Easy Peasy

A couple of my recent posts have stemmed from reading Jesse Norman’s most interesting book about the life and thought of Edmund Burke. After reading it I was inspired to return to Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, which I had not read for many years. It is filled with many of the wise and thought-provoking words that set Burke apart as one of the great minds of his age. But it also has the occasional passage that marks the man as a creature of his time and makes one realize why he is not favored by readers who like to think of themselves as “liberal.” There is, indeed, a stubborn strain of conservatism at the core of Burke’s thinking that can be at times a bit unsettling. He believes that if political change comes at all it should come slowly and he is sometimes annoyingly sympathetic with the wealthy and aristocratic whom he tends to paint with brighter colors than most historians would like. But we make a mistake to simply dismiss the whole of his book  as conservative bias and can find important lessons even in the most unsettling passages.

One thing that is disturbing to many is Burke’s insistence that the notion of “equality,” which was embraced by the French during their revolution, needs to be carefully qualified. In discussing the concept Burke sounds a bit like a reactionary who wants desperately to hold on to the notion that some people are simply better than others. This did not sit well with the Jacobins in France — or many of Burke’s contemporaries. And it does not sit well these days in the minds of those among us who have been conditioned to think that equality is a natural right of all human persons and no one should ever be regarded as in any sense better than any one else. For example, we hold to the conviction in our schools that “no child should be left behind” — well, some of us do. And we question expertise and the notion that some people may actually know more or be better than others, at least as far as their ability to do some things the rest of us cannot do — like walk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon, for example. Indeed, we have embraced the loose notion of equality to the point that we regard all opinions as somehow on a level and suspect anyone who claims to know something we cannot know. As one of my students said in being asked to comment on a passage in Plato’s Republic, “that’s just his opinion.” Yes, but there are mere opinions and there are reasonable opinions. Burke questioned this egalitarianism — especially in the case of the French experiment with leveling down and raising those who held menial positions in French society prior to the revolution to lofty perches among those who held the new reins of power. Burke worried that the cobbler might not make a very good lawmaker. As he notes:

“Every thing ought to be open, but not indifferently to every man. No rotation, no appointment by lot; no mode of election operating in the spirit of sortation or rotation, can be generally good in a government conversant in extensive objects. . . . If rare merit be the rarest of all rare things, it ought to pass through some sort of probation. The temple of honour ought to be seated on an eminence. If it is to be through virtue, let it be remembered too, that virtue is never tried but by some difficulty, and some struggle.”

It would seem that Burke champions opening up opportunities to all but suspects that some may fall short in ability. This is a notion most of us reject since we have come to realize that many who appear unfit for heavy duty prove themselves quite able when given the opportunity. The cobbler may, in fact, make a very good lawmaker — certainly better than the clowns who pretend to be doing that these days for huge salaries in the halls of our government. Burke might not agree; there is the suspicion on his part that some roles in society and government are unfit “by nature” for a great many people. In a word, there is an elitist strain in Burke that many find disturbing, though I must say while I may be willing to let the cobbler have a go at lawmaking, I would prefer that he not be enlisted to remove my appendix when the time comes. There are some things that a great many people simply cannot do. We may have carried this egalitarian thing a bit too far. The problem is Burke seems to want to determine this before the fact, whereas we are willing to let everyone have a try and see what happens.

But the sentence that jumps out at me in the above quotation is the one that talks about the “difficulty” and the “struggle” that prove “virtue.” This notion has been completely lost in a society that stresses “self-esteem” and is turning out young people who believe that struggle and difficulty are to be avoided at all cost — after all, we remove these things if we possibly can in order to grease the skids and make things easier for them than they were for us. How often have you heard parents say they didn’t want their kids to have to struggle the way they did when, in fact, it may have been that very struggle that brought about their success? Dostoevsky, for one, thought struggle and even suffering made us more human, deepened our