Conservative Political Thought Flashcards

How does Muller define or characterize conservatism? How does this differ from how Robin defines conservatism?

Muller argues conservatism is the defense of institutions that are “historical.” Robin argues conservatism is the defense of hierarchy; conservatives favor liberty for the highest order and constraint for the lowest order.

In your own view, is conservatism simply a “positional ideology” with no inherent political commitments, as Samuel Hunting posits, or is there a set of political commitments, themes, impulses, or images that have defined conservatives since the 1790s?

What is the difference between orthodoxy and conservatism, according to Muller? How might one be orthodox but not necessarily conservative?

Muller makes a distinction between conservatism and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is typically going to be religious/spiritual & relies on belief that there is a higher moral order, think: Antigone. Conservatism is secular defense of traditions on the belief that traditions are inherently good/inherently protect us and make us happy (though some individual conservatives may utilize religion/spirituality in their rhetoric/beliefs), think: [insert one of our writers].

How is “historical utilitarianism” used to justify or legitimate existing institutions? What are “latent functions” of instutitions?

Many conservatives (such as Muller, Oakeshott, [maybe list some others]) believe that all institutions that have survived have survived for a reason (eg. our ancestors were wise & created them for a reason, and their existence has continued for a reason) - these institutions serve an important purpose in keeping us happy, healthy, safe, etc. We may not understand the purpose or effects of institutions, or we may even believe the purpose/effects to be bad, but we shouldn’t just destroy or remove those institutions because they may also have positive effects that we are unaware of (latent functions). Some conservatives who adhere to this view have a dark view of human nature (Muller is one such example) and believe our institutions help protect us from that nature.

What are some of the recurrent assumptions and images that regularly occur in conservative political thought, according to Muller? Have you seen these in our readings as truly recurrent?

Conservatives are often skeptical of a priori reasoning (gaining reason through theory rather than experience), believe humans are imperfect and don’t fully know everything (epistemological modesty), and are often wary of radical change/revolution and new institutions. Many conservatives also prefer unwritten constitutions to written, though not all.

I wouldn’t say conservatives are always skeptical of a priori reasoning (some, like Strauss, are pretty into the abstract), though I do think conservatives express anxiety about the destruction of “historical” institutions pretty often. Even more future-focused conservatives like Schlafly and Hayek still pull from historic/traditional imagery as it is relevant to themselves (“traditional family” and “French revolution,” respectively)

What is the difference between Muller’s “radical conservatism” and Robin’s “reactionary”? Are they talking about the same thing? How does Muller differentiate the “radical conservative” from the regular conservative?

Muller’s radical conservatives apply the past to the future, and oppose presentism (Oakeshott more as traditional conservatives, Hayek as a radical conservative because of how he borrows & builds upon liberal French revolutionary ideas in the construction of a neoliberal future), and not all conservatives are radical. Robin argues that all conservatives are reactionary in nature - conservatism exists in opposition to something else; without that something else, it ceases to exist. There is nothing to conserve (or, in the case of radical conservatives, resurrect).

Robin says, “Conservatism then, if not a commitment to limited government and liberty … These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever-changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose” (p. 16). What then is conservatism’s “animating purpose,” according to Robin?

Robin argues conservatism’s “animating purpose” is the preservation of hierarchy.

What does Robin mean when he says conservatives “ceded the field of the public” to “stand fast the private” (p. 15)? How do power and hierarchy function differently in the public sphere versus the private sphere for conservatives?

Conservatives no longer attempt to control government/public spheres and instead focus their attentions on dominating the private sector. Think: Neoliberalism.

Add more later

What does Robin mean when he says the conservative mind is fundamentally “counterrevolutionary”? How does the conservative borrow from the revolutionary?

Robin means that conservative movements typically emerge in response to revolutionary movements or social/economic/political change. They may sometimes borrow the language or methods or revolutionaries, but conservatism is always in response to something; it isn’t a movement that arises in and of itself.

Think: Phyllis Schlafly utilizing feminist language/messaging

What are Plato’s critiques of democracy? What does Plato believe are the dangers of democracy? Do you agree or disagree, and why or why not? What produces tyranny, according to Plato? How is tyranny a paradoxical product of the love of freedom?

