My schedule being what it is these days, I haven’t made much time for substantive blogging. However, when the topic of Burke comes up in the blogosphere, I feel more or less obligated to put in my two cents.

The last time this occurred it was surrounding one of David Brooks’ columns in the NYT; now it is an article in The Atlantic by Jonathan Rauch trying to paint John McCain as a Burkean.

First, my thoughts on the article itself. I think Rauch gives an excellent description of Burkeanism. His best description comes in this section:

Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully.The Burkean outlook takes individual rights seriously, and understands that civic order serves no purpose if its result is oppression or misery. It also understands that social stability, far from being endangered by institutional change, positively depends upon it. Burkeans no more believe in a golden past than they do in a perfect future. For them, the question is not whether society should change, but how.

Burke himself was an advocate of change; he sympathized with the American revolution (while famously denouncing the much more radical French one), proposed curtailing the slave trade, and fought tirelessly to reform the corrupt and monopolistic British East India Company. But he believed change should take a measured pace and should try to follow well-worn social grooves rather than cutting across them. Above all, he abhorred utopian reformers, who, by disdaining real-world constraints and overestimating their own intelligence, invariably worsen what they seek to improve.

That being said, I’m not convinced by his attempts to cast McCain in this mold. Volokh blogger Dale Carpenter, I think, has a spot-on take on both Burkeanism and Rauch’s view of McCain as a Burkean:

Burkeanism isn’t so much a philosophy as it is an attitude or disposition. As I see it, Burkeanism is not primarily about a commitment to any particular set of policy outcomes, though respecting tradition and continuity will tend to confine one’s choices about policy in the short- and medium-term. Instead, Burkeanism suggests great humility about our capacity to effectuate significant change, distrusts a priori reasoning and abstraction, doubts our ability to fully appreciate the wisdom of longstanding practices and institutions, and worries a great deal about the unintended consequences of change. It isn’t opposed to reform, of course, but is very cautious about it. Thus, the Burkean tends to favor incremental over convulsive change…

Here is an example of what I mean by a Burkean attitude or disposition. I do not think there is a determinate answer to the question whether a Burkean, in 2003, should have supported the war in Iraq. But the reasons why one might have supported that war could be either Burkean or very un-Burkean. Supporting the war for reasons of national interest or security would have been defensible on Burkean grounds. Opposing the war for those same reasons would also have been defensible from a Burkean perspective, since ultimately the necessary judgments about the facts and the consequences of inaction were debatable. But supporting the war because one believed it would be possible by foreign invasion to “remake” Iraqi society, and “transform” the Middle East, would have been un-Burkean. Burkeanism is deeply hostile to the utopian concept of “nation building.”

Further, the Burkean in one society will tend to have different policy preferences than the Burkean in another because his views will be shaped by his own society’s customs, practices, traditions, and history. In this country, for example, the Burkean will be more committed to liberal and democratic values than to authoritarian and theocratic ones. When Burke expressed sympathy for the American rebellion, he did so on the grounds that the Crown had usurped the traditional rights of Americans as Englishmen.
…
Nevertheless, I am not sure whether McCain is really Burkean. The simple fact that he has taken particular policy positions doesn’t answer the question. There is no Burkean tax plan.

The question of temperament, which Rauch does not discuss in his excellent Atlantic essay, is more important than any single policy position. What matters most to the question of whether McCain is Burkean, I think, is how he tends to approach public policy questions. Is it with caution and humility, with a preference for evolution rather than revolution? Or is it with a reformer’s zeal, one who has an unshakeable goal in mind and will let nothing stand in the way?

I agree completely. However, we aren’t finished here. Unfortunately, fellow Volokh bloger Ilya Somin requires correction. Here is a perfect example of a gross misunderstanding of both Burke and traditionalism, one which I find myself constantly correcting and which admits that one hasn’t actually read Burke:

Burkeans do not claim that tradition should be maintained at all costs; but they do accord it a high degree of deference and a presumption of validity. The obvious objection to this idea is that there have been many harmful and oppressive traditions, including very longstanding. Slavery, racism, sexism, authoritarian government, and – in the former communist world – socialism, are obvious examples.

This view completely ignores Burke’s emphasis on reform. Burke is primarily concerned with tradition because he is primarily concerned with change. Burke is a reformer in the true sense, as authentic and intellectually honest a progressive as one will find.
Somin adds:

Coercively imposed traditions do not deserve any deference or presumption of their validity. It may sometimes be difficult or impossible to change them. But there is no reason to assume that they have any inherent value, as Burkean conservatives too often do. And it is important to recognize that Burkean appeals to tradition were in fact used to justify the continuation of slavery, racism, sexism, political authoritarianism, and communism when efforts to abolish these institutions got underway.

This, again, is a misunderstanding of Burke. Return to the emphasis on reform; deference to tradition is always necessary, even when that tradition is wrong. Even well-meaning and much needed change and reform can be done too hastily. It would have been greatly preferable to come to a gradual and prudent agreement on the abolition of slavery instead of tearing the country asunder with war and entrenching violent race-relations for generations to come.

To this view, Somin responds that Burkeans also underestimate the need for “rapid change.” To this end, he directly argues against my above made case for a gradual abolition of slavery. I think he grossly underestimates the situation, however. Even yet, one can accept this criticism and still find fault with Somin’s views.

First, the examples of rapid change that were successful which he cites were not successful by virtue of their pace, but rather by virtue of the cultures in which they took place. It’s no wonder that the more western of the former Soviet bloc nations made easier traditions to democracy; they had closer cultural ties to the West.

Second, Burke is Aristotelian and adopts and endorses that view of moderation. Astute readers of Aristotle are aware that prudence doesn’t bar extremes. Holding that deference to tradition is ideal does not exclude the ability to act deftly in extreme circumstances. As Aristotle points out, the prudent and moderate gentleman (statesman) will occasionally take severe measures in extreme circumstances because it is the prudent thing to do. Burke was no politically limp-wristed wimp.

[Update: Ilya Somin responds to my post by noting that he is "criticizing modern writers who consider themselves Burkean conservatives. I take no position on the question of whether they interpret Burke's own views correctly." While I understand what he is trying to combat, I think this position is disingenuous and nonsensical. It only helps to further propagate false stereotypes and confusion. It would be like me saying I don't like Chinese food because I once had it and it was prepared poorly; or like saying I didn't agree with Christianity because I once heard a heretical explanation of it. Call a spade a spade; if they aren't really Burkeans, say as much. These things can't be taken at people's words. You need to know what Burke actually said if you're going to debate these topics.]

Tags: Conservatism, Edmund Burke, John McCain

Trackback URI | Comments RSS