Disraeli and Other, er, Tories 

Disraeli and Other, er, Tories

This piece by David Gelernter in the Weekly Standard is very ingenious. In order to show that W is part of a tradition from Disraeli to Randolph Churchill to Winston to Reagan/Thatcher, always opposed to sneering intellectuals who are ashamed of their own ancestors and want to defer to German professors, he probably distorts things a touch. But it is beautifully done.

Gelernter emphasizes Disraeli's novels, which I have never read. I have had the vague idea for a while that if you focus on the novels, and think Disraeli always somehow had it in mind to apply the teaching of these novels to politics, his career takes on a different cast. Leaving out the novels, he seems to be pretty much an opportunist, blowing with the wind. When he became the hero of the "die hard" Tories, opposing Peel over free trade, this was a surprise to a lot of people, including perhaps himself. It's not clear he ever opposed free trade at all. Certainly within a few months of leading the rebellion against it, he was telling everyone he didn't oppose it any longer.

Perhaps in his heart he always wanted to be one of the old, landed Tories. Certainly he had a real affection for them--even when they exasperated him by refusing to come to London because they were busy hunting or pursuing some other pastime on their estates. At one point he compromised, and persuaded them to have a kind of caucus retreat at one of these country properties. There were still no meetings, however; his colleagues were all up early to hunt; Disraeli slept in, and didn't hunt. This is the way Aristotle predicts the gentry will act, even when they are relatively active in politics. Their disdain for the whole business can even be a good thing insofar as it keeps them out of any crusades, for lack of a better word. Still, Disraeli's novels suggest that the gentry had to be a key part of any "national" party, and the left-wing intellectuals were terribly wrong to try to reform these people out of existence. One argument was that the gentry, as long as their income was fairly secure, were less overtly mercenary than "new money" and entrepreneurs, who were more on the Liberal or Gladstone side. Er, does W have anything to do with any gentry? Isn't he more an Enron type?

And there is at least one more explanation of Disraeli turning on Peel. Either he or Gladstone (both Tories at the time) were going to take over as leader. If the party stayed as it was, Gladstone would win. By fracturing the party as he did, dooming it to defeat for decades, Disraeli at least had a party he could lead, and therefore had some chance of becoming Prime Minister some day.

A young Salisbury (Lord Rober Cecil at the time) criticized the Derby-Dizzy Tory party for having no principles at all--or no clear disagreements with Gladstone, other than the malt tax. (I'm not sure, I think this was a last trace of the "protect farmers against free trade" idea). The book I recently borrowed on Salisbury pointed out that Dizzy and Derby had to protect the interests of the Tory party; Cecil was concerned about the integrity or consistency of the conservative movement. Gelernter in a way admits all this:

Disraeli created the new Conservative party in opposition--and while he was at it, created the modern idea of an "opposition party." Blake calls him "perhaps the first politician systematically to uphold the doctrine that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. Indeed, he might be said by this practice to have established a precedent on which all subsequent Opposition leaders have acted."


No matter what the issue, if the government was pro, Disraeli felt obliged to be con. "Above all maintain the line of demarcation between parties," Disraeli said, "for it is only by maintaining the independence of party that you can maintain the integrity of public men, and the power and influence of Parliament itself." He believed that a party must stand for a consistent, coherent worldview--not for an incoherent parade of tactical decisions with no overarching purpose or underlying philosophy. A party in the age of expanding democracy must write its principles in bold block letters, plainly and clearly. (Not a bad idea even today.)


But there were two reservations. Disraeli saw his duty as opposition, never obstruction; never to prevent the House from voting. Furthermore, when the nation was at war, the opposition was duty bound to support the war effort. Disraeli disliked the Crimean War and said so, but assured the House that no English general fighting abroad would face any opposition effort "to depreciate his efforts and to ridicule his talents" so long as he was in charge.


