Burke And Problems

I don’t disagree with Yuval Levin’s point about Burke’s distinction between "reformation and "change." It’s what I was trying to express this way:

[Conservatism] is about a modesty toward what problems government can ever solve. Its responses to emergent questions will not be an attempt to "solve" them, but to ameliorate them with a narrow set of tools.

There is a distinction between tackling problems pragmatically in order to maintain a coherence in a society as it changes over time – and the liberal notion that any given human problem can be definitively "solved." Burke expressed it better, of course, and Yuval’s quote is well worth a read.

I used the climate change example – an attempt to address a pressing problem without claiming to definitively solve it, or expanding government’s reach still further in overly elaborate and ambitious regulatory schemes. The same perspective informs my own view of marriage reform.

I see including gay couples within the existing institution – which already defines gays’ own families, parents and siblings – as the truly conservative position. Constructing a new institution, such as domestic partnership, is, in contrast, fraught with unintended consequences, as it offers to heterosexuals a marriage-lite institution which is a much bigger threat to marriage than allowing gay people into it. This is a debatable proposition, of course. But it is frustrating to have one Burkean approach defined as leftist or radical or anti-family. It isn’t. And the AIDS era showed many of us the consequences of not providing any social support for stable gay relationships in the modern world.

Free Votes Or Culture War?

William Saletan looks at how the British House Of Commons voted on various child-related measures. There’s the usual and vital sense of moral engagement as the US – but nowhere near as much polarization. Same with gay issues. And the death penalty. A key aspect is what the Brits call "free votes" in Parliament. On central moral issues, where religion and conscience play a role, the parliamentary parties remove any obligation to follow a party line. There is no cost to violating the party leadership’s position. In this pragmatic way, the British have always avoided the danger of Christianism – the conflation of religion and politics and especially the conflation of religion and partisan politics. It’s a more civilized way of dealing with these issues. Which us why uncivilized people like Karl Rove don’t care for it.

Judgment Day

David Corn on Clinton’s recent actions:

As Clinton comes to terms with what seems to be defeat, she is trying to have it both ways. She’s doing nothing overt to undermine the likely nominee of her party, but she ain’t bowing out and she keeps on insisting her party’s making a big mistake. None of this is too much of a drag on Obama at the moment. But come June 3–or thereabouts–Clinton is going to have to quit or fire off one helluva shot. Judgment Day is nearing.

Actually, Judgment Day was a long time ago. If I were forced to predict, I’d say she’s taking it to Denver. Yes, they’re that psycho.