Posted on 04/24/2003 7:15:23 AM PDT by KC Burke
Appendix A, Edmund Burke, A Genius Reconsidered
by Russell Kirk
Burke's Conservatism
Edmund Burke never employed the term "conservative", because in his time it was not a noun of politics. He is, nevertheless, the principle source of modern conservative belief. It is in France, after the defeat of Napoleon, that the words conservateur and conservatif were coined to describe a concept of politics founded on the ideas of Burke: by definition, then, conservatism means Burke's politics of prudence and prescription, guarding and preserving a country's institutions.These terms passed into English politics during the 1820s, and into American political discussion during the 1840s.
On the model of Burke, a conservative statesman is one who combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform. The key passage from Burke describing this concept is found in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, in connection with his denunciation of the National Assembly. It is included here to suggest the essence of Burke's conservative politics.
Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years. The errors and defects of old establishments are visible and palpable. It calls for little ability to point them out; and where absolute power is given, it requires but a word wholly to abolish the vice and the establishment together.The same lazy but restless disposition which loves sloth and hates quiet directs the politicians when they come to work for supplying the place of what they have destroyed. To make everything the reverse of what they have seen is quite as easy as to destroy. No difficulties occur in what has never been tried. Criticism is almost baffled in discovering the defects of what has not existed; and eager enthusiasm and cheating hope have all the wide field of imagination in which they may expatiate with little or no opposition.
.
At once to preserve and to reform is quite another thing.
When the useful parts of an old establishment are kept, and what is superadded is to be fitted to what is retained, a vigorous mind, steady, persevering attention, various powers of comparison and combination, and the resources of an understanding fruitful in expedients are to be exercised; they are to be exercised in a continued conflict with the combined force of opposite vices, with the obstinacy that rejects all improvement and the levity that is fatigued and disgusted with everything of which it is in possession. But you may object- "A process of this kind is slow. It is not fit for an assembly which glories in performing in a few months the work of ages. Such a mode of reforming, possibly, might take up many years". Without question it might; and it ought. It is one of the excellences of a method in which time is amongst the assistants, that its operation is slow and in some cases almost imperceptible. If circumspection and caution are a part of wisdom when we work only upon inanimate matter, surely they become a part of duty, too, when the subject of our demolition and construction is not brick and timber but sentient beings, by the sudden alteration of whose state, condition, and habits multitudes may be rendered miserable.
But it seems as if it were the prevalent opinion in Paris that an unfeeling heart and an undoubting confidence are the sole qualifications for a perfect legislator.
Far different are my ideas of that high office. The true lawgiver ought to have a heart full of sensibility. He ought to love and respect his kind, and to fear himself. It may be allowed to his temperament to catch his ultimate object with an intuitive glance, but his movements toward it ought to be deliberate.
Political arrangement, as it is a work for social ends, is to be only wrought by social means. There mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force.
If I might venture to appeal to what is so much out of fashion in Paris, I mean to experience, I should tell you that in my course I have known and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observation of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business.
By a slow but well-sustained progress the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series. We see that the parts of the system do not clash. The evils latent in the most promising contrivances are provided for as they arise. One advantage is as little as possible sacrificed to another. We compensate, we reconcile, we balance. We are enabled to unite into a consistent whole the various anomalies and contending principles that are found in the minds and affairs of men. From hence arises, not an excellence in simplicity, but one far superior, an excellence in composition.
Where the great interests of mankind are concerned through a long succession of generations, that succession ought to be admitted into some share in the councils which are so deeply to affect them. If justice requires this, the work itself requires the aid of more minds than one age can furnish. It is from this view of things that the best legislators have been often satisfied with the establishment of some sure, solid, and ruling principle in government- a power like that which some of the philosophers have called a plastic nature; and having fixed the principle, they have left it afterwards to its own operation.
This appendix gives Kirk's findings about the roots of the term "Conservatism" or "Conservative", a political and social force grounded as much in politcal prudence and reform as in the "preserving" action implied by the root word "conserve" itself. Conservatism then has never been principly about "conserving" Most conservatives in the beginning were more about reforming impulses as carried forward by the original Whigs, the roots of classical liberal thought. Burke fought his whole life for these Whiggish issues like Prescriptive law, equality under the law, the rule of law and the freedom from arbitrary power.
The broad stream of conservatism has carried along many waters to the sea. The Anti-Federalists have been seen to contribute, even while the founders of the Constitution are acknowledged as the main flow. What is sometimes termed the White Nile and the Blue Nile have carried principled libertarianism along with the main body. Rationalism, ideology, "the armed doctrine", and anarchism, however, have been roundly excluded when they have been flushed out.
