Burke's arguments against the French Revolution - Essay Example

? Burke’s work concerns two important consequences of the French Revolution with respect to the present discussion. First, is his focus on aspects connected with the ‘terror’, and second, are those aspects of French thought which had gone into informing the general tenets of individual liberty and democracy. In both senses, and to the extent that these are examined mostly from a historical standpoint, he is deeply concerned with the consequences of various forms of change. That is, and in his own words, he is not interested in problems in the “abstract principles” [Burke, 1987: 109] . The terror is a period of history marking the French Revolution, and it is characterized as the term suggests, with extreme acts of depravity. During the reign of the French terror, priests, aristocrat's and various sympathizers were often indiscriminately burned or hanged – and, private property suffered a similar fate: “frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty employed to bring about and to uphold this Revolution have their nature effect, that is, to shock the moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds, the abettors of this philosophic system immediately strain their throats in a declamation against the old monarchical government of France” [Burke, 1987: 108]. The ‘terror’ poses a number of problems for Burke. It was a period of history – contemporary as he writes this work, where freedom was equated with a complete disregard for “moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds”. For Burke, the lack of hierarchy and political authority, results in barbarous extremes or indeed, chaos. He does equivocate in his condemnation of this situation, but what is important, is that it informs his judgment of what ‘the state of nature’ or a ‘state without authority’ is characteristic of. As a subject of Britain, he raises much concerning the Revolution of 1688, but sees a far more positive outcome. The ‘Glorious Revolution’ in Britain, brought about the institution of Parliament, and for Burke the English predilection to constitutional authority, is much preferred to the terror in this respect. Aside from the extremes of the ‘terror’, he views greater autonomy and freedom with cultural and not simply political repercussions. In this sense, he might be regarded as a Platonist or an elitist. That is, a hierarchy must be maintained not simply to exert direct political control or authority, but also to convey a moral standard or what might be described as a standard of ‘taste’, so to speak. By this, it is implied to the extent that he is critical of the ‘decadence’ that greater freedom and autonomy (especially in Britain) has brought about. One could describe this social criticism as essentially a critique of the ‘nouveau riche’, over and against the preferred sentiments of aristocratic values. Concerning the nouveau riche, for example, he asserts: “Why should the expenditure of a great landed property, which is a dispersion of the surplus product of the soil, appear intolerable to you or to me when it takes its course through the accumulation of vast libraries [Burke, 1987: 142]. The freedom of the many – or, even a ‘select’ many (e.g. the Bourgeoisie) is a condition which Burke is deeply critical of.. The above passage suggests that ‘wealth’ or “surplus” is better spent on the preservation of libraries than on the forms of entertainment that appealed to the growing middle classes. The status quo for Burke, is a hierarchy which is not merely constitutional, but also social. His criticism of freedom is thus political and social. Thus, the undermining of authority for Burke, can be understood as extending from both direct (the terror) and indirect forms (cultural, e.g. the ‘nouveau riche’), and in both senses, he regards the consequences as central with respect to what he does regard as the proper political authority. In other words, to understand why his political authority takes on the form that it does, is to understand those factors which authority is to exist in order to prevent – the consequences of liberty and autonomy, result for Burke in a decline of moral standards and “sentiments” at the least, and in their worst manifestation, the consequences is the barbarism of the ‘terror’. Burke's ideas on the French Revolution are mostly concerned with the 'terror' and with the decline of moral standards of those who are not aristocratic. He fails to understand that not all Revolution will be chaos and that people of all social standing can have the same virtues or moral qualities of the aristocracy. MACHIAVELLI: Machiavelli is a realist, and arguably a cynic. His position in life was a political adviser or counsel to the Medici family during the Italian Renaissance. As a realist and a cynic, he is unquestionably a thinker for our time or all time. What is meant by realism and cynicism must be spelled out. First, as a realist, he believed that what mattered in politics was 'appearance' more than reality: “It is not, therefore, necessary for a prince to have all of the above named qualities, but it is very necessary to seem to have them” [Machiavelli 280]. Contemporary politics is entirely about the appearance of virtue, more than the actual possession of it. In the United States during any political campaign, millions are spent on advisers, media-relations experts or 'spin doctors' to achieve precisely what Machiavelli maintains. That is, the appearance of someone who possesses admiral qualities or virtues. Moreover, 'appearance' versus reality can be understood in contemporary politics in even more grave terms. For instance, the legitimation or justification for invading Iraq was on the basis that they had 'weapons of mass destruction'. President Bush had to find a way of justifying the invasion so that the appearance of it seemed legitimate in the eyes of the American people. As we discovered, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and moreover, the intelligence on which that opinion was based was questionably even at the time that Bush made the decision. The conflict between reality and the appearance of reality as expressed by Machiavelli, is very much embodied in what happened with Iraq. Where the underlying reality or truth, was a situation where Bush knew that there was at the very least, questionable evidence for weapons of mass destruction, he nevertheless launched a massive media relations campaign in order to sell to the American people something which appeared plausible, and therefore, justified. Machiavelli's cynicism and realism, also led him to maintain the idea that the “end justifies the mean” [Machiavelli 280]. This is practically a mantra for contemporary politics. Again, there are a number of good examples from mainstream US politics that easily verify Machiavelli's notion. Recently, President Obama went as far as publishing his full birth certificate. He did this to prove that he was in fact, born in the US. His opposition, and right-wing media outlets like Fox News, have been publicly maintaining for several years that he was born abroad. It is, of course, one of the constitutional conditions that a President must be born in the US.. However, Republican strategy along with the media compliance of their strategy, has deliberately mislead the people. The smear campaign or strategy plays on both the unconstitutionality of his legitimacy as President, but also a general tendency for xenophobia in the US.. That is, a fear and suspicion of people born in a different culture with different values. With a sense of realism and cynicism, this intentional attempt at smearing Obama's birth place, is unquestionably a solid example of the ends justifying the means. When the purpose of power is only to maintain itself as Machiavelli believed, the Republicans feel that the means of basically lying justify the end of their need to re-obtain power. A final and noteworthy element of Machiavelli that is both contemporary and also, a meaningful expression for politics in all ages, is the idea that private property ought to be sacred. Machiavelli argues that it would be more prudent to take a life than to take someones private property: “but above all he must abstain from taking the private property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony” [Machiavelli 279]. Private property is a 'sacred' principle in Western civilization. The ongoing debate over whether to raise taxes or whether to cut them, is completely an issue of challenging the notion of someone's personal wealth or their property. The Republican party at least since the Reagan era, has continually made the point that the Democratic Party stands for 'tax and spend' politics. They do this knowing that there is popular support for the idea that any form of taxation is a challenge to an individual's right to accumulate their wealth without government interference. Machiavelli's notion that we would rather loose our father than our property, is a sentiment that is deeply felt by many. Thus, his recognition of this fact is one that is also one adopted and practiced in mainstream politics. WORKS CITED: Burke, Edmund. (1987). Reflections on the Revolution in France. Edited J.G.A Pocock. Indianapolis: Hackett. Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Prince” in Martinich, A., Allhoff, F. and Vaidya, A. (Ed.). (2007). Early Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary. Oxford: Blackwell. On Edmund Burke's Critique of the French Revolutionary and How Machiavelli's Thought is Best for Understanding Modern Society and Politics. Read More