Constantinople, who should fearnCharles Martel or Queen Isabel ofnSpain, when there are more pleasantnways of conducting high politics?nDemographics is the realm in which allnThird World countries are staking outntheir future. And one thing is alreadyncertain: the fallout of the Mideast crisisnwill dislocate thousands more fromnnorthern Africa, bringing pressure onnEuropean borders that will lead, accordingnto reflexive behavior observedntime and again in all multiracial countries,nto more racism and possibly morenviolence. Thus the initially wellplanned,naseptic, “soft porn” war innthe Gulf, as described by Baudrillard,nmay turn into a hard-core dirty exodusnwith potentially damaging consequencesnfor both the Arab and Europeanncommunities. If one adds to it thenanticipated bust-up in the Balkans, thenconsequences could mean disaster.nYugoslavia’s four million Muslims,nwho unlike Slovenes, Serbs, or Croatsnlack their matrix state, may lend themselvesntomorrow to all types of religiousnand political agitation, causing fermentnCentral Europe has not witnessednsince Suleiman the Magnificent.nA relatively insulated maritime power,nsuch as America is, will surely nevernexperience the ripple effects felt on ancontinent where fifty ethnic destiniesnare squeezed between the neighboringnAfrica and Asia. Many conservatives innEurope are also worried that the aftermathnof the war in the Gulf will triggerna new wave of terrorism that, short ofnreaching the American shores, will playnitself out in Paris and Rome. It is nonsmall wonder that many conservativesnwould have preferred Saddam’s 19thnprovince to the emir-lead Kuwaitnwhose amassed wealth is squanderednby a chosen few. In this context thenpeace mission to Baghdad of the avowedlynanti-immigrationist Jean Marie LenPen no longer looks bizarre. Similarly,nthe recent resignation of the Frenchnminister of defense, Jean PierrenChevenement, is the consistent act of anman who, unlike his recycled fellowtravelers,nhas not changed his leftistncredo since the May Days of his cobblestonenstreet-fighting against thenFrench bourgeois establishment.nBut there are also less visible reasonsnfor conservatives’ irritation with U.S.npolicy in the Middle East; importantnreasons that, strangely enough, maynlead to a conservative and Muslimncoalition. Admittedly, the end of thenCold War has deeply bruised the intel- xnlectual class, traditionally in search ofncertainties and systems. It has gobblednup their sense of historical time, leavingnmany European intellectuals adriftnin the spiritual vacuum. Faced withnapolitical apocalypse, the appeal ofnIslam, with its stress on rigor, valor, andnvirility, may be the right brew for thosenin search of a new destiny for Europe.nAgainst the secular city that only bearsnthe name of Christianity, Islam maynoffer for many an ideal of the sacrednand a sense of community worth fightingnand dying for. It must not benforgotten that some of the most eminentnheavyweights among Europeannconservatives, like Friedrich Nietzsche,nCad Schmitt, and Oswald Spengler,ntheir rejection of monotheism notwithstanding,nshowed a great deal of sympathynfor Islamic culture. The Westernersnmay ridicule Muslims, theirngarb, and their veiled women, but isnnot Islam just another spring from thensame monotheist source? Its record ofnzeal and intolerance is no worse thannthat of other monotheist beliefs. To bensure, all three monotheisms, so far,nhave championed a very impressive hitnparade of violence against each other,nbut also against the other. Did notnPresident Bush, despite his secularnweapons, seek solace from a prominentnAmerican religious figure on the eve ofnJanuary 16, 1991?nIn a time when East and West arenbrooding over the end of history, in annage when hard ideologies have givennway to soft ideologies, for many Europeannconservatives, Islam may furnishnif not a religion, then at least a method.nShould this happen, Europe, this oldnlaboratory of ideas, may be jolted backnto life and seize the fleeting opportunitynfor another bid for world leadership.nAnd then, when political tornadoesnstart sweeping over Eurasia, we maynwitness all kinds of surprises. Old alliancesnmay crumble, new friendshipsnmay be forged, and ploughs may againnturn into swords.nTomislav Sunk is the author ofnAgainst Democracy and Equality:nThe European New Right (PeternLang Publishers). He teachesnEuropean politics at Juniata Collegenin Pennsylvania.nnnA True Vindicationnof Edmund Burkenby Peter J. StanlisnMr. Conor Cruise O’Brien’s “AnVindication of Edmund Burke,”n{National Review, December 17,n1990), contains many long establishedntruths about Burke’s politics — his consistencynin principle, his remarkableninsights and powers of prophesy, hisnstrong critique of revolutionary ideology,nand so forth. But amidst these tritentruisms, which vindicate O’Brien’snsubject only to the uninitiated, henasserts some claims about the Enlightenmentnand Burke’s religion and politicsnthat are very dubious or simplynfalse.nIn 1975 the British historian JohnnLough warned against the loose use ofn”Enlightenment” as an abstract, allinclusivencategory: “It is surely obviousnthat the greater the diversity of ideasnwhich the term Enlightenment isnstretched to cover, the less use it has asna scholarly tool. By the time the lowestncommon denominator can be discoverednfor ideas produced under suchnvasfly different conditions, Enlightenmentnand Lumieres become emptynwords.” O’Brien would have done wellnto heed Lough’s warning. Unless onenequates the Enlightenment with thenentire 18th century, it is meaninglessnrhetoric to call Burke “a child of thenEnlightenment.” O’Brien’s indiscriminateninclusion of him under that termnraises grave doubts that he understandsneither Burke or the enormously complexnnature of that elusive category,nand its vast range of interpretations.nO’Brien segments the Enlightenmentnarbitrarily, and identifies Burkenwith what he calls “the early, Englishnor English-inspired phase of the Enlightenment.nThis was the Enlightenmentnof Locke … an Enlightenmentnthat was compatible with a tolerantnversion of Christianity. This wasnBurke’s Enlightenment.” This is a colossalnerror. Burke always defendednwhat he called the Christian commonwealthnof Europe from its “enlightened”nenemies — the materialists,natheists, deists, freethinkers, and epicureansnwho made their private “naturalnreason” the sole criterion for truth. Inn1790 he charged that the primarynMAY 1991/51n