Burkean Tutors

I mentioned that I found Mark Lilla's review of Corey Robin's book on conservatism double plus ungood; today Robin sort of responds but mostly fleshes out his own take on conservativism's many sins. I think, however, that his reading of a reprehensible Buckley, I assume, editorial misses an important point. Robin quotes this passage

The central question that emerges [from the civil rights movement] is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

And parses it as being apocalyptic.  However, like Burke before him, I would argue, that the "for the time being" means until such time as the "White community" can teach Blacks to be White culturally and politically. Given that Buckley et alia had no interest in improving the lot of Blacks meant, of course, that for the time being meant forever. This is the essence of Burke's notion of gradual improvement under the leadership of current elites. What Burke wanted was to avoid the Kantian escape from the tutelage of elites. This conservative desire to control social, cultural, political, and economic developments is precisely what makes conservatives reactionary; they have to react to all changes not of their choosing because control of alterations of social, political, cultural, or economic relations defines conservatism.

Apocalyptic imagery isn't conservative, in this sense, but rather it is the hallmark of a religious loon frustrated by centuries of failed reformations of men, women, and institutions. And I mean loon in the kindest possible way. Apocalypticism results from thinking that this time it's going to be different; this time the elites won't slay all the rebels or renege on their deals. 

I doubt that the various 10th and 11th century heretics were apocalyptically inclined but I do know that at some point the reform-minded radicals lost all hope of obtaining justice in this fallen world ater it became clear that the real winner of the Peace of God Movement, the foundation of universities, and the recurring trappings of civilization didn't lead to increased joy and etc for the many but rather for the increased power of the men with sticks and that the king would hunt down and murder the various peasants he had lately promised to protect, defend, and lives improve.

UPDATE:
Another very effective dismissal of Lilla's review.

Honesty Not The Best Policy Updated

One of the depressing aspects of the current level of intellectual debate is the mendacity of the conservatives. In the course of a remarkably incoherent, uncharitable, and badly-argued review of Corey Robin's book on conservativism, Mark Lilla, whose real purpose is not to review Robin but rather to insist that not all conservatives are crazy -- to which one points at the current crop of Republicans and their various crazy positions, argues that

[w]hat makes conservatives conservative are the implications they have drawn from Burke’s view of society. Conservatives have always seen society as a kind of inheritance we receive and are responsible for; we have obligations toward those who came before and to those who will come after, and these obligations take priority over our rights. Conservatives have also been inclined to assume, along with Burke, that this inheritance is best passed on implicitly through slow changes in custom and tradition, not through explicit political action. Conservatives loyal to Burke are not hostile to change, only to doctrines and principles that do violence to preexisting opinions and institutions, and open the door to despotism. This was the deepest basis of Burke’s critique of the French Revolution; it was not simply a defense of privilege.

As I've mentioned before, Burke view of society was essentially and fundamentally undemocratic. His argued for society's gradual improvement under the leadership of existing elites and institutions and feared common people's participation in political decision making unmediated by elite tutelage. This is a recipe for elite domination of political decision making and rests on the conviction that, as Lila suggests Robin's incorrectly argues, “some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others.” That "reasonable" Conservatives want to deny that their project rests on this horrid little principle doesn't change that fact.

If Lilla wants to get rid of the dark and dangerous forces he sees the first step is to admit the role and power of the Conservative desire to deny to most of us the right to decide our own fates. Of course, to do that means admitting the unpleasant reality of the Conservative and Neoliberal project.


UPDATE:
The more I think about it the more I become convinced that Lilla had no interest in reviewing Robin's book but rather wanted to offer some kind of an anti-Tea Party conservative political ideology with a pinch f false equivalency thrown in.

UPDATE:
For a good thrashing of Lilla's review see Alex Gourevitch