Edmund Burke

In Edmund Burke: Philosopher, Politician, Prophet you mention The Vindication, Burkes ironic defence of the anti-civilisational Lord Bolingbroke. There are typically two distinct poles of conservative thought regarding civilisation, the idealistic Leo Strauss on the one hand and the pessimistic Oswald Spengler on the other. Where do you think Burke sits on that spectrum? Historically there has been a tension here. On the one hand you have people who would regard civilisation in the manner of Katherine Hepburn in the The African Queen (1951). In the film Humphrey Bogart plays a captain who, after discovering his entire gin supply has been emptied by Hepburn into Lake Tanganyika, tells her reproachfully its only human nature [to have a drink]. She replies magisterially human nature, Mr Allnut, is what weve been put on Earth to rise above. Its that idea that our nature can be contained and developed through civilisation. And then you have people, such as the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who say that civilisation is something that is profoundly evil. Mans essential nobility is distorted in it. Burke believes that you cannot divorce man from society, as in the so-called state of nature. Mans natural state is to be in society. Burke is in many ways an optimist, as he believes truths can be revealed through nature and through history, but reminds us that it is a mistake to think of an individual as entirely of itself, a unit, an atom cut off from what is around us. Do you think there is something of Cicero in Burke? His invective against the Duke of Bedford and Lord Lauderdale reminds me of the Philippics; his attempted impeachment of Hastings has a whiff of Ciceros In Verrem about it. Absolutely. How interesting. I think the answer is that Burke does undoubtedly have a Ciceronian aspect to his personality. It hasnt been much explored in the scholarship. He has it in several ways. He has many beliefs that find their parallels in Republican Rome; a Rome in which those at the top of a hierarchical society are not out for themselves in a particular conception of political nobility and leadership, and in the belief that power should be held to account. You talk a lot in the book about parties; parties that unite over principle, instead of faction and its interests. These days the parties seem to have degenerated into two main factions perpetuating vested interests. I read your colleague Douglas Carswells iDemocracy and wondered what you thought about his rather radical line of thought? Well, Ive got a lot of sympathy with many aspects of Douglass critique and indeed I worked with Douglas on a pamphlet in 2005 on direct democracy, but my conception of the solutions is radically different to his. The classic example is that Douglas would be very happy with the entire direct democratisation of society, in which everything is subjected to the vote, a process enabled by the internet. But as for me, I dont think the only form of legitimacy is through the ballot box. There are other forms of the legitimate exercise of power. We have a constitution that works not through popular sovereignty but parliamentary sovereignty, of which the popular part is only a portion. Direct democracy works when it presupposes and feeds into a well-established political consensus. We dont have that here, but its not impossible. To a leftist, the customs so hallowed by Burke look more like repositories of prejudice and error that can be purged by reason. Where do you think the error lies? Exactly the same argument was made in Burkes time. The claim was that respecting custom and tradition was simply an excuse to do nothing or to protect an essentially oppressive set of arrangements. But Burke was not opposed to change, on the contrary he believed in a philosophy of change. He said a state without the means of change is without the means of its own preservation, so the

Burke believes that you cannot divorce man from society

question is rather how do you change? Burke certainly would not have tolerated an authority that was oppressive; we know this because of his support for the American colonists and for the Bar Confederation in Poland, which was against the interference of Catherine II of Russia in Polish affairs. Burke supported those who sought to protect a social inheritance threatened by would-be oppressors. Power must earn its keep, its trust; if it doesnt then all bets are off. Why do you describe Burke as a postmodern thinker? Dont forget I draw a distinction tacitly in the book; a distinction between postmodern and postmodernist. Look carefully. Postmodernism is a view that says there is no truth, only power. Modernity is governed by the enlightenment belief that there is a truth and it moves along scientific lines. Postmodernism says thats not true. Now Burke isnt a postmodernist in that sense, he thinks there is a truth and falsehood but he is postmodern in the sense that he reaches beyond and criticises the claims of reason itself. There is a contrast between The Enlightenment [of the philosophes] and what Kant calls enlightenment. What Kant means by enlightenment is emancipation from the selfenslavement of mans own dogma and ideas. In that sense enlightenment is about always being able to reach outside itself and see that reason can lock you in a box. So Burke is a creature of the enlightenment whilst being a critic of The Enlightenment. Edmund Burke: Philosopher, Politician, Prophet by Jesse Norman, 20, Harper Press: 2013. Pick up a copy at Belgravia Books, 59 Ebury Street, SW1W 0NZ, 020 7259 9336 (belgraviabooks.com)

The First

Conservative

Tipped by political columnist Bruce Anderson to be a future Conservative party leader, Jesse Norman (pictured left), The Spectators Parliamentarian of the Year and author of the newly released Edmund Burke: Philosopher, Politician, Prophet offers Henry Hopwood-Phillips an explanation of both Edmund Burkes views and his own

B E L G R AV I A R E S I D E N T S J O U R N A L

027