In Defense Of Myself
Written by Mark Harris on June 25th, 2007Wow, I would have never thought a post urging folks to read Reflections on the Revolution in France would turn into a total flame fest. Anyway, I want to address a couple of good points brought up.
1) Rob Lee has spent some time hammering me as being a blowhard for refusing to debate folks who haven’t read the Reflections. I am surprised by this line of argumentation more or less because I was more using hyperbole to make my point and didn’t mean it 100% literally. But I do think that such a proposition would not be far fetched. I mean it would be like having an argument about Marxism without having read Marx or Capitalism without reading Adam Smith. I know this gives Burke a very big place in conservatism, but one that I think is both deserved and nearly universally recognized by the movement intellectuals.
2) Rob Lee also brought up that we live in a new, faster, different world than we used to so Burke is less important and philosophical reading in general is less important. I would argue against both of these thoughts. We still live in a fallen world of competing interests with limited resources where we stand on the shoulders of our forefathers to understand the world we live in today. So while we now have more technology the basic governmental principles behind Burke stand strong. We can’t create grand utopian visiosn for our future, and I would argue this applies to the almighty Free Market Utopia too.
Too often I’ve spent hours hearing my friends in the movement talk about efficiency, the invisible hand, market forces and all sorts of other great theories. [Of which I do agree with them] Yet, their mistake is turning the market into some type of utopian tool that can be used to solve all of our problems. It just isn’t and as conservatives we should have skepticism for anything that claims to heal all our ills, even conservatism itself.
In this sense then, Burke is still very important to understanding the world we live in today. But its not just domestic policy, in foreign policy too Burke’s principles give us some guideposts. As he points out Western Society evolved over hundreds of years of a unique combination of Judeo-Christian values with Greco-Roman government and philosophy. Our efforts to build governments in other parts of the world should understand that you can’t do it out of whole cloth.
To address the second sub-point about a changed world is that life is more hectic today so people don’t have time for esoteric philosophy. This I think is the problem with the modern young Republican (CRs, YRs, etc) movement that builds itself into cults of personality around Coulter, Hannity, Bush, etc. Others touched on this deeper in the comments thread, but I will say it took me one evening to read Reflections on the Revolution in France. I think if you are going to make a big part of your life conservative politics you can spare one night to read. Moreover, maybe if we spent more time developing strong foundations, then we would have to spend less time in fighting ourselves.
3) Rob Lee made a point that my support of Burke is hypocritical in regards to the standards I hold politicians too. First of all I think all of us here realize we will never agree with a politician 100% of the time. I still love Sen. Kyl even if I disagree with him on immigration, or I love Sen. Sunnunu even if he has voted for pork. The point is that you do a cost-benefit analysis of whether on the whole that politician is beneficial to our goals.
Burke did this in his own life when he fought vigorously the modernist wing of his Whig party who was pro-French revolution. If Burke was some lover of practical party politics, it certainly didn’t come through in this seminal event of his life.
25
AM
1) Rob Lee has spent some time hammering me as being a blowhard for refusing to debate folks who haven’t read the Reflections. I am surprised by this line of argumentation more or less because I was more using hyperbole to make my point and didn’t mean it 100% literally. But I do think that such a proposition would not be far fetched. I mean it would be like having an argument about Marxism without having read Marx or Capitalism without reading Adam Smith. I know this gives Burke a very big place in conservatism, but one that I think is both deserved and nearly universally recognized by the movement intellectuals.
If you intended the statement as hyperbole, than my apologies for the misinterpretation (it’s kinda hard to pick that up when I don’t really know you, and just have read what you’ve written on here). However, it’s obviously led to a pretty decent discussion so far - so it’s not all that bad in the end, I suppose. More importantly, I don’t think you’re a “blowhard.”
2) Rob Lee also brought up that we live in a new, faster, different world than we used to so Burke is less important and philosophical reading in general is less important. I would argue against both of these thoughts. We still live in a fallen world of competing interests with limited resources where we stand on the shoulders of our forefathers to understand the world we live in today. So while we now have more technology the basic governmental principles behind Burke stand strong. We can’t create grand utopian visiosn for our future, and I would argue this applies to the almighty Free Market Utopia too.
Strawman #1. I never said that Burke is less important. In fact, to quote specifically what I said from the thread of discussion posts, it was “Conservatives need not a grounding in classical “conservative” literature, they need an understanding of modern interpretations of those pieces of literature.” The argument essentially goes that Burke’s readings are, in and of themselves, useless to our modern context. The world is far more complex on an individual level (how we must live our daily lives) and on a social level (how groups of people interact with one another). Point being is that you can’t simply say “Read Burke or you don’t know what you’re talking about.” Reading Burke doesn’t make you more intelligent, it’s the ability to communicate the ideas of Burke (and I only keep repeating him as an example, it could apply to any thinker) in a modern context. To put it far more simply, it’s just not enough to know what Burke says. And you don’t have to know specifically what he says to understand what he means.
Burke didn’t have to write about the radicalism of the French Revolution to make the point that pragmatic, gradual, principled change is preferable to a revolutionary bloodlust. He didn’t have to write anything at all; the daily lives of people would teach them that lesson.
Too often I’ve spent hours hearing my friends in the movement talk about efficiency, the invisible hand, market forces and all sorts of other great theories. [Of which I do agree with them] Yet, their mistake is turning the market into some type of utopian tool that can be used to solve all of our problems. It just isn’t and as conservatives we should have skepticism for anything that claims to heal all our ills, even conservatism itself.