All branches of conservatism have used distinctions to claim the helm of whatever river boat is in the lead or of one that is trying to catch up. We see this in countless articles posted here and elsewhere. The River flows on, regardless.
.
[The emphasis given in bold is mine, as well as typos. I have added paragraph breaks to help readability, but otherwise the appendix is given in full. The link goes to Reflections.. in full as Kirk's biography of Burke is not on the web. The link at Hayek's name is to the Hayek Center, a trip worth taking. Ten Conservative Principles a thread about that chapter by the same name in Kirk's The Politics of Prudence is available for a review of what Kirk's lifelong study of conservative thought grouped together as the fundamentals of conservatism in general.]
But, seriously, your point is obviously why I posted this appendix.
Conservatism then has never been principly about "conserving"I have spent quite a bit of time recently pondering the word 'conservative'. Why is it so hard to define? Why does it seem, so often, to not precisely fit, as Kirk points out above?
There are other questions that come into play in the big picture, such as why is there such a big difference between continental Europe style conservatism and American conservatism, and why there are developing such distinct factions within American conservatism, but the main issue centers around the question "Is conservatism about conserving, and if so, what?"
I believe that contrary to Kirk's statement above, conservatism always has been principly about conserving. It has always been about conserving the knowledge gleaned from the experience of history. Continuing on with Kirk's thought,
Most conservatives in the beginning were more about reforming impulses as carried forward by the original Whigs, the roots of classical liberal thought.The original conservatives, following in the Whiggish tradition, were not trying to conserve a race, nor a government, or even a culture. They were trying to conserve something grander, something more overarching. They were trying to conserve the lessons of history.
Conservatism isn't about holding on to the past, since history has shown that change happens. It is natural for there to be continuing change, and conservatism has always been about accepting the nature of things as they are, and not as they should be. The original conservatives were reformers because experience had shown concretely that the status quo was flawed, and that from the lessons of the past men had learned some things which could be applied in new ways. Ever forward, but with prudence based upon experience.
I am coming to believe that there is a grand unifying theory that brings together true conservative thought, and surprisingly it turns out that the label 'conservative' was right all along. The realm of political thought centered around reality, both of the present and the past, and the lessons provided through the progress of history, is conservatism. Those who deal in reality, and the wisdom of the ages, are predisposed to conservatism. Those who deal in what should be, in the realm of utopianism and fancy, and who put a particular ideology on such a high pedestal that real life cannot touch it, are not conservatives, even if at times they may find themselves in alliance.
One of my recent threads was about Hayek's Chapter Four from The Constitution of Liberty where Hayek goes over just what slow grown items of worth we are preserving as conservatives.
The love for history and tradition, I think, are simply and succinctly stated in the best of terms with some old sayings.
Never tear down a fence without knowing why it is there,and
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Reality is that things change. Reality is that mankind uncovers knowledge. Reality is that there is progress. Conservatives do not wish to stop progress, despite the humorous line by William Buckley about conservatives standing upon history yelling "stop!". Conservatives want to make sure that we do not plunge ahead roughshod, outracing our supply lines, forgetting all we learned where we were in the rush to get where we are going.
The black marks against mankind on the record of history are no reason to throw away all the traditions and customs of the past. If they were, the implication would be that it is all bad, and if it was all bad, then there has been no progress, no gain, nothing. If there has been no progress at all, then the noble struggle of which you speak has not been noble at all. It has been a complete and utter failure. But clearly there has been progress, and if history is any guide, there will continue to be progress... as long as we let history be our guide, which we do by remembering our history, and carrying on the good traditions and customs (while rooting out, over time, the bad).
I'll give you some examples that come to mind from what you have said.
First of all, you mentioned:
They see the past, apparently, through gauze, or a lens wiped in vaseline. Their stated concern is the preservation of the ideals and values of the past. But, obviously, not just any past; motivated as they both were by a love of liberty, and of morality, they were choosy about which past they wanted to preserve. So, again, we are not on opposite sides of any divide.
But I look back and see barbarism, and monstrous evil, and chaos, and I see valiant struggles to overcome those. Where they see a culture that is basically good, I see a culture that is deeply flawed, and that in every generation the highest calling is to reject conformity, to reject the evil of the dominant culture, and to struggle always forward.
Your use of "gauze" is interesting. From Burke during the Impeachment of Hastings we have an illustration of his use of a "veil" drawn over historical foundings:
There is a sacred veil to be drawn over the beginning of all governments. Ours in India had an origin like those which time has sanctified by obscurity. Time, in the origin of most governments, has thrown this mysterious veil over them; prudence and discretion make it necessary to throw something of the same drapery over more recent foundations, in which otherwise the fortune, the genius, the talents, and military virtue of this nation never shone more conspicuously. But whatever necessity might hide or excuse or palliate, in the acquisition of power, a wise nation, when it has once made a revolution upon its own principles and for its own ends, rests there.He uses this imagery a number of times in his life.
