (see also: Atlas Shrugged).
Comrade Jake
I think Sully owns the Oakeshott quotage, and Brooks is probably afraid of the appearance stealing someone else’s good ideas. He prefers his own crappy ones.
Nutella
Couldn’t Brooks find any beautiful descriptions of the founding fathers’ ethos written by the founding fathers themselves? There were some very fine writers among them so we really don’t need to get second-hand descriptions from a foreigner.
LD50
Well, at least it was easy to figure out the category for this one.
I think I’ve seen the term ‘Oakeshottean’, but ‘Hayekean’ just, uh, no.
b-psycho
I wanna see someone get “serious commentor” status that has an affinity for Benjamin Tucker quotes. At least once.
…please?
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
This is part of what burns me about these people. The ability for the Founders to learn what they did, think as freely and deeply as they did, and fight as strongly as they did, rested on the backs on my Ancestors.
And for that, we got to be 3/5ths of a person. *sarcasm* Yay Founders! You rock!
To admire what they built is right, and proper. To treat them like saints, instead of as complex, fallible humans — and to treat the documents they proscribed for the country in similar fashion — strikes me as more the act of those looking for a Religion than a Government.
But in this, I repeat what others have said about that kind of person.
KG
@12: don’t forget Hamilton, who was an immigrant born of an unwed mother in another (or what would become another) country.
JK
NO
KG
@19: the part that annoys me, more than anything, is that they think the Founders were some monolithic group. No idea that among them were abolitionists (Hamilton, Franklin, and I believe, Adams), that some changed their minds (Madison) on important issues over time, or that they disagreed mightily among themselves (see, as an example, Hamilton vs pretty much everyone at one point or another, Adams vs Jefferson, etc).
Complex, fallible human beings, who were products of their time is probably the best way I’ve ever heard them described.
DarcyPennell
The movie 1776, made in 1972, has Lyman Hall quoting Burke as a reason to vote for the Declaration of Independence. I can’t remember the exact quote, something about being elected because of his good judgment, which he should follow instead of the will of the people who elected him. I don’t remember anyone else being quoted by name, though I wasn’t looking for it so I might have missed something.
I have no idea whether any of the founding fathers were actually inspired by Burke, but the idea that they were is at least 37 years old.
eta: found the quote on imdb:
“In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, “that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament. “
inkadu
@Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill: Seeing people as complex and fallible just isn’t in the conservative mindset.
And it’s another thing I find annoying about a certain breed of conservatives. They each think they have to know a lot about something in the past so they can show it as a badge to their fellow conservative friends. It’s that kind of conservative who always goes out of his way (heh) to defend the canon and who gets really nervous about any modern ambiguities.
You know who else didn’t like modern art? Hitler.
It’s just stealing pennies from the tray. Except instead of pennies, it’s fractions of a penny. And we do it a couple of million times a day.
eric
“That all men are created equal.”
Put aside the historical articulation by the use of “men” and their abject failure to see the imorality of the subjugation of women and the slavery of black americans — mighty big things to put aside, I know — but, i think that encapuslates their true ethos.
i don’t need Burke: I have Paine and Jefferson and Madison, no matter how imperfect they were as exemplars of that ethos.
eric
jl
Oops. I did read the Brooks post and now I am confused. Can anyone explain to me WTF Brooks is trying to say?
And: add to non-blue-blood founders: Tom Paine.
Also interesting that John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine did not behave in the noble Burkean manner Brooks perfers. They would have pulverized Brooks’ vaporous noncontent. Franklin would probably have pulled out an eponoymous sock puppet so he could add some vulgar insultery. “Dolt” “Ass” “Idiotocracy” were in their vocabularly, or near equivalents. John Adams was trying to get the word “ideology” replaced by “idiotology” in his letters to Jefferson.
Also interesting that the following Burkean desiderata have been programmed for extinction for the American masses by Brooks’ corporate overlords:
“to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled to take a large view of the widespread and infinitely diversified combinations of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse”
eric
@jl: from Ben Franklin (number 5 is my favorite) — eric
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking that Commerce with the Sex is inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice that in your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. This you call a Paradox, and demand my reasons. They are these:
1. Because they have more Knowledge of the world, and their Minds are better stored with Observations; their conversation is more improving, and more lastingly agreeable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Man, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a thousand Services, small and great, and are the most tender and useful of Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no hazard of children, which irregularly produced may be attended with much inconvenience.
4. Because through more Experience they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your reputation; and regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be inclined to excuse an old Woman, who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his manners by her good Councils, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part. The Face first grows lank and Wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower parts continuing to the last as plump as ever; so that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old one from a young one. And as in the Dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of Corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal and frequently superior; every Knack being by Practice capable by improvement.
6. Because the sin is less. The Debauching of a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her Life unhappy.
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend making an old Woman happy.
