Conservative Classics: Oakeshott’s ‘Rationalism in Politics’

 

OakeshottMichael Oakeshott (1901-90) was one of the great conservative thinkers of the last century. After serving in World War II, Oakeshott was appointed Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he replaced Harold Laski. The two men could not have been more different: Laski was a Marxist thinker and a life-long apologist for socialism; Oakeshott was an important conservative political philosopher.

The year he joined the faculty of the LSE (1947), Oakeshott published an essay, “Rationalism in Politics,” which has become one of the classics of conservative thought. In this age of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an unfettered EPA, Common Core, the exponential growth of government regulations, ad nauseum, this essay deserves to be read widely (a pdf copy of the essay is available here).

It is a short, brilliant critique of the mode of thought that now dominates leftist thinking in America (and, sadly, the kind of thinking that animates far too many politicians who call themselves conservatives).

Oakeshott’s aim in the essay is to skewer one of the pillars of modern thought: the idea that society can be organized on a scientific basis by disinterested experts who are unelected, but who operate with vast amounts of delegated power.

This kind of big-government rationalism goes back to the philosophes of the French enlightenment, it was the centerpiece of the great debate between Thomas Paine (“Government, in a well-constituted republic, requires no belief from man beyond what his reason can give”) and Edmund Burke in the late 18th century, and it found its way into modern American political thought via John Dewey, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, and many others. It is the crown jewel of the left’s agenda for the 21st century.

Early in the essay, Oakeshott makes it clear that he holds no brief against rational thought or against making decisions, political and otherwise, based on rational analysis focused on the prudential process of weighing facts and options. Oakeshott attacks the narrowness of those who believe if they  do (or pretend to do) only that kind of analysis, their job is done. The greatest flaw, Oakeshott, argues, of this kind of rationalism that its proponents are unwilling to consider anything else, such as tradition, past practice, or cultural habits.

Let’s turn to Oakeshott’s words.

The kind of “Rationalist” that is the subject of Oakeshott’s critique “stands (he always stands) for independence of mind on all occasions, for thought free from obligation to any authority save the authority of ‘reason.’ His circumstances in the modern world have made him contentious: he is the enemy of authority, of prejudice, of the merely traditional, customary or habitual.”

This is the kind of expert (the polar opposite of the prudent Burkean gradualist) who summarily rejects tradition and past practice: “He has no sense of the cumulation of experience . . . .: the past is significant only to him as an encumbrance.”

The Rationalist convinces himself that he stands outside politics, that like Sgt. Joe Friday, he is interested only in the facts. But he also loves innovation as an end in itself:

“He believes that the unhindered human ‘reason’ (if only it can be further brought to bear) is an infallible guide in political activity. . . . To the Rationalist, nothing is of value merely because it exists (and certainly not because it has existed for many generations), familiarity has no worth, and nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny. . . . To patch up, to repair (that is, to do anything which requires a patient knowledge of the material), he regards as waste of time: and he always prefers the invention of a new device to making use of a current and well-tried expedient.”

A case in point: Obamacare. Rationalists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (I know, it’s hard to suggest that either is “rational”) ask their functionaries to draft a 2,000-page bill that must be passed so we can find out what is in it. There is no deliberation, no public debate (before passage); the contents of the bill are the province of nameless, faceless “experts” like the now infamous Jonathan Gruber (he of “speak-o” fame). These are the experts and bureaucrats who claim to master a unique form of knowledge: “technical knowledge or knowledge of technique.”

A second kind of knowledge, which Oakeshott calls “practical knowledge,” is of no value for the Rationalist because “it exists only in use, is not reflective and (unlike technique) cannot be formulated in rules.”

Thus, the Rationalist believes that the “sovereignty of ‘reason’ . . . means the sovereignty of technique.” The Rationalist eschews practical knowledge because it “can neither be taught nor learned, but only imparted and acquired.” Standing alone in their technocratic magnificence, they are quite immune from anything as mundane as good, old common sense (and are apparently incapable of asking practical questions like “will the dogs eat the dog food?”).

It is here that the Rationalist makes two major mistakes.

First, he mistakes “a part for the whole”; “technical knowledge” is only a part of the equation: if (as they always do) the Rationalists ignore human nature, how we got where we are, and the oft-proven idea that a bureaucratic dream and practical reality rarely resemble each other, they create omnipresent government (and, to add insult to injury, omni-incompetent government).

Second, “he is no less deceived by the apparent certainty of technical knowledge.” This faith in the “sovereignty of technique” is almost always a failure because it “turns out to be a dream and not a reality.” The modern Rationalist errs in believing “that government [is] nothing more than public administration and [can] be learned from a book.”

