The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

I loved this book. The author presents both perspectives about politics and man in a very clear manner. Paine’s purely rational approach to the natural rights of man can be very compelling at times and that’s because he is able to reach convincing conclusions from such simple assumptions about the origin of man’s relationship to society. One of those is that a Republic would be the best system of government. Another conclusion is that a revolution, such as the French one, where society wiped out all of the existing institutions, is justifiable if the current political regime does not answer to man’s grievances. In addition to the hubris of such a position, it is precisely the simplicity that makes me uneasy. I find such an approach, where one starts from a simple set of assumptions and claims to know the whole truth about man as a political agent, unsettling, as it reminds me of the same methods to justify fascism, Nazism, communism, etc. After having read Karl Popper’s The open society and its enemies, I was already an advocate of prescription as a method of improving man’s life in society. So when I learned that Burke was the brains behind prescription, I confess that I had already taken his side of the debate before I finished the book. By prescription, Burke implies that we are unable to unveil all of the truths concerning man and his relationship to society. The existing institutions reflect the wisdom that societies have accumulated throughout history and we should respect them. In simple terms, they reflect the checks and balances that make man a temperate being, able to live in peace within society. From such assumptions, he concludes that reforms have to be done in small doses, taking care not to damage existing institutions. Improvements should build on what already works. That is not to say that all existing institutions are fair and work well. Because of Burke’s more humble approach (in my opinion), some of his answers to Paine’s attacks on Britain’s political institutions weren't so convincing, which made me question the strength of Burke’s model. But I guess that is a consequence of acknowledging that full understanding of man as political agent is beyond our grasp. In the end, I can say that this book provided me with: (i) different political models to contextualize my thoughts about politics and, in some respects, (ii) more questions. I could not have asked for more.

This otherwise interesting and balanced examination of the writings of Burke and Paine is flawed by Levin's insistence on using the term "liberal" in his explanation of the origins of the distinction between right and left. In the process he modifies "liberal" in at least five ways by speaking of "modern liberalism," "Enlightenment liberalism," "radical liberalism," "classical liberalism," and "conservatism liberalism." Though he provide definitions for each of these terms it is not clear why he felt constrained to use the same word in so many contexts that it ceases to mean anything. The unfortunate result is a parody on Mill's Method of Agreement. Robert Nozick advises that "[f]undamental explanations of a realm are explanations of the realm in other terms; they make no use of any of the notions of the realm. Only via such explanations," he continues, "can we explain and hence understand everything about a realm; the less our explanations use notions constituting what is to be explained, the more (ceteris paribus) we understand." (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 19).

The book by Levin, The Great Debate, is an excellent contribution to the studies of Burke versus Paine. Although their debates are over two centuries ago, they ring true today as well. The questions explored by Levin center around the "conservatism" of Burke and the "progressivism" of Paine. Although this alignment is attempted, that is much of the text deals with trying to understand both authors in a context interpretable today, in many ways there is a bit of current day "conservatism" and "progressivism" in both Burke and Paine. There is not one a to one alignment. Levin presents his arguments in an exceptionally clear and concise manner. The book is quite readable and the structure of his argument is built in sections presented in each chapter. One does not have to dig to any depth to see where he wants to take the reader. Levin clearly understands Burke and also has a good grasp of Paine. Burke was the conservative, born in Ireland and raised in the Church of England and a Member of Parliament. His career was highlighted by his writings as compared to any Legislative prowess. Paine was class wise a step or two below Burke, leaving England and starting anew in what was to become the United States. His skill as a pamphleteer was extraordinary and in so doing he absorbed and even created the sense of his times. Paine personally paid for his major work, Common Sense, which in many ways ignited the Revolution. Levin begins by providing a brief overview of the lives of the two men. It is well done but it in some ways fails to dig deeper and understand what may have made a Paine and a Burke. Paine was in a sense an entrepreneur, he abandoned England and his "place in that society" to travel to American where he could create the person he became. Paine was the risk taker, seeing the need for change, albeit with risk, and taking the chance. Burke in total contrast knew his places and sought ways to maximize the best as possible his position in that place. Burke not only accepted the system as is but proselytized that system as the sine qua non of how things should be. Paine rejected that system and saw in the individual the path to change. The reader should have some knowledge of the