Plato argues that democracy is unstable, subject to the base urges of a general population, who are not particularly wise or enlightened. The decisions made in a democracy will always be unwise and unenlightened for that reason.

Power in a democracy can also easily be seized by one individual (the demagogue), who makes promises that play to the whims of the people (eg. “Christmas every Monday!”), assumes power (the people surrender theirs to him), and then abuses that power, eliminating his rivals, hoarding wealth for himself, taking power & freedom away from the people, etc. Plato believed that democracy would always inevitably succumb to tyranny for this reason.

What constitution type is best, according to Plato, and why? On what grounds does Plato defend aristrocracy?

Plato argues aristocracy (his Kallipolis) is superior because it will be led by the wisest individuals, and everyone will know their place in society (and stay in their place). They will have no poverty and no excessively wealthy classes, both of which are abysmal, according to Plato. Only a few are suited to lead (they must be born with the correct nature, and that nature must be nurtured with the correct education), and aristocracy best allows for that (specifically his modified form).

How did the French revolution establish the meanings of “liberal” and “conservative”?

The liberals were the bourgeoise who led the revolution, fought against the monarchy/old order, and promoted free-market values(? i dont know how to phrase this). The conservatives were those who defended the monarchy/old order/church in response to the revolution.

Who was Edmund Burke? What was the occasion for Burke in writing his Reflection?

What is the British constitution? Is it a single written document? How and why does Burke defend it?

The British constitution is not a single written document; it is a series of documents, norms, traditions, etc. that form the foundation of the British government. Burke argues that the British constitution is good because it has survived for centuries,

What is the tradition of English common law? How is it based on precedent and tradition? Open by(?) slow to change? How is this related to Burke’s defense of the British constitution as opposed to the French’s revolutionary constitutional order?

Decisions made under common law should be beholden to precedent; if you’re a judge ruling in a case, you are going to look at historic cases that were similar to see how rulings were made then, in the past. It is in this way you inherit common law - the decisions of your forebearers will directly guide, influence, and determine your own. Common law isn’t all written down and compiled one one place; different courts keep different records that you can seek out, but there isn’t just one singular thing everyone is referring to all of the time. Common law is built on tradition, and is slow to change.

Civil law (what the French revolutionaries were trying to do), is all codified in one place. Laws are written down and interpreted according to a set of external criteria. If you’re a judge ruling on a case, you’re going to look at the written law and apply it accordingly. The written law itself can be changed more easily than legal precedent and unwritten aspects of a constitution (ie. values, norms). Judicial rulings are not binding and one judge may choose to break with tradition if they see a reason to warrant doing so (ie. new technologies may warrant new interpretations of preexisting law).

How and why does Burke critique abstract human rights based on reason? Do you agree or disagree with Burke on his critique on abstract human rights?

Burke argues that abstract rights are meaningless because they are abstract - what do they actually mean/look like in practice? Instead, Burke argues that the wisdom of the ancestors which has survived to the present is tried and true; we inherit the rights our ancestors laid out for us.

I agree that abstract, universal human rights may not always be applicable - I think different geographies and different peoples are going to have different needs, wants, histories, etc. which may all demand different political situations (ie. what situations re: rights are going to look like) - but I disagree that the abstract is never going to work for anyone. Abstract human rights might work for some people - they seemed to work for ancient Athens, and today a lot of people have adopted pretty broad, abstract human rights gleaned through reason, not tradition. I just don’t think they’re all-encompassing (ie. going to apply to every single society).

Where do rights come from, according to Burke? Does Burke totally reject the idea of political and social rights? What “rights” do Englishmen have and why?

Burke argues that rights come from history and tradition. He doesn’t reject the idea of political/social rights, but he argues you can’t just up and invent new ones on the spot (it would be unwise(?) i can’t remember).

How does Burke contrast what the French revolutionaries are doing with what he believes the English do with respect to rights, liberties, and law?

Why does Burke defend folk religion?

Burke argues that even folk religion was created with the wisdom of the ancestors, and so it should continue to persist in its relevant geographies, so because it xyz (i can’t remember maybe something about protecting people/ensuring their happiness?).

What kinds of arguments does Burke make in defense of aristocratic privilege or the privileges of the Church?

