The Philosophy Of Burke Essay, Research Paper

“Burke was both a defender of a traditional, hierarchical social and political order and a believer in the necessity and equity of a pure capitalist economic order.” (C B McPherson, Burke, p71). `To what extent is this an accurate assessment of Burke? `In order to answer this question I will first briefly discuss Burke’s personal background relative to the social and political system in the England of the time, before examining his ideas and whether or not these justify McPherson’s statement. `The man who has sometimes been referred to as the ‘founder of conservatism’ was born in Dublin in 1729, and gained an education at a Quaker boarding school and Trinity College before moving to London in order to study law. However, Burke felt that his true destiny lay in writing, an ambition which he began to realise in 1756 with the publication of his first book, ‘A Vindication of Natural Society’, which attacked the method used by thinkers such as Rousseau of applying abstract philosophical principles to politics. He managed to complete several other comparatively minor works in the next three years, prior to receiving his first chance to break into the world of parliamentary politics by obtaining the appointment of private secretary to the M.P William Gerard Hamilton in 1759. This was to prove a rather abortive partnership for the two men, with Burke leaving Hamilton’s employment six years later as the result of a difference of opinion. However, Burke soon managed to find work in a similar capacity with the Marquis of Rockingham in 1765, serving a man who was shortly to become Prime Minister. This helped Burke to pursue a successful parliamentary career in his own right as an M.P from 1766-1794, notably for Bristol but also for various other constituencies at different times. `Although Edmund Burke has been described as a ‘party politician and propagandist and a great orator’_, it will later become clear that in general the political influence he wielded in his own lifetime was far outweighed by that gained posthumously by his ideas. The fact that Burke actually worked within the real world of parliamentary politics is also crucial in understanding one of the major differences between him and other political philosophers, something which can be defined in terms of Burke’s inclination towards ‘practical’ politics. Burke’s writings are largely concerned with supposed solutions towards actual political problems, such as the economic relationship that existed between England and Ireland. This contrasts sharply with other thinkers who were more interested in searching for an elusive ‘philosophical truth’, and goes some way towards explaining Burke’s distaste for the notion of abstract ‘natural rights’, something which I shall discuss later. This practical inclination is one that Burke shares to a certain extent with Machiavelli, who was also opposed to theorising about the kind of intangible concepts I have mentioned above. `In many ways, Burke is essentially conservative and traditionalist `in character, a believer in the effectiveness and wisdom inherent in existing social and political institutions, and one who opposed radical change unless absolutely necessary. Burke believed that such institutions were ultimately the product of a long process of evolution, comprising of many minor changes which were only permitted to be permanent if shown to be effective in the long term. As such, the fact that certain institutions have stood the test of time is in itself sufficient justification for their existence. `In the light of this statement, it now becomes necessary to describe the system that Burke vigorously defended in many of his writings. It can be seen that the English political system of the time was one that was still based on a very narrow franchise, where corrupt electoral practices were endemic as well generally acceptable, an example of this being the fact that Burke himself acquired his first seat in the House of Commons by exploiting the system of ‘rotten boroughs’ (although he was later to win a seat on his own merits). The political influence this system accorded to groups and individuals mirrored the hierarchical structure of the society of the time, with the wealthy and educated aristocratic and landowning elites possessing power out of all proportion to their size. It can be seen that the existence of the aristocracy as part of the general social hierarchy was generally deemed to be of vital importance by Burke, who saw their role as one which involved protection of the lower social orders and utilisation of their superior wealth and personal abilities towards the common good, leading society in the process. However, it can be seen that Burke disapproved of the behaviour of the ‘idle rich’, referring in particular to absentee landlordism. McPherson sums up this position succinctly when he states that ‘Burke’s position then was substantially a bourgeois one: property should be secure, but the duty of proprietors was to improve their properties so as to increase the wealth of the nation to the benefit of all classes’_. `The parliament of the time was divided into two groups, those who supported the king’s ministers and those opposed to them, with no party system in the sense that we would understand