I must say it's neat the way Gelernter gets a shot in at Kerry like that, but there is still an obvious question: which was it? Cunningly being con whenever the government was pro, so as to make headlines that said party, party, party? Or some noble consistency of principle, refusing to bend to political pressures?

Sacred tradition, "knowing what we are fighting for," versus intellectual principles or fads? In the case of the U.S., respect for Founding Fathers and the Constitution rather than theories about progress that undermine both the Constitution and old-fashioned patriotism? I can see all this applying to Reagan, especially when the actual wars that result are mentioned. One book on Victorian Britain says Disraeli the Imperialist ended up with Cyprus; Gladstone the anti-Imperialist got Egypt (partly because of hot-headed generals). Reagan talked about fighting nobly, forever, never perhaps actually making sacrifices at home; and attacked Grenada. He famously pulled out of Lebanon when a couple of hundred marines were killed. This I think is real Toryism, harking back to ancient Sparta: in principle being willing to fight when there is the right mix of patriotism, tradition, the sacred, and a small target. But mostly practicing real patriotism by staying home, and looking after things at home. (Update: or of course fighting on a big scale out of anger, fear, or a combination of the two).

I can't help thinking W is a different kettle of fish. Has he ever actually quoted from a speech by any previous president? (Except the FDR phrases the other day)? Has he referred to the Constitution or the Founding Fathers? Of course, he barely refers to any kind of book, or historical or geographical reference, at all. Partly I guess this is the gentleman in him. Like his father, he doesn't want to pretend to know things he doesn't know. One can find this a relief compared to the chatter of intellectuals. But is it enough?

Gelernter is obviously concerned that the fashionable teaching of intellectuals undermines patriotism, and this is especially disastrous after 9/11. One might say 9/11 revealed that conservatives had been too isolationist (perhaps even, although they won't admit it now, too obsessed with Clinton's penis); but the liberals are in worse shape in that they can't see a reason to fight even in the wake of 9/11. The patriotism of Tories may be ineffective, but it is seldom or never in question; the patriotism of liberals is constantly at war with their high-brow intellectualism. Once again, W is the right person for the job because he is so totally free of the taint of the humanities as they are taught at universities today.

Intellectuals have been willing to depart from the text of the Constitution in order to advance their favourite social programs. Bush, perhaps following Reagan, sees the Constitution as a potential obstacle to the activities of the military and the para-military. What harm could result? Bush and his team might torture "outsiders"--either members of radical organizations, or people who live in countries that practically no one can find on a map. The intellectuals might teach young people their country is not worth fighting for.

Well, it's an argument.

Gelernter says conservatives are motivated by pride--recognizing that they have a right to patriotic pride--whereas their liberal opponents, along with radical totalitarians, are motivated by shame. I guess he means American patriots today should be like British patriots in Disraeli's time--emphasizing the positive in one's own country's wars. Even if individual wars don't go well, or excesses are committed, we should be confident that we are on the side of progress?

Isn't it possible that historians will say the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a result of anger and fear, rather than simply patriotism roused by tyranny, as with Britain in 1939? Gelernter re-states in a new way the argument that all decent people knew in their hearts what to do after 9/11, and Bush actually had the guts to do it. Critics are Hamlet-like (at best); vacillating as to whether to do the right thing or not. I would agree that real Democrats including Kerry seem to lack vision, but isn't it possible to argue (paraphrasing Goldwater) that aggressiveness in the service of vague or over-ambitious ends is no virtue, and hesitation in the service of deliberation is no vice?

Disraeli's foreign policy: the defence of Turkey against Russia seemed to many people at the time a nut-bar obsession--almost proof of Disraeli's eccentricity, if not madness. Gelernter says that post-World War II, we can all be grateful that Disraeli kept Russia out of Constantinople (now Istanbul). I'm no expert, but the same book I've referred to also says the Brits debated about Afghanistan in the 19th century as if they never looked at a map (and Disraeli was famous for his lack of research on practically any subject on which he wrote or spoke). Today Russia wants Afghanistan! they would thunder. Tomorrow: Constantinople! That's actually one hell of a march, over mountains and other rough country. How many armies have ever done it? Wouldn't Russia have faced obstacles in trying to do it, including a Britain which had (perhaps) drawn a line at a more reasonable spot? Not only that, but they would also argue: after Constantinople, the Suez Canal! Isn't that another terrible march?