8. 8th & lastly. They are so grateful!!!
Count of No Account
Speaking as a descendent of European nobility, David Brooks can suck my ass.
Dave
Eh, Burke. Yeah, if conservatives took over universities, Burke would be the only thing they’d teach.
I think they like him because he stood athwart history (i.e. the French Revolution) and it actually stopped (i.e. the French Revolution didn’t come to England).
jl
Hey kids! Let’s chip and help Brooks out. He needs a healthy outlet for his fantasies, so he can concentrate on putting some kind of content into his writing. I’m in for the Federal Era paper dolls (its only 5.95 and… recession might hit my pocketbook).
If that doesn’t work, I say send Tunch for sleepover at his place with “special instructions”.
Colonial Fashions Paper Dolls
by Tom Tierney
21 outfits depicting court gowns, capes, “playne” clothing, lace-trimmed dresses, Cavalier-styled hats, plus other splendid European apparel.
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486283445.html
American Family of the Federal Period Paper Dolls in Full Color
by Tom Tierney
Authentic clothing worn by families of the Federal period. 9 paper dolls, 46 detailed costumes include pantaloons, cutaways, gingham dresses, Hessian boots, wedding dresses, more.
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486256618.html
Cut and Assemble a Southern Plantation
by Edmund V. Gillon, Jr.
Early-19th-century Southern plantation includes spectacular Greek Revival-styled main house with portico, colonnades connecting house and two wings, carriage house, garconniere, privy, slave cabin, and fence.
http://store.doverpublications.com/0486260178.html
JGabriel
David Brooks:
Typical Republican. When he wants to praise the founding fathers, he’s got to quote a fucking Tory.
I don’t know how obvious GOPers have to make it for people to understand: When the American Revolution came, Republicans were on the other side supporting the British, and calling the founding fathers unpatriotic cretins and rebellious rabble-rousers who hated their country.
.
PurpleGirl
Like Sad_Dem (@ #3) I laughed… and then had a coughing fit.
used to be disgusted
Fortunately the NYT article is a dialogue, and Gail Collins unceremoniously runs him through with a rapier, leaving his pompous-sophomore version of history wheezing and coughing blood on the roadside.
“Gee, David, when you said you wanted to talk about McNamara I assumed you were wondering whether he should have been treated as a pariah for the rest of his life — but you had something much deeper and more profound to say.”
Gail Collins is one of the most underrated writers on the national scene.
WereBear
Yup. And we still got them.
someguy
@ JGabriel
Burke was a Whig.
He also advocated on behalf of redressing the colonists’ grievances. He was against capital punishment, in favor of representative government, promoted Catholic emancipation, and spoke out against the pillory for a couple men convicted of sodomy.
But if it makes you feel better to think he was an anti-colonialist Tory equivalent of Tom Delay, by all means, go right ahead.
The next-to-last samurai
I’m a (reasonably) respectable lady soon to hit the big 5-0, and from the bottom of my… Heart, I say, “thanks, Ben!” :-D
Nylund
My guess is that they’re just not big on reading. I think that’s the appeal of fundamentalist christianity as well.
Why read tons and tons of textbooks explaining science when someone assures you that the answers are in Genesis? You could read Genesis in a single sitting! What a time saver! Plus, it keeps the elite at bay and makes it accessible to every Real American, no matter how simple-minded. Burke is just their Poli-Sci bible.
WereBear
OMG! Does Brooks know?!?!?
SammyV
I get the feeling that, whatever Brooks thinks about the content of the sentence, his use of the word “impressive” has more to do with sheer length.
JGabriel
someguy:
I did know that Burke advocated on behalf of the colonists, but somehow missed that he was a Whig. My apologies for the misinformation based on a bad assumption.
However, I stand by the assertion that most Republicans would have been Tories during the revolution, and that it was clueless in a typically Republican manner for Brooks to put forth the words of a Brit as the best expression of the American founding fathers’ ethos when so many of them were quite capable of describing their ethos themselves in such documents as The Declaration of Independence.
.
jl
Burke was, in many ways, elightened for his time. I think the French Revolution wigged him out, leading to his rejection of rights of man as being any part of a foundation of government.
So, he became a paternalistic traditionalist when it came to riff-raff and eggheads talking about their rights. Burke though wise rulers should be kind paternalistic masters looking out for the welfare of the American colonists, or Irish, or India, or whatever. Slowly and wisely ceding power in accordance with the lower orders’ progress toward their own self-mastery.
My opinion -was there ever a more fantastic sentimental and counterfactual theory of how power in the world could actually work?
Jefferson was disturbed by the French revolution, but it did not throw him off kilter like it did Burke. Jefferson recognized that political progress would take centuries and oceans of blood.
Burke ended up trying to simultaneously denouncing the French revolution, and by extension any political theory having anything to do with it and at the same time defend the English revolution of 1688. The English had no choice you see, and it was the only thing they could do, and was different.
I can see how Brooks would be a Burke fan. I see some similarities in how they think.
Sly
Modern conservatives love Burke as a sort of intellectual comfort food. They can wrap themselves in his words but, in ridding them of any historical/cultural context, they derive no nutrition from the experience. There’s never any critical analysis, never any movement beyond their own accrued biases, and never any movement away from the abstract and generalized notions being presented to them.
Notice how Brooks can do all this (to some extent) with a topic he’s more readily familiar with: the modern, “Ivy League” aristocracy. He can critically compare the words of these people with their actions, and offer a credible analysis. That he can’t do this with Burke suggests a mere passing familiarity with the man or, more likely, an unwillingness to go beyond mere words.
Brachiator
@eric:
This just again shows how Franklin was ahead of his time: inventor of the lightning rod and bifocals, experimenter with lightning and electricity, and one of the earliest advocates of MILFs.
Lev – The funny thing was that Hayek was no conservative and Burke was “conservative” in that he wasn’t radical and believed in tradition and preserving institutions.
Since people like Burke cannot disavow the radicalism of the Founders, they try to get around this by pushing Burke, who was relatively much more traditional.
Strangely enough, they are afraid to embrace someone like British preacher Richard Price, who was much more directly connected to the Founders than was Burke:
Price’s associations reads like a Who’s Who of incipient progressive thought.
And of course Burke denounce Price’s views on the French Revolution.
In sum, Brooks’ advocacy of Burke is an attempt at BS revisionism.
ricky
So where the hell is Estimation and if Sarah Palin’s baby was
born there wouldn’t she name him Estes instead of Ethos?
Kia
Sorry for the length of this, but I like this blog and the comments and I feel obliged to clear up a couple things. I’d like to raise the possibility that David Brooks doesn’t understand Burke any better than he understands anything else, and to suggest to you that there is a “Burke for Wingnuts” who is not the actual Burke. There was in fact a huge difference between the English Revolution of 1688 and the one in France. For one thing 1688 was bloodless and as far as possible conducted with reference to the rule of law. Its aim was simply to get rid of a monarch who had already committed himself to selling out the country to its most dangerous enemy–France under Louis XIV–and replace him with whoever could be found to rule who represented a) the most political legitimacy and b) would not be Catholic, which in those days was like being a Communist in the U.S. during the Cold War. The plotters of 1688 wanted above all else to avoid another Civil War because it was no longer possible to have any illusions about what the earlier Revolution had wrought–bloodshed, totalitarian rule, and corruption. When Burke rejects the claim that the French Revolution was another 1688, these were the facts he had in mind. Theoretically, as a political idea man, though, he saw another idea which is the one that people like Brooks and his even stupider ilk always screw up: the idea of legitimacy. It comes not from the rulers, but from the ruled, from people’s sense of what is fair and right, and how they evolve their institutions to achieve justice, however imperfectly. Conservatives like Brooks — and most people indeed — don’t read much of the Reflections past the first few chapters and miss most of the book which is a detailed exploration of the practicalities of governing, of political economy, the stuff they aren’t interested in. Burke was warning that the French Rev. was bent on destroying the institutional memory that allows societies to function for the people that live in them–knowledge of how to get things done like road building and maintenance or adjudicating taxes, wills, titles to land etc. There is a sort of organic relationship between people and these things, they evolve out of experience (e.g., legal precedent), and rational principles usually come much later. Burke wrote about this in a sort of romantic way because that was the style of his language. But what he’s referring to is that there is no substitute for experience, and that’s what history is. That’s what tradition represents. Brooks and the other cons think tradition represents them, like the friend I had in high school who was sure that if she could just sit down and talk with Barry Manilow he’d really understand her. And if you go in to Burke thinking he and Brooks mean the same thing when they use the word “tradition” you are just getting conned by the cons again.
He opposed the suspension of habeas corpus against the American colonists even though he risked his seat as MP for Bristol, a mercantile city: “…what is not just should not be convenient,” he said.
For most of his career he fought a largely losing battle against what we would now call corporate globalization or imperialism, in the form of the East India Company which was basically looting India. Think United Fruit Company in Central America, think Texaco in Nigeria, think Halliburton: Burke saw it coming and he was a lone voice warning against the danger. Nobody cared how the governor of the East India Company chose to treat a bunch of darkies in the process of enriching the new middle and upper classes of Britain–but Burke cared. But this is not the Burke people like Brooks have ever heard of. Or would mention if they had. They quote out of context the same three or four passages where he seems to agree with them. Burke would have regarded them, to a man, as venal idiots and toadies to power. Like everything else Brooks touches, Burke’s ideas turn to shit in his hands.