Burke argues that the aristocratic class and the church actually help keep monarchies/governments in check; if you’re having an issue with the government, you can go seek help and assistance from the Church or from an aristocratic family. The Church (and to some extent, aristocrats) also can provide a social welfare net that the government may not (ie. feeding the poor, charity) - if they don’t have privileges, it is going to be harder for them to serve that role.

Why should institutions be preserved, even if they don’t serve an explicit rational purpose, according to Burke?

They may have latent functions that protect people, ensure their happiness, or preserve the continued functioning of society/law/order/government.

How and why does Burke defend marriage and oppose divorce?

How did the French revolutionaries rewrite divorce laws and rethink the marriage contract? On what grounds does de Bonald reject or contest the revolutionaries’ logic when it comes to divorce? In what ways does marriage help tame human beings, according to de Bonald?

French revolutionaries allowed for divorce and remarriage. De Bonald argues that marriage is the foundation of families, which are the foundation of society. If marriage were to cease to exist in a meaningful capacity (ie. everyone is just getting married and divorced and married and divorced), so too would families, and society itself.

Without marriage, humans (he singles out men in particular) will be irresponsible and ill-behaved. Marriage forces men to settle down and provide for their children and the women they have gotten pregnant. When women don’t have that promise - that ability to control their partners - they are left in an unsafe, uncertain position. He also argues that women leave marriage with no dignity; their value is tied up in their youth and fertility. Their husbands may continue to live on after divorce as usual (with maybe less responsibilities), but they will have lost their value.

Who does the state represent in the marriage contract, according to de Bonald? What does this tell us about what de Bonald believes is the purpose of marriage and the family? How does the unborn child play a role?

The state represents the unborn child (the promise of a marriage). De Bonald believes that the purpose of marriage and family is to ensure the continuation of the human race through the creation of children. It is the job of the state to preserve that unborn child by enforcing marriage.

How is marriage a kind of invisible glue that keeps society together, according to de Bonald? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Bonus from Quill: What other thinkers hold similar opinions?

French revolutionaries allowed for divorce and remarriage. De Bonald argues that marriage is the foundation of families, which are the foundation of society. If marriage were to cease to exist in a meaningful capacity (ie. everyone is just getting married and divorced and married and divorced), so too would families, and society itself. Marriage also allows for the continuation of society through the production of children.

I disagree simply because there have been other societies not organized around the European-style family unit; children were still born, people were still held accountable to one another. Marriage evidently is not the end-all-be-all - we invented it at some point, but we could also probably stand to live without it, if need be. Society wouldn’t collapse, though it might look different.

Schlafly, Hayek held similar opinions about marriage/children, though not identical by any means.

Who was Joseph de Maistre? Who was Louis de Bonald?

In what way was Maistre a counter-revolutionary? What institutions did he defend and why? How was he like Burke, what ideas did they share?

Maistre is a counter-revolutionary because he wasn’t just concerned about preserving the existing way of things, he wanted to overturn the revolution and restore what existed prior (or at least, what he thinks existed prior). He defended unwritten constitutions (they should be written on the heart, where they are immutable), the integration of church & state (“if you wish to conserve all, consecrate all) (could argue he advocated for creation of a theocracy), and believed that the origin of institutions didn’t matter - all that mattered was that they existed and had survived the test of time (arguably, the more deplorable the origin, the better, as it meant they had ascended and thus, served some higher purpose).

He also hated the French Revolution, and both believed that some people should just suck it up and tough it out if their individual situation under the government/regime isn’t ideal for the overall betterment of society.

Can a legitimate constitution ever be written down, according to de Maistre? Why or why not?

No, because what is written can easily be changed. It’s harder to change unwritten norms that are consecrated and written in the hearts of people - how do you even go about such a thing? How do you even call such traditions into question? Imagine trying to abolish the shaking of hands. Even COVID couldn’t crush that unwritten institution.

What does Maistre mean when he says, “If you wish to conserve all, consecrate all?” What are the political implications of this statement?

Maistre means that any traditions/norms that should be conserved must be made sacred/become intertwined with existing spirituality/religion systems. The political implications is that the state would become intertwined with the church (or other similar spiritual/religious body), essentially a theocracy of sorts, potentially.