Just Finished Reading: The Evils of Revolution by Edmund Burke
This book (another in the Penguin Great Ideas series) was actually extracts from Burke’s much larger work Reflections on the Revolution in France published in 1790. I think it might have been published in response to something Tomas Paine wrote or Paine’s book was in response to this. Either way I think they both produced some heated debate on the subject.
I had expected to find Burke’s views to be less than palatable as I understood him to be both very right-wing and deeply traditional. Surprisingly I found that he made a great deal of sense. Part of the problem I did have with these extracts (I intend to read the full work at some point) was the rather strange prose – and spelling – used in the late 18th Century. It certainly took a while to get used to though I couldn’t help thinking that at least some of the spelling was modernised for 21st century readers. A larger problem I found was that my knowledge of that era is somewhat limited. I certainly knew of some of the events mentioned in this volume – specifically the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – but almost nothing of the detail. My knowledge of the French Revolution is certainly much better but nothing like that of Burke’s who lived with it every day.
Burke’s critique of the Revolution in France is quite damming. Even though, as far as I know, the Terror had yet to take hold he clearly saw the way things were already going. Being a traditionalist his idea of societal change was gradual, orderly and British. Revolution, he saw, went against everything he knew to be true or respected. What is worse, he believed, it just didn’t work. Tearing a society down to its foundations in order to build a better one was clearly insane and could only lead to disaster. Much better he thought was to change things through evolution – though he wouldn’t have used that word probably – than revolution. One of the more interesting sections in this regard was his deep distrust of democracy as a reasonable way to run a country. He actually made a good case for restricting suffrage. All in all this was a very interesting slice both of 18th Century history and political philosophy. I shall see about acquiring the full work and look forward to his detailed analysis. Before that, however, it might be a good idea to bone up on the period a bit more some I don’t feel so lost next time.
4 comments:
I think in his time, as the Revolution quickly lost its moderates and the more radical elements came to power, it was easy to see this was not going to turn out well. I've never read his "Reflections" in its entirety. It's also been a long time since I read his work at all. What exactly did he say about restricting suffrage? I can see the wisdom in that in our own democratic republic because we have too many people here who are not educated about the issues and are easily manipulated by political machines and special interests, not to mention hate radio talk jocks. I believe those same voters are why we ended up with Bush.
V V said: What exactly did he say about restricting suffrage?
There's a couple of general references. I quickly skimmed through the book again looking for examples and this is one of the clearest I think:
But when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. If any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty, soberly limited, and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors, who will produce something more splendidly popular. Suspicions will be raised of his fidelity to his cause. Moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards; and compromise as the prudence of traitors; until, in hopes of preserving the credit which may enable him to temper, and moderate, on some occasions, the popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines, and establishing powers, that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed.
I really need to get back into academic reading. Now that I have no external motivation (i.e. classes), I've gotten mostly burned out on political philosophy.
I'm expecting to do a politics MA next year - so I thought I'd get in some reading before hand so I'd stand a chance in the seminars with all of the youngsters who have already studied politics for 3 years!
Post a Comment