The Cambridge History of American and English Liturature summarizes how this applies better than I can:
It is in his attack on the abstract and individualistic doctrine of the “rights of man” that Burke develops most fully this philosophy of society, and breaks most decisively with the mechanical and atomic political theory which, inherited from Locke, had dominated the thought of the eighteenth century. Over against the view of the state as the product of a “contract” among individuals, whose “rights” exist prior to that contract, and constitute the standard by which at every stage the just claim of society on the individual is to be tested, he develops the conception of the individual as himself the product of society, born to an inheritance of rights (which are “all the advantages” for which civil society is made) and of reciprocal duties, and, in the last resort, owing these concrete rights (actual rights which fall short in perfection of those ideal rights “whose abstract perfection is their practical defect”) to convention and prescription. Society originates not in a free contract but in necessity, and the shaping factor in its institutions has not been the consideration of any code of abstract pre-existent rights (“the inherent rights of the people”) but “convenience.” And, of these conveniences or rights, two are supreme, government and prescription, the existence of “a power out of themselves by which the will of individuals may be controlled,” and the recognition of the sacred character of prescription. In whatever way a particular society may have originated—conquest, usurpation, revolution (“there is a sacred veil to be drawn over the beginnings of all government”)—in process of time, its institutions and rights come to rest upon prescription. In any ancient community such as that of France or Britain, every constituent factor, including what we choose to call the people, is the product of convention. The privileges of every order, the rights of every individual, rest upon prescription embodied in law or established by usage. This is the “compact or agreement which gives its corporate form and capacity to a state,” and, if it is once broken, the people are a number of vague, loose individuals and nothing more. Alas! they little know how many a weary step is to be taken before they can form themselves into a mass which has a true politic personality. 6There is, therefore, no right of revolution, or rebellion at will. The “civil, social man” never may rebel except when he must rebel. Revolution is always the annulment of some rights. It will be judged in the last resort by the degree in which it preserves as well as destroys, and by what it substitutes for what it takes away. At its best, revolution is “the extreme medicine of the constitution,” and Burke’s quarrel with the Assembly is that they have made it “its daily bread”; that, when the whole constitution of France was in their hands to preserve and to reform, they elected only to destroy.
So, like you, Burke acknowledges the "barbarism" or chaos present at all initial creations and sensibly chooses to draw a veil over it and see the good that the work of generations has done in its wake. Seeing it and its value he feels we muct continue a careful, prudent path of reform and work to keep ever striving forward in careful improvement.
Kirk likewise speaks (in my link to Ten Principles)to change and continued reform of human institutions:
"Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.... The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression.... He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old."
Likewise you mention "tradition":
If I value any traditional culture, it is only that tradition of noble struggle, which is a only a very definite subset of the larger culture.
I have long believed that we are on this earth to build, to create, to seek truth, and never ever rest on the received truths of generations past. America was formed by people who rejected the traditions of the ages, who came here specifically because they couldn't abide being smothered by social and economic and political stagnation another day, even if they lost their lives in some nameless place on the frontier.
So when Kirkean conservatives start going on about preserving the traditions of past generations, I get the hives; I can't help but think that my people left Europe, and the east coast, and the old south, moving ever westward just to get away from all of that. To be free to invent oneself anew in accordance with one's own principles, without the received traditions of oligarchs and royalists and slavers to distort one's conscience and stunt your existence.
Now, it might interest you that when Kirk, in his last formal formulation of a summary of conservative principles (again, see the link) in the early nineties, speaks of things established deserving of consideration he does not use the word "tradition" for the very reasons you outline. He speaks of:
"Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity", not slavishly, for he recognizes room for improvement in all things human, but humbly, for he recognizes also that wisdom grows slowly through ages, and because he prefers the devil he knows to the devil he doesn't know.It is important to me that he doesn't use that word. It is an acknowledgement that tradition alone is no sanctifier. The detail of his discussion in the book makes that clear as well.
As individuals, you and I are working for the future, for ourselves and for our progeny. Burke and Kirk, in the public arena surely, but scholars first, always have a grounding in history which makes their stated positions and the related foundations in history seem to be always pointing to the past. But forward thinking was really the essence of both men to me and I suggest that as you continue to look over their works you will find the same.
Their hopes for the future are as great as ours; their fear of the methods of expediant men is greater. They fear the armed doctrine and the false promise to give us a terrestrial paradise--salvation on earth rather than in heaven.
Now I will have to finish the book on Einstein I'm reading and start reading Prudence.
Thanks for the post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.