times to best understand some of the content. Let me provide a first example. On p 31 in discussing Burke there is the statement "Praising the gradualism of the English constitution ..." First, there is no document in existence which one can call the English Constitution. Second, when one looks for the English constitution one starts with the Magna Carta and then proceeds forward with an amalgam of Laws, Parliamentary proceedings and the rulings from Common Law courts, namely precedents. In addition the English constitution assumes that English society is built around three classes; the Crown, the Aristocracy, and the Commons. Namely, one always knew one's place, and one must act accordingly. It was this theme which flows throughout the book and also was essential to Burke's thought. In contrast in America one could be whatever one wanted, and class was essentially non-existent, thanks in many ways in which the English ruled. There is a second theme that flows throughout the book, individualism. Levin comment on p 29 as follows: "Burke laid out an argument against radical individualism," A major issue which needs clarification is; what is the definition of individualism? This terms in in Burke and it returns a few decades later in de Tocqueville as a major characteristic of America in the early 19th century. Individualism was in many ways a rejection of the Burkean conservatism, namely of a society with an immutable class system, a society of strict structure. On p 36 the author states the core set of points upon which the battle between Burke and Paine rested, namely; "...what makes a government legitimate, what the individual's place is in the larger society, and how each government should think about those who came before and those who will come after." This question then flows throughout the book. Levin does a splendid job and going back and forth from Burke to Paine and exploring the details of the answers thereto. Chapter 2 presents the two varying views of Nature that each had. These world views become the platforms upon which they build their ideas of government and society. To Burke there is formality and structure. Burke was a traditionalist, a royalist. On p 61 Levin presents the famous quote from Burke's Reflections where he states: "We fear God; we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility." This as Levin note is the totality of Burke's world view. The irony is that Burke, as an Irishman by birth, with a Catholic mother, see reverence to priests of the English Church but death to the priests of the Catholic or Irish Church. Again one must read de Tocqueville's comparative journey through Ireland in the mid-19th Century to best understand this comparison. The question is; is this conservatism or a dogmatic slavish following akin to Stalinism? In contrast Levin ascribes a "radical liberal thinker" to Paine (p 57) and these types of thinkers, says Levin, "leave the human sentiments and role of the imagination out of the understanding of human nature". This was an Enlightenment battle between reason and custom. In Chapter 3 the author begins a discussion of Justice and Order. He states on p 69, "For Paine, the appeal to nature is primarily an appeal to justice." One must ask; what definition of justice do we use here? On p 71 Levin presents an excellent discussion of the integration in Burke's conservatism of utilitarian ideas, a "procedural conservative" mind. Chapter 4 is a key chapter wherein the issue of individual choice and obligations (duties) are discussed. This chapter alone is worth reading. As Levin states on p 92; "The idea of rights sits at the core of Thomas Paine's political philosophy. Rights are the organizing principle of his thought and the prime concern of all his writings about government." But what is most important is that rights refer to the individual, each individual, qua individual, has the rights. The rights are not group rights; they are rights to the person. Burke vied society as an amalgam, he rejected the individual qua individual. Burke believed in classes, groups, because English society was so structured. Paine understood most clearly as a result of the discussion of the Bill of Rights that they accrued to the person, each and every person. In contrast Levin speaks of Burke on p 101 where he states: "As Burke sees it, each man is in society not by choice but by birth. And the facts of his birth - the family, the station, and the nation he is born into - exert inescapable demands on him, while also granting him some privileges and protection ..." One need go no further to understand the difference. To Paine the individual is unbounded in potential, to Burke the individual is molded by eons of history and genetics. England had its Aristocracy, a core element in its English constitution; America had the individual, and the Bill of Rights. Chapter 5 the author discusses Reason and Prescription. Reason is the core to the Enlightenment, namely by reason we can come to truth. Prescription is term defined by Levin on p 1`40 as; "The term prescription originated in Roman property law, where it referred to ownership by virtue of long-term use, rather than by formal deed." Simply put, the battle between Reason and Prescription is the battle between what we think NOW is best as compared to what tradition had determined as best. It arguably is what many think is the contrast between liberal and conservative in current day America. I would argue that perhaps that is not the case and that the battle is truly between the individual versus the group. But here in two adjoining chapters Levin lays out the principles as advocated by Burke and Paine, and as battled today. There is an undercurrent discussion in Chapter 5 as well, the discussion on equality. On p 