For Oakeshott, the prime example of the triumph of this kind of rationalism over experience was the widespread adoption of Marxist ideas: “No other technique has so imposed itself upon the world as if it were concrete knowledge; none has created so vast an intellectual proletariat, with nothing but its technique to lose.”

For Oakeshott, this kind of rationalism has many failings, but the most central failing is this:

“Rationalism in politics . . . involves . . . a misconception with regard to the nature of human knowledge, which amounts to a corruption of the mind. And consequently it is without power to correct its own shortcomings; it has no homeopathic quality; you cannot escape its errors by becoming more sincerely and profoundly rational. . . . [T]he Rationalist has rejected in advance the only external inspiration capable of correcting his error; he does not merely neglect the kind of knowledge which could save him, he begins by destroying it. First he turns out the light and then complains that he cannot see. . . . In short, the Rationalist is essentially ineducable; and he could be educated out of his Rationalism only by an inspiration which he regards as the great enemy of mankind. All the Rationalist can do when left to himself is to replace one rationalist project in which he has failed by another in which he hopes to succeed.” 37

Oakeshott concludes with a passage (remember, this was written in 1947) that anticipates the social destruction wrought by the big, unwieldy liberal experiments that have so encumbered the world in the last 70 years:

“Moral ideals are a sediment: they have significance only so long as they are suspended in a religious or social tradition, so long as they belong to a religious or a social life. The predicament of our time is that the Rationalists have been at work so long on their project of drawing off the liquid in which our moral ideals were suspended (and pouring it off as worthless) that they are only left with the dry and gritty residue which chokes us as we try to take it down. First, we do our best to destroy parental authority [because of its alleged abuse], then we sentimentally deplore the scarcity of ‘good homes,’ and we end by creating substitutes which complete the work of destruction. And it is for this reason that, among much else that is corrupt and unhealthy, we have the spectacle of a set of sanctimonious, rationalist politicians, preaching an ideology of unselfishness and social service to a population in which they and their predecessors have done their best to destroy the only living root of moral behaviour; and opposed by another set of politicians dabbling with a project of converting us from Rationalism under the inspiration of a fresh rationalization of our political tradition.”

This is just a brief review of a brilliant piece of thinking and writing. There is much, much more to be found and pondered in the essay.

Like Richard Weaver, I believe that “ideas have consequences.” Oakeshott, by attacking the foundation of the rickety edifice of the modern welfare state, has provided us with ideas that (1) help explain what has been happening to us and (2) why the foundational ideas of the great leftist experiments in social engineering (see, e.g., Obamacare) never work.

Read the essay. It will make you a better, smarter conservative.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 11 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    “The greatest flaw, Oakeshott, argues, of this kind of rationalism that its proponents are unwilling to consider anything else, such as tradition, past practice, or cultural habits.”

    Oakshott raises a question here, why are they unwilling?  And then later in your quotation, he provides the answer:

    “[T]he Rationalist has rejected in advance the only external inspiration capable of correcting his error; he does not merely neglect the kind of knowledge which could save him, he begins by destroying it. First he turns out the light and then complains that he cannot see. . .”

    But this is not unwitting: the initial goal was to eliminate “tradition, past practice, or cultural habits.”  Because into this gap can step the Rationalist, with all of his plausible-sounding schemes.  That his schemes most often don’t work is a small inconvenience, as his goal is personal power, not social welfare, he must merely determine a way to convince us of the requirement for a new scheme, which he shall implement.

    The one place he’ll never suggest taking us is to “tradition, past practice, or cultural habits”, since these don’t require his services.

    “First, we do our best to destroy parental authority [because of its alleged abuse], then we sentimentally deplore the scarcity of ‘good homes,’ and we end by creating substitutes which complete the work of destruction.”

    And fulfill the self-appointed role of the Rationalist in society: patron.

    “It will make you a better, smarter conservative.”

    But not, alas, a happier person. ;)

    • #1
  2. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    The essay reminds me of an old argument about what counts as knowledge. The gist of it is that an assertion of truth only extends to the degree that I can prove it. As in science (or a court of law, for that matter), you can’t make statements that you yourself can’t prove. That’s what distinguishes a belief from knowledge … both might be true, but knowledge can be proved. 

    Some people use that distinction to make an intellectual command. They declare that you should only believe knowledge, never mere belief. You should only believe things that you can prove. 

    But that means that your beliefs only extend to your individual experience. Your beliefs about how people behave economically, or politically, are therefore narrowed to your own personal experience.

    In essence, you believe people should behave … according to your expectations. That’s a dangerous assumption for someone who holds political power over a free people – because then you try to coerce others to behave according to your narrow expectations. 

    • #2
  3. tabula rasa Inactive
    tabula rasa
    @tabularasa

    Tuck and KC:  Well said.  I agree with both of you.

