Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Fascinating thing I discovered at Lapland Lake yesterday—Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson are still alive, maintaining low profiles in upstate New York, keeping four eyes on world affairs. Just as I was checking the news from Cairo in the ski lodge (are any spaces unprofaned by WiFi?), I overheard a conversation they were carrying on by the fireplace:
Jefferson: Bliss is it in this dawn to be alive! And to be young and Egyptian is very heaven! Surely you sympathize with the sentiments—captured by the poet who became your greatest admirer—of those young revolutionaries in Cairo.
Burke: Sympathize with their sentiments? Perhaps. Welcome their revolution? No. The Egyptian protesters have legitimate grievances. The question is whether they will prudently cure those grievances with a legitimate and stable new government. Look at the looting—is that a sign of what will come if the protesters have their way? Better then to wait for Mubarak’s natural death.
Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. A little anarchy is worth the gains in the self-evident, universal rights to democratic equality and liberty.
Burke: Don’t get carried away. You did in ’79—I mean, 1979. And these abstractions… Democracy and liberty the only legitimate ends of government? Offer those to the elderly Egyptians cowering in their homes, fearing the looters. They would prefer real things: food, water, safety, security, life.
And look at the disturbing historical parallels. The Muslim Brotherhood is behind the scenes, insinuating itself into the protests and ElBaradei’s support. This is not 1776; this could be a 1979, Iranian revolution redux.
Jefferson: Why this fear of the Muslim Brotherhood? Don’t you defend religious piety?
Burke: Yes, religious piety—which is restraint, quite different from religious enthusiasm. My beloved Church held a leash; Islamism too frequently ministers to our bad appetites. Call it contradictory to lament the secularization of Christendom and fear its opposite in Arabia—I call that discriminating judgment.
Jefferson: Ahem, you could say that ElBaradei is a modern Thomas Jefferson—a man who will engrave a separation of Mosque and state in a new order, unleashing secularism on the whole Arab world.
Burke: He will unleash a lot more. Mubarak is a bad dictator, but he has cooperated in the fight against Islamic terrorism—this era’s war of civilization vs. barbarism—and has not tried to, say, wipe Israel from the map. He may be the least evil possibility.
Jefferson: Such cynicism—just an excuse for a lazy and cowardly refusal to act for progress.
Burke: Maybe. But observe how "progressive" politicians become more cynical—dare I say, conservative?—when they actually take the reins of power.
Jefferson: Power corrupts.
Burke: Power instructs. Look to Barack Obama to see how an idealistic man changes when confronted by reality. He has adopted the reviled national-security measures of his predecessor (and abandoned his old sophistic, calculating economics). Obama is almost becoming conservative, in my sense of the word. If you were president today, you would be similarly restrained, similarly unwilling to commit to the protesters, similarly prudent in your words for Mubarak.
Jefferson: If so, American revolutionaries would have every reason to vote me out. You denigrate my “abstractions,” but all morality is abstract. If exercising power compels abandonment of the abstract truths about our rights to liberty and equality, I call that corruption—not wisdom or prudence.
Burke: Abstract truths?
Jefferson: Yes!
Philosophical crosstalk...
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
If they were alive today, Jefferson would be playing bass in a post-punk metal band and Burke would be blogging on NRO.
Edited on Jan 30, 2011 at 2:06pmJan '11
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
A Facebook friend of mine had found a four-or-so minute YouTube clip and posted it to his wall. While viewing it, I found a clip from the video very powerful. So, I spliced that clip to the video's ending and came up with this.
Thoughts?
Jan '11
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
The other day, Peter Robinson mentioned how political parties exploit our anxieties over providing necessities. Egypt is the flip side of that same insecurity. Political organizations exploit anxieties when those basics are scarce.
Bottom line? Politicians exploit anxiety. Bombshell, right? But here's a moment that begs reflection.
I study philosophy. Many consider that a dry, abstract exercise. No! It's a brutally practical study. The study of knowledge, epistemology, is all about our grasp of reality. To the point: how do we proceed when we don't know?
Anxiety is when desire mixes with the unknown. It's an equation where the desire for human necessities (including justice, never mind food) is a constant. The variable is the political system that protects those necessities. The current equation is unsolved. The rioters believe the current political system frustrates those necessities. The unknown is what will replace the current system.
The unknown is fear. The unknown is anxiety.
Our response is the ultimate philosophical enterprise: how to behave under uncertainty. We don't know "the answer," but we must engage the situation anyway. Our immediate task is to dispel as much uncertainty as possible.
Dec '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Jefferson would probably have been keen for the overthrow of this Moorish pirate, but as with his enthusiasm for the French Revolution, he might swoon towards any new suitor.
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Lovely, Matt, especially Burke's distinction between religious faith and religious enthusiasm. Just one note of caution: If you're not careful, David Brooks will steal this material.
Aug '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Excellent dialog. Though I shudder to think what might happen to Jefferson's writing style in the age of Twitter.
I agree with Peter Robinson that the distinction is very important. My question is, in an Islamic world driven by passion and "religious enthusiasm", is there even a philosophical basis for states based around religious restraint?
In the Western tradition it came through the Peace of Westphalia, developed over the next ~200 years, and is now taken for granted as the prerequisite for a free state. Where is a parallel tradition in the Islamic world? (That's a good faith question, I really don't know and am hoping to fill a gap in my education; maybe Claire has some notes from Turkey.)
I like to think a still-living Jefferson's views on revolution would be informed by modern economic studies on the importance of pre-existing societal institutions. Even self-evident abstract truths need a friendly environment before they can manifest themselves into a political order.
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
When in hman events ppl need 2 split +b separate its a gud idea 2 tweet reasons so ppl cn understand #KingGeorge #Revolution #July 4
Jul '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Jefferson would be my favorite of all founders, but the one sore point for me was his support of the French Revolution. Cooler heads like Hamilton (who I generally hold in lower esteem), Washington, the Federalists, and Burke, were right in being wary of rapid social change and especially the bloodthirsty thugs who succeeded the king.
I believe the true conservative position to take on regime change is to not necessarily oppose autocrats in knee-jerk fashion, but instead to be extremely suspicious of sudden, rapid social and political change. The true liberty lover's position in the 1790s would have been to support the French monarchy to gradually turn over power and go the way of the English monarchy. The true liberty lover's position in 1917 would have been to support the autocratic Czars and Admiral Kolchak's Whites over the Reds. The Shah over the Mullahs. And today, a secular dictator over a cabal of Robespierres in turbans.
Jul '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Matthew Shaffer, Guest Contributor
When in hman events ppl need 2 split +b separate its a gud idea 2 tweet reasons so ppl cn understand #KingGeorge #Revolution #July 4 · Jan 30 at 5:10pm
Now if that's not vellum-worthy what is?
Oct '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Things are going so bad for obama right now in the mideast, a war against Sarah Palin/Tea Partiers would be welcome distraction.
Outside the US, countries like China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, and enemies like Al Queda, Hezbollah sees Obama as the Weak Horse.
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
Byron Horatio: Jefferson would be my favorite of all founders, but the one sore point for me was his support of the French Revolution. Cooler heads like Hamilton (who I generally hold in lower esteem), Washington, the Federalists, and Burke, were right in being wary of rapid social change and especially the bloodthirsty thugs who succeeded the king.
I believe the true conservative position to take on regime change is to not necessarily oppose autocrats in knee-jerk fashion, but instead to be extremely suspicious of sudden, rapid social and political change. The true liberty lover's position in the 1790s would have been to support the French monarchy to gradually turn over power and go the way of the English monarchy.
Byron, I agree with much of what you say. But to press you on that -- in the situations you propose, the conservative's position does not differ from the autocrats. What events would force a difference? Where does the prudent, conservative liberty lover differentiate himself from the enablers of unjust regime?
Dec '10
Re: Burke and Jefferson talk Cairo
"Where does the prudent, conservative liberty lover differentiate himself from the enablers of unjust regime?"
Ahh. Wouldn't that be the crucial difference between Adams and Jefferson? Adams was no isolationist, but he sought distance from the French, by maintaining relationships with the Dutch and the British. Adams pursued liberty by maintaining a few, key, viable alternatives. In our current stance, we attempt to maintain relationships with nearly two hundred separate and disparate entities, which is worse than Jefferson's over-fondness for the French.