151 there is a discussion of equality and the individual. For Paine one should be allowed to open the discussion up on the laws at least in every generation, for Burke he sees a slow representative government. The issue is the individual and equality. This theme comes again when Paine enters the fray of the French Revolution. The Liberty, Equality, Fraternity motto was focused on Liberty in the Americas and Equality in France. One can see Paine struggling with this issue. Whereas Liberty is consonant with Individualism, Equality may be taken to an extreme and destroy the individual. The resolution is left unsaid. On p 153 the author makes a most important observation; ""He (Paine) argues that every individual is capable of employing his own reason to discern the truth or falsehood of a political question ... Paine believes that every individual has the capacity to begin from scratch, rather than beginning where others left off." In the Conclusion the author makes the following statement on p 237: "The fundamental utopian goal at the core of Paine's thinking - the goal of liberating the individual from the constraints of the obligations imposed upon him by his time, his place, and his relations to others - remains essential to the left in America." I would argue that Paine placed power in the individual and not the group and that the left empowers the group often against the individual. Progressive ideas are ideas of group culture and are often opposed to individual culture. Paine I would argue is the champion of the individual and it is Burke who empowers the group. But Levin does a superb job in bringing these issues to the fore. His book is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the differences in our present day culture and more importantly the bases from which they sprung. What makes a conservative or a progressive? This book helps one think through that process better than any other.

It's interesting the way the opposing philosophies that were to become what are loosely classified as left and right in politics, started from polar positions, seemed to come together on some points and ,then, on others, each reversed his original outlook. It is still a great debate, presented in philosophical and historical depth.

This is a brilliant examination of ideas that led to the divide between left and right, ideas about human nature, the power and inadequacies of reason and the possibilities and opportunities for change in the society. Both gentlemen lack a theory of how human political society evolved. Paine argues that society was originally organised because free people agreed to cooperate. Burke is of the opinion that the birth and causes of the first human societies are unexplainable and that the beginnings of history should be shrouded in a veil. This is in sharp contrast to later thinkers like Rousseau and Marx who tried to seek explanation of the first forms of organised society in order to explain how society evolves throughout history. Paine believes that humans are rational and free to choose the best forms of government. He has no reflexions about how traditional family rule, religion and beliefs shapes peoples minds and how they choose. Burke believes that we are governed by rules that has evolved through trial and error and that our current political system therefore is the best possible. Burke argues that society should not only be subjected to passions of the individuals and therefore pragmatism and wisdom of the educated and experienced must govern the society. Paine seeks to put universal principles into practise and he therefore rejects references to history and past practise. In Paine’s view, Burke encourages national prejudices, while he himself promotes universal society. Burke warns that the pursuit of a full theoretical perfection of an abstract idea will not see the limits of reality and therefore leads to extremism, while Paine accuses Burke of defending an unjust class society built on tradition and the power of the rich. The provocative response from Burke was: “If the premises of enlightenment liberalism are inadequate, and if the resulting faith in modern reason is unjustified, what is the alternative?” It is interesting that conservatives as well as liberals sometimes use both philosophers’ ideas. Reagan referred to Paine when he wanted to reform the government administration, while Obama referred to Burke when he advocated gradual change. The great debate between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine raised timeless and universal ideas that are as relevant today as 300 years ago. It is therefore a very useful and enlightening book for anyone interested in political philosophy.

A very informative read about political philosophy. The great many quotes from Paine and Burke cast a new light on the orientation and outlook of America’s two main political parties.

Levin does a good job of laying out the ground work of the disparity between Paine and Burke but it's worth noting that the focus here is very much upon the historical discussions between the two. There is little in terms of explicitly tying trends or themes viewed as the modern day Left or Right into the sources they supposedly flow from with regard to these figures. Burke's ideas and arguments seem to be given more of a hearing and, at times, Levin seems to serve as something of an apologist for Burke. Whilst this could be that some of his ideas, such as the notion of 'prescription', may require a little more unpacking this does ultimately make The Great Debate feel slightly unbalanced. A detailed analysis of Paine's ideas may need digging up elsewhere, but this is a good introduction to the contribution these two made to the battle of ideas surrounding the American and French revolutions.