Even if the Tsars held Constantinople in 1900, does that mean Istanbul would have been Communist post-World War II? There are a lot of ifs in there.

Disraeli propped up the Ottoman Empire, the notorious "sick man of Europe". He expressed no sympathy for any people who wanted their freedom from any of the old empires. When Gladstone campaigned in behalf of the Bulgarians, Disraeli laughed.

Er, weren't the Arabs oppressed by the Turks? "Nor can we understand today's radical Islamic terrorism and totalitarianism (totalitarians being terrorists who have already got what they want) without understanding the central role of defeat and shame." Yikes! Did Disraeli contribute to the "root causes" of 9/11?

Randolph Churchill: Again, from memory. Churchill's old man and Joseph Chamberlain had sat on opposite sides of the House (Tory and Liberal, respectively). Chamberlain actually had a reputation as a socialist in his younger days. Gladstone proposed Home Rule for Ireland, and he bet all his chips on his proposal. His Cabinet and Caucus held together reasonably well, and he had some support in the country, but Churchill and Chamberlain together campaigned hard to keep the northern counties of Ireland (Ulster) in the UK. They had no hesitation in approving of violence against the government. "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right."

Probably Gladstone was wrong to make no provision for these Irish Protestants who had actually been planted there by the British government. On the other hand, Churchill and Chamberlain probably practised some of the most reckless and dangerous demagoguery a modern democracy has seen. They surely did as much as was humanly possible to keep Northern Ireland boiling, as it boils, in a way, to this day. Mystic chords of memory? Sacred tradition? Remembering what unites us racially and culturally, not like those nasty modernist intellectuals? I guess so.

Compassion. Many people have noted that it was the Tory party in Victorian Britain which passed some of the first labour-standards type legislation, as well as legislation to help the poor, working or not. Gelernter works in references to "compassionate conservatism" here, linking Disraeli to Bush. My understanding is that Disraeli, in his usual impromptu fashion, to win votes both in the House and in the country, protected workers in factories, which were mostly owned by Whigs or Liberals. He did little or nothing about coal mines, which were mostly owned by Tories. I don't know if "No Child Left Behind" is working or not. Faith-based initiatives may bring some good results. Bush's immigration reform is partly a way to welcome a lot of have-nots and give them an opportunity to get ahead.

Tories are on the right. They want to protect the privileges and wealth of those who have these things, in the belief that these are deserved, or at least as well-deserved as anything in this world. To win elections they have to somehow appeal to some of the non-rich and non-privileged. Fortunately, a modern economy provides an opportunity to rise to many people, so Tories by defending the free market can favour established opportunities and systems, rather than simply established privileges. Still, there is sometimes a need for circuses to make up for the shortage of bread: and mystic chords of memory, especially focussed on a war against a small enemy, have been known to do the trick.

It's just a bit sneaky for Gelernter to argue that Bush is supported by anyone with a combination of morality and a backbone, and to wheel out as authorities not only Winston Churchill (who might indeed have enjoyed the invasion of Iraq) but Disraeli and others. In a way he takes the most dubious but edifying parts of Disraeli's rhetoric at face value, and uses it as a club against Bush's critics today. Much detail is lost along the way.

UPDATE: I wish I had said that: Jesse Walker on Hit and Run: "Those modern comparisons are to be expected, I suppose, since the article's not-particularly-hidden agenda is to present a creation myth for Weekly Standard-style conservatism."

Return to Main Page

Comments

Add Comment




Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting