practices of Torquemada, or see
no incompatibility between them.
The prejudices of Kant may seem
preferable to those of a Nazi
Storm Trooper, those of Einstein
to those of Senator Eastland. Aris–
tocratic taste is possible.
The New Conservatives declare
that a just God rules the universe,
and imply that those who do not
agree with their politics deny this
God. This is one thing. But they
cannot avoid the confession that
the course of history is determined
"in ways inscrutable" by His
Providence. Well, Providence is in–
scrutable or it is not. And if in–
scrutable we cannot infer a divine
sanction for "prescriptive rights,"
political reaction, soil conservation,
a class society, socialism, desegre–
gation or white supremacy, or any–
thing else. We have yet to hear
the claim that Burke was divinely
inspired.
There is one more plank in the
platform. We cannot do without
prejudices. As Burke pointed out,
prejudice is of ready application
in an emergency-"it previously
engages the mind in a steady
course of wisdom and virtue, and
does not leave man hesitating in
the moment of decision...." This
too had a practical application. In
the last years of Burke's life law
in France declared men equal. He
warned that as a result "salutary
domestic prejudice" would be un–
dermined, and that it was but one
step from this to "frightful corrup–
tion." By this he meant miscegena-
159
tion, the races would mix, the low
born and the high born. He wrote:
The rulers of the National As–
sembly are in good hopes that the
females of the first families . . .
may become easy prey to dancing
masters, fiddlers, pattern-drawers
. . . and other active citizens of
that description.... By a law
they have made these people their
equals. . . . I am certain that the
writings of Rousseau lead directly
to this kind of shameful evil.
The spokesmen for White Citizens'
Councils probably do not read
Burke, but here is their argument.
On this score the New Conserva–
tives could draw up a plank which
would win the Dixiecrat vote.
I have not presentee! Burke in
his entirety, nor have I done him
justice. He was a complex and bril–
liant figure. But his savagery, his
partisanship, his frantic anxiety,
sometimes his ignorance, these too
are important. And he summed up
his own later work as well as can
be done. Writing on French affairs
at the end of his life he said:
I have done with this subject, I
believe, for ever. It has given me
many anxious moments for the
last two years.
If
a great change
is to be made in human affairs,
the minds of men will be fitted
to it. . . . Every fear, every hope,
will forward it; and then they, who
persist in opposing this mighty
current in human affairs, will ap–
pear rather to resist the decrees of
Providence itself, than the mere
designs of men. They will not be
resolute and firm, but perverse
and obstinate.
Richard H. Powers