    • #3
  4. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Among Oakeshott’s many skills was the ability the quickly dissect false beliefs. Rationalism in Politics should be required reading in any course in political philosophy or political science. Alas! Not likely. One reason is that most leftist professors wouldn’t have a clue as to how to teach it. They simply could not understand Oakeshott’s analysis because they are intellectually trapped in their rationalist conceit. This is also a problem discussed in Roger Scruton’s The Uses of Pessimism. Scruton identifies many of the fallacies that make leftists immune to evidence. Again, the book, like Oakeshott’s essay, is concise, free of superfluities, and unambiguous. The Rationalist cannot even examine his beliefs, much less change his mind.

    Somehow conservatives need to figure out how to convey what they argue to the uninitiated. Because conservatism, by its very nature, abhors grand promises it is not appealing, although when understood it is wise. Evan Sayet, in his book The Kindergarden of Eden, offers a Grand Uniefied Theory of Liberalism. It’s a fun read and explains why liberals always choose evil over good. It is vintage conservative in its clarity and brevity. The ghost of Oakeshott looms–thank God.

    • #4
  5. tabula rasa Inactive
    tabula rasa
    @tabularasa

    Your mention of Scruton raises a question of some significance.  Britain has become a salted field for practical conservative politics.  Yet, over the years and continuing to today, it continues to produce first-class conservative thinkers.  In the last century, Chesterton, Oakeshott, C. S. Lewis, and Kenneth Minogue (really an Aussie, but he spent most of his teaching career in England) were superb.  Today, we still have people like Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannon, Theodore Dalrymple, and others who have continued to fight for conservative principles.

    Of course, it may say something that Scruton spends most of his time now in America.

    • #5
  6. tabula rasa Inactive
    tabula rasa
    @tabularasa

    Three more conservative Brits who are well worth reading:  the late Malcolm Muggeridge, the late historian Christopher Dawson, and the current British historian, Michael Burleigh.

    • #6
  7. user_432921 Inactive
    user_432921
    @JimBeck

    Even now Marx has more followers, and these followers seem to be immune to evidence, still slavishly accepting Marxist principles.  Is it the temptation of a utopian future which causes such devotion, or is suggesting caution, restraint, and intellectual humility unpersuasive?  In either case, information skills are increasingly admired and practical skills are associated with the less educated, and we more often think we can easily manage and manipulate large and complex systems from the economy to marriage.  I don’t know how to make “standing athwart history yelling stop” more attractive and convincing.

    • #7
  8. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    tabula rasa:

    Three more conservative Brits who are well worth reading: the late Malcolm Muggeridge, the late historian Christopher Dawson, and the current British historian, Michael Burleigh.

     A key attribute of all these authors is that they write so beautifully. Muggeridge was just a superb stylist and clear thinker. The Chronicles of Wasted Time is a classic in the genre of confessional books. 

    I’ve read Scruton’s new book The Soul of the World, a work of subtle philosophical thought and deep insight. It is beautiful written, but requires careful study. Some familiarity with philosophical themes helps. I’ve been thinking about writing a review, but if I do it will take time to truly capture the meaning. So, in the meantime, I highly recommend it.

    • #8
  9. A Beleaguered Conservative Member
    A Beleaguered Conservative
    @

    Excellent post.  I am wondering how Oakeshott would deal with the decline in reason that typifies the academy today.  How do we square the belief that rationality is just an excuse for oppression, a Eurocentric prejudice, with the rise of experts who claim rationality as their justification.

    • #9
  10. Gretchen Inactive
    Gretchen
    @Gretchen

    Thanks,Tabula, I look forward to reading the essay.

    • #10
  11. user_499109 Inactive
    user_499109
    @PeterWicks

    I was rereading “Rationalism in Politics” earlier in the summer because I’ll be teaching it in a political philosophy class in the fall (Mike Rapkoch may be pleased to know that it’s required reading for my students at least). It’s a brilliant essay and Tabula Rasa effectively distills Oakeshott’s most crucial points, especially with regard to how the rationalist spirit is a product of a faulty view of knowledge. A Beleaguered Conservative asks how Oakeshott would deal with the decline in reason that typifies the academy today. I think it’s closely related to the concerns of “Rationalism in Politics.” The way that universities are structured make them very good at producing and disseminating a certain type of knowledge and especially prone to confusing that kind of knowledge with knowledge as such. 

    While Oakeshott was clearly a conservative thinker and while the rationalist spirit is most clearly seen in progressive politics, on Oakeshott’s view more or less all mainstream politics is rationalist in spirit, including most modern conservative politics. As he writes regarding Hayek, “A plan to resist all planning may be better than its opposite, but it belongs to the same style of politics.”

    • #11
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.