it today. Partly as a result of this it can be seen that the practice of patronage was widespread, where those with power used it to bestow benefits (for example political office) on their favourites, and this was seen as necessary due to its essential role in preserving strong executive power through large majorities. These two themes of party and patronage relate to the first aspect of Burke’s traditionalism that I will discuss, that of the support he gave to the enhanced political role of parliament which had been established in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution was not really the same sort of event as the French Revolution (as we shall later see), because it had paradoxically served to protect the existing social order in that claims to certain ancient liberties had been vindicated in the face of royal interference. The reigning monarch at the time was George III, whom Burke felt was threatening the constitution due to misuse of his royal patronage, and this supposed misuse manifested itself in the creation of a parliamentary group called ‘The King’s Friends’. As the title suggests, these were a private band of George III’s supporters within the House of Commons. This led the Whigs to refer to the group as a ‘party’, a reference to something which was disliked due to its associations with partisanship and concern for personal interests as opposed to the interests of the country as a whole. `Burke was also highly critical of the king’s actions, but for different reasons. He felt that George III was undermining the established power of parliament by his use of patronage to sustain the ‘King’s Friends’ in order to increase his own authority, but that the actual political instrument of party itself could be perfectly valid. In his view, combining to form parties with common ideologies and policies as opposed to simple deals between aristocratic groupings within parliament was the only way to prevent the king from using his superior patronage to upset the balance of power. `There are, however, several conditions felt by Burke to be necessary in this kind of party system, and the first of these is that it should be possible to oppose the party in power without fear of retribution, and that opportunities should exist for public opinion to oust a party from office if thought to be inept at its job. In the words of Plamenatz_, ‘Burke was the first to advocate party government as an instrument and preservative of freedom’. `This seemingly radical advocacy of party may seem something of a contradiction for someone with a reputation for traditionalism but in doing so Burke was only prescribing the measures which he felt to be necessary for the preservation of the existing political system, particularly concerning the rights of parliament. `The next aspect of Burke’s traditionalist nature that I will discuss is his attitude towards the American colonists of the time, which he expresses in several works ranging from ‘American Taxation’ (1774) to ‘Conciliation with the Colonies’ (1775). Unsurprisingly enough, Burke supported the long established tradition of English imperialism and wished for the colonies to remain part of the empire if at all possible. However, he remained opposed to the coercive methods used by George III as he felt that this would set a precedent which could eventually result in dire consequences for personal freedom in both countries. This led him to support the American cause, but for reasons entirely separate to those put forward by the colonists, who felt that the English `king should respect certain rights and principles (later to be partially codified in the Declaration of Independence) deemed to be universally possessed by man. In this particular case, the issue at stake was one of a intolerably large burden of taxation payable to parliament, something which was exacerbated by the fact that the Americans had no representatives in the English parliament. In Burke’s view, the colonists had a strong case not because they entitled to recognition of some inalienable ‘natural rights’, but because they were defending attempts by England to change the relatively satisfactory although imperfect system of relations that had existed between the two countries for one and a half centuries, and which were ultimately a product of the English social and political order, the values of which had been carried across the Atlantic by the settlers. No matter how well intentioned these attempts at change may have been, Burke saw them as a threat to the ‘acquired rights’ which had been gained by the colonists in the course of history, something which he states in his speech on American Taxation – ‘Be content to bind America by laws of trade, as you have always done. Let this be your reason for binding their trade. Do not burden them by taxes; you were not used to do so from the beginning. Let this be your reason for not taxing.’ `It now becomes necessary to discuss Burke’s attitude towards the French Revolution, which he expresses in what has come to be regarded as his most influential work, ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (1790). As we have already seen, Burke gave no credence to any idea of natural or universal human rights, believing that the rights held by an individual were simply a reflection of the society that individual lived in, as opposed to rights which were applicable everywhere. For Burke, the fact that the American colonists attempted to use this meaningless doctrine of ‘the rights of man’ didn’t detract from the basic validity of their claim to independence. In the case of France, however, he felt that the revolutionaries were setting a dangerous precendent by attempting to smash the existing social and political order (and the rights that went with it) in order to forcibly impose a new system based on ‘universal’ rights. In the words of Plamenatz, ‘They were challenging those rights in the name of such principles as equality and liberty, taken in the abstract’_. Burke believed that these principles could only be given meaning in the context of a society and hence felt that the French attempt to impose this doctrine of rights derived from nature was nonsensical. The destruction of the existing social and political institutions also incurred Burke’s wrath for reasons I have already touched upon, and this concerns his belief in the evolved suitability and wisdom inherent in such institutions. The folly of the revolutionaries lay in their arrogance at assuming that they could start society afresh based on this doctrine of rights, rather than accepting the essential truth that the social institutions in existence were imperfect but performed their job adequately (although men may not fully understand the workings of these institutions), and that any any changes should be made gradually within the existing framework. For Burke, the ultimate result of this social transformation and destruction of existing rights would be almost entirely negative in that increasing government absolutism and loss of previous civil freedoms would be falsely justified in the name of imposing an unworkable system based on nonexistent natural rights, as opposed to a system which has evolved over the ages to meet the different circumstances and situations that mankind finds itself in. `Finally it becomes necessary to talk about Burke’s views on economics, something which he had plenty of time to develop in his long parliamentary career. It can be seen that the kind of economy Burke favoured was one characterised by free competition, self-regulation and non-interference from government and in this respect he shares a lot of common ground with the political economist Adam Smith. Burke’s views on this are given in a number of his works, but possibly the most revealing is his appeal to the government about the Speenhamland system of supplementary income. This system, which was introduced in 1795, aimed to alleviate poverty amongst working men in the Berkshire village of the same name by supplementing their wages (which were generally below subsistence level) with extra payments. Burke saw this as a classic example of state interference with the laws of the free market, which would result in negative consequences in that the labourers would lose the incentive to work, and that the taxation required to raise the money for the benefits would be an unacceptable act of economic coercion. I have already mentioned Burke’s preference for a social hierarchy headed by the Monarch and aristocracy as a prerequisite for overall social unity and progress, but it can be seen that he also favoured this arrangement for economic reasons. The main one is that having the rich members of society living off the labour of the poor is what results in the accumulation of capital, which was necessary in that it would ultimately lead to the increased prosperity of the nation as a whole. This hierarchical capitalist system with subservient lower social orders was also viewed by Burke as being the best way of allocating resources in society, and although there were temporary setbacks with this system (for example the poverty experienced by the workers in Speenhamland) he felt it necessary to defend it as being of natural or divine origin to protect against the arguments of those who put forward the doctrine of the rights of man. `To conclude, I would say that McPherson is correct in his assessment of Burke, and there are a number of reasons for this. `I have already discussed Burke’s traditionalism in respect of his belief in the wisdom contained within history, tradition and long-established custom and his opposition to radical change unless it was within the context of this framework. In addition to this we have seen how Burke favoured the kind of social hierarchy of the time due to its role in promoting overall social unity. Burke’s views on economics are logically consistent with this traditionalism and belief in hierarchy in that he supported a capitalist economic order, one that had been incorporated into the overall social order in a process lasting hundreds of years, and as such had come to be a tradition in its own right. `Bibliography `Geraint Williams, Political Theory in Retrospect, 1991 Edward Elgar Publishing. `C.B McPherson, Burke, 1980 Oxford University Press. `John Plamenatz, Man and Society, 1963 Longman. `J.Lively and A.Reeve, Modern Political Theory, 1989 Routledge. ` ` `_____Geraint Williams, Political Theory in Retrospect p97, 1991. `_____C.B McPherson, Burke p9, 1980. `_____J. Plamenatz, Man and Society Vol. 1 p336, 1963. `_____J. Plamenatz, Man and Society p341, 1963