In confronting the society around us, are we first grateful for what works well about it and moved to reinforce and build on that, or are we first outraged by what works poorly and moved to uproot and transform it? This is one of the differences between the thinking Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Yuval Levin’s book explores these kinds of differences to help us understand the thinking of conservatives and liberals today. Introducing The Cast ---------------------------- Thomas Paine is the author of “Common Sense”, which gets credit for re-framing the American Revolution from a tax dispute into a struggle over basic principles. Edmund Burke was a member of the English parliament for the Whig party. He was an active reformer who opposed the oppressive behavior of the East India Company and the treatment of the American Colonies. While Paine and Burke were on much the same side on the American question, they parted company over the French Revolution. Paine lived in France as an active supporter, while Burke wrote his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” in opposition. The story is seen through the eyes of Yuval Levin, who tell us, “I’m a conservative, and I would not pretend to leave my worldview at the door while I explore the foundations of our political order…. I strive here to tell their stories in a way that both liberals and conservatives today might recognize as meaningful and true, and from which both might learn something about themselves and their political adversaries.” I think he delivers. Paine the Individual in a Libertarian Garden of Eden --------------------------------------------------------------------- Paine is well known for his opposition to religion, as the following illustrates: “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented,” he wrote, “there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity… The most detestable wickedness, the most horrible cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.” It is absurd and insulting to God himself, he contends regarding the origins of Jesus, “to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married.” Paine relies on reason above all, and is critical of revealed religion because he evaluates their texts as rational documents and finds them wanting. But not only does he believe in God (he is a Deist), this God is central to his core of his political beliefs. “The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity respecting the rights of man,” Paine explains in Rights of Man, “is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way… All men are born equal, and with equal natural right, in the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation instead of generation, the latter being only the mode by which the former is carried forward; and consequently every child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind.” Apparently God created us as free individuals, in a sort of libertarian Garden of Eden. Although he claims the mantle of reason and science, he starts from an idealistic fantasy that modern anthropology rejects as complete nonsense. He is assuming that the nature of humanity is unchanged since the beginning of time, and the experience of history is nothing but a catalog of human failures to apply the proper principles to politics. Thus, he famously tells us, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” A new society can be Intelligently Designed by rational people (like himself) playing the role of God. This viewpoint may seem revolutionary, but it is actually based on a static, unchanging view of original human nature. Once we have applied reason to design the perfect society, there is no reason for any further change, and the former revolutionary becomes a reactionary. Although Paine’s starting premise is totally false, which is a problem when constructing a rational argument, that does not necessarily negate his conclusions. He may be right for the wrong reasons. Burke the Social Evolutionist -------------------------------------- Burke is seen as a great defender of religion, but he does so only in terms of its function to provide stability to society. The rational consistency of the texts is of little concern. As Levin puts it, “Religion, and especially an established church, helps to give people the kind of sentimental attachments and peaceful habits necessary to sustain a political order grounded in generational continuity and prescription. Covering the state in sacred garb also helps to shield its origins and protect it from rash and extreme reform or revolution. And finally, religion also helps the poor deal with their condition. To deprive them of this source of consolation is to make oneself ‘the cruel oppressor, the merciless enemy of the poor and wretched.’ Burke therefore writes about religion almost exclusively in terms of its use to society and the state rather than as a path to divine truth.” Burke sees people as part of a complex, interconnected society rather than as separate individuals. He takes a more evolutionary and materialist approach of how society actually functions both now and in the past. As he writes (long before Darwin), “We must all obey the great law of change,” Burke writes. “It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. All we can do, and that human wisdom can do, is to provide that the change shall proceed by insensible degrees. This has all the benefits which may be in change, without any of the inconveniences of mutation.” Tending the Mind of a Society --------------------------------------- Psychology tells us that while our rational mind thinks it is in control, in reality much of who we are takes place in the many competing and sometimes conflicting parts of our unconscious mind. Burke seems to