The Basis of Burke

Edmund Burke is an interesting fellow to say the least. The informational section before his reflections provides some details that are vital to our understanding of Burke. He was a well-to-do political writer and parliament member. He was strangely contradictory about many of his political views. He pushed for the abolition of slave trade and reforms for the working class, but yet he was supportive of Britain's excessive taxation and adamently against the French Revolution. My assessment is that he cares for the lower class based upon convenience and personal benefit. Misplaced motives are a common problem for humanity in general so one cannot be too critical of Burke.
Burke is known for his eloquence; thus, at the time, his appeal was limited to the intellectuals, and not the common people. The intro summed up the main idea of his entire reflection quite well: "...a principled conservatism that revered an idealized past and historical continuity, and on this basis defended the moral authority of nation's institutions: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the church, and the constitution that guaranteed their power." (47)
The monarch has two bodies: his physical body and his body politic. This concept allows for the royalty to have immortality in a sense. Once we understand this, we can come to grips with why people, such as Burke, believed in the right to royalty based upon familial ties. Whenever a monarch's physical body died, his legacy would be carried on through his body politic, which was usually upheld by the king's heir.
The main issue that my modern day spirit has with Burke is the conformity that he advocates. Burke believes we are born into our social position and there is no way of improving. Basically, we should accept our fate and be subordinate. He expects all the king's subjects to adhere to a uniform standard and idea. The commoners should never question the intentions of their monarch. "A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper, and confined views." (49) Burke disguises his agenda with his flowery words. This statement is a blatent contradiction. Innovation implies lack of confinement of ones' mind or principles. Not three lines down Burke states "without at all excluding a principle of improvement." (49). My obvious question is how can improvement be made without innovative new ideas?
After Burke's support for the abolition of the slave trade and working class improvements, one would expect that he would support a democratic approach to politics. Burke wants the lower class to be treated with more dignity and humanity, but he still believes that there is a societal hierarchy that is God ordained and natural. He referred to advocates of democracy as "Levellers"--because they tried to level the social order. Burke's response to them is that they "...only change and pervert the natural order of things." (50) His aversion to democracy highlights one of the inconsistencies within him. I believe that he has pity for lower classes, but will by no means support their attainment of equality. The only hint of democracy in Burke's beliefs is that he thinks that people should have rights based upon their financial state. He has no problem with the poor man holding the rights that five shillings will buy, but the more financially endowed should receive more rights based upon their greater contribution. I suppose it should not surprise me when society is defined by position and wealth, because our current society is still defined by these things to a certain extent. Call me a romantic, but how I wish our human nature would not cause us to be so prone to shallowness.
Random Quote: "But the age of chivalry is gone." (52) I do not really want to believe that statement. There are still some hints of chivalry left, whenever they are not crushed by feminism or the growing state of passivity within men.
Burke sees the royalty as being more than simply human. He thinks that the subjects should see them as touched by divinity and thus, obey them without any questions and see killing them as even more disgusting than the average homicide. Burke blames rising equality that allows commoner to be "friends" with their nobility that forces the royalty to earn the affections of their people. Personally, I believe leaders should be looking out for the best of their subjects and thus, desiring their opinions and approval.
Ironic quote: "...learning will be cast into the mire, and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude." (54) He sees the purpose of education to indoctrinate the beliefs of the monarch and make them "better" subjects. I suppose Burke would consider education to have digressed throughout the years because it encourages innovation and individualized pursuit of independence, as opposed to blind adherence to a over-arching concept like zombies or drones. My definition of education differs so greatly from Burke. I feel like education has progressed any many positive ways, through the innovative ideas of the common people. A good education is no longer limited to the elite of society, but available to the "average Joe".
Interesting Quote: "Indeed the theatre is a better school of moral sentiments than churches, where the feelings of humanity are thus outraged." (55) This statement makes an interesting point. Unfortunately, corrupt and judgmental church leaders were and are still an issue that can drive people away from considering any ties with a religion. The theatre can be a very effective tool to administer a moral lesson. Entertaining a crowd with a performance before the moral is presented can disarm defenses against morality. Also the crowd gets to see a relevant portrayal involving the moral, as opposed to simply listening to a sermon. At least in the early stages of theatre, the audience is an active part of the performance. Often in churches, the crowd is being spoken to and not engaged individually. I can see how some modern churches have attempted to be more culturally relevant and engaging, by using mediums like drama to express important truths. In my opinion, church should be an engaging place so I am greatly encouraged by this movement.
In the end, Burke basically says it is better not to look for corruption or inconsistencies in their monarchy. He does not want anything to change in the realm of societal order or nobility. The king should be seen as a father figure that the child would refuse to see any faults within him.
In my opinion, blind acceptance of anything is extremely dangerous. I may not agree with every aspect of the revolution, but I do believe in the underlying concept that fueled the rebellion: the need for innovation, independence, and equality.