In this sense then, Burke is still very important to understanding the world we live in today. But its not just domestic policy, in foreign policy too Burke’s principles give us some guideposts. As he points out Western Society evolved over hundreds of years of a unique combination of Judeo-Christian values with Greco-Roman government and philosophy. Our efforts to build governments in other parts of the world should understand that you can’t do it out of whole cloth.
There ya go, that’s all I asked for - some explanation…
To address the second sub-point about a changed world is that life is more hectic today so people don’t have time for esoteric philosophy. This I think is the problem with the modern young Republican (CRs, YRs, etc) movement that builds itself into cults of personality around Coulter, Hannity, Bush, etc. Others touched on this deeper in the comments thread, but I will say it took me one evening to read Reflections on the Revolution in France. I think if you are going to make a big part of your life conservative politics you can spare one night to read. Moreover, maybe if we spent more time developing strong foundations, then we would have to spend less time in fighting ourselves.
This has nothing to do with the “modern young Republican,” this has to do with paying the bills. I agree with you - Hannity, Coulter, etc. etc. etc. are all boring to me. They say nothing that isn’t already said. I’m glad you have an evening to read Reflections (and the patience); however I don’t have an evening to read through the Americas section of my last Economist. Most people don’t. It has nothing to do with a cult following of Hannity, it has to do with his accessibility. You have to ask the question of why he’s garnering so much attention. The funniest thing about what you just said reminds me of the debate community. So many people could just never understand why they lost rounds. They won every argument. They dropped some sick names of philosophers and thinkers. Yet the judge bounced them, and why? It was never made accessible to the judge. That judge is no different than a person living their daily lives. They want to know what the person is telling them has some personal meaning, that they can understand it and apply it to what they think and do. If you give someone Reflections and you give someone Slander, honestly tell me which one is more understandable and digestible.
Secondly, you’ve once again demonstrated another dangerous statement. “If we spent more time developing strong foundations, then we would have to spend less time in fighting ourselves.” What the hell does that mean? It sounds very dangerously like discourse of a group of Philosopher King, Ivory Tower Conservatives. Even the cults you speak of have strong foundations (they’re just not the ones you nor I seem to appeal to), and they seem to spend very little time fighting amongst themselves because they’re all shaking their heads to Hannity. Careful, Mark, but a little discord among colleagues is good now and then - it keeps things healthy. This discussion itself should be a primary example of that.
3) Rob Lee made a point that my support of Burke is hypocritical in regards to the standards I hold politicians too. First of all I think all of us here realize we will never agree with a politician 100% of the time. I still love Sen. Kyl even if I disagree with him on immigration, or I love Sen. Sunnunu even if he has voted for pork. The point is that you do a cost-benefit analysis of whether on the whole that politician is beneficial to our goals.
Strawman #2. One, I never called you a hypocrite (counter-productive yes; performatively contradicting, yes; hypocrite, no. I have no doubt that you genuinely follow what you say you do). Two, I never made my criticism of your argument specific to politicians, but rather generalized it to other conservatives who I thought you would never engage in a conversation with. Three, you misspelled “to” with “too.” (Ha ha…just throwin’ in a little humor for flava…)
Let’s leave the politicians out of this for a while, let’s talk about you and me. I’ll be honest with you Mark, I went and found Reflections after you mentioned it the other night and fell asleep trying to read it. I remember in high school trying to read it and it bored me to tears. Does that make me any less intelligent or able as a conservative to engage you about what fellow conservatives need to push for in electing representatives, ballot initiatives, or public policy? Absolutely not. I’m sure we both have met plenty of intelligent people that understand what being a conservative means (e.g., my Pops) who have probably NEVER read any of those texts you have. Yet, he says the same things they do. Literally millions of others are like that. Simply reading a book does not make you a learned conservative.
And, I’m just wondering this since we’re talking about authors, but what from the other side have you read? What liberal authors do you know and understand? I was going to say something else, but didn’t want to jump the gun on this.
This is fun, though. I’m actually really enjoying this. Look forward to keep it going.
25
AM
How can you have a modern interpretation of something that you didn’t read in the first place?
25
PM
“This has nothing to do with the “modern young Republican,” this has to do with paying the bills.”
Rob you have said this twice now, and I think you might have a point. Personally I think people choose to spend their free time differently, they would rather spend their free time watching TV, drinking beer with their buddies and whatnot. That’s fine, nobody can be blamed for relaxing after working hard, taking care of their family and all of the little things that are needed to maintain modern life like mowing the lawn. After all that very few people want to sit down and tear into some Burke.
Here is where the trouble starts though. Forget about Burke, there are a whole host of ideas, concepts, writers and history that most people have never encountered nor understand. These ideas were once taught in high school and college and are essential to the maintainence of our republic. If people don’t understand the free market properly and how it is needed to continue the prosperity we all enjoy then it isn’t hard to see why a state like Michigan groans under the weight of its own economic troubles.
The people of this nation are also the ones tasked with its governance. I am no elitist by any means, but if the people of this nation aren’t willing to put more effort into understanding the world they live in, then it would be best for all involved if they lost the right to vote. I understand that much of the blame belongs to the dreadful public school system, the degradation of culture that muddies the passing down of wisdom from generation to generation, and the complete breakdown of the higher education system both public and private. That being said, individuals have an obligation to know the world they live in. 80% of what I know about conservative thought was self-taught through vigorous reading, the rest came from my parents, maybe 2% came from my teachers in high school and college.
Answer me this: how can this nation endure if people aren’t willing to learn the things they need to know (Burke aside) to be responsible citizens and voters?
If people are in fact NOT able or willing to spend the time to learn these ideas then what is to be done to prevent the tyranny of the masses?