recognize this fact when he says, “Politics ought to be adjusted not to human reasoning but to human nature, of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part.” Civilization can be seen the same way, with a rational government trying to manage a complex society with many conflicting and non-rational factions. Paine wants to use reason to re-design the entire society. “It is time that nations should be rational, and not be governed like animals, for the pleasure of their riders,” he tells us. Burke warns that changing the “riders” will have unintended consequences on a complex society we do not really understand. Thus he declares, “A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman.” The Limitations of Burke’s Conservative Philosophy -------------------------------------------------------------------- Although Burke recognizes the complex and evolutionary nature of society, he does not take the next scientific step and try to understand it. Instead he tends to uncritically glorify traditional arrangements, as can be seen in this letter to some aristocrat: “You people of great families and hereditary trusts and fortunes are not like such as I am, who, whatever may be the rapidity of our growth, and even by the fruit we bear, and flatter ourselves a little that, while we creep on the ground, we belly into melons that are exquisite for size and flavor, yet still we are but annual plants that perish with our season, and leave no sort of traces behind us. You, if you are what you ought to be, are in my eye the great oaks that shade a country, and perpetuate your benefits from generation to generation.” Perhaps he should have recalled his wisdom given in a different context, “Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver.” Thomas Paine’s short answer to this sycophantic drivel was, “I smile to myself when I contemplate the ridiculous insignificance into which literature and all the sciences would sink, were they made hereditary; and I carry the same idea into governments.” A Moral Compass and the Connection with the Past --------------------------------------------------------------------- Paine accuses Burke of lacking a code to define moral life, worrying more about the pace of change than its direction. Levin replies that Burke agrees that a standard of justice must guide political life. “It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.” He differs in his view of our ability to know and discover that standard, which we can know only through the experience of history. Whether this is the wisdom of humility or an excuse for preserving privilege is left to the reader to decide. Paine’s view is we can know precisely what needs to be done, but only by liberating ourselves from the burdens of history and seeking for direct rational understanding. This is the key to understanding another difference between the two. Paine tells us, “Time with respect to principles is an eternal NOW: it has no operation upon them; it changes nothing of their nature and qualities,” and “Each age and generation must be free to act for itself.” Whereas Burke sees the task of any generation to preserve and, where necessary and possible, improve what that generation has been given by its predecessors, with the aim of passing the benefit along to its successors. Each generation must live with a sense of its own time as transitory— more or less the opposite of an eternal now. The problem with Paine’s disconnect with the past is that it suggests a corresponding lack of concern about the future. Burke’s too deep connection with the past will keep us stuck there. Reflections on the Left and Right Today ---------------------------------------------------- Levin concludes that, “To this day, progressive voices argue that our political system must empower expertise to directly address social and political problems with technical prowess. And today’s conservatives argue that we must empower institutions (like families, churches, and markets) that channel the implicit knowledge of many individuals and generations and that have passed some test of time and contain in their very forms more wisdom than any person could possess.” But he also acknowledges that some conservatives use Paine’s rhetoric in calling for an overthrow of the welfare state that liberals want to defend. Thus he says, “The rhetoric of some key domestic debates therefore sometimes seems almost like a mirror image of the original left-right debate.” As for foreign policy debates, George W. Bush’s Iraq war channelled Thomas Paine – they wanted to begin Iraq anew, based on the rational principles of democracy. No one listened to the spirit of Edmund Burke, who would have reminded us that destabilizing the complex society of Iraq would have similar disastrous consequences to those of the French Revolution. A Worthwhile Study -------------------------- I think this book succeeds in exploring how society works and how we should try to change it. It does rather exaggerate the differences between Paine and Burke. While Paine was active in the French Revolution, the book fails to mention that he tried to moderate its behaviour, almost at the cost of his life. And Burke did consider the necessity of revolution, saying (not quoted in this book), “The speculative line of demarcation, where obedience ought to end, and resistance must begin, is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event, which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged indeed, before it can be thought of; and the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past.” Still, one gets the feeling if we followed Burke’s counsel we would still be living in the squalor of the Middle Ages. We need the spirit of Paine to move forward. Just don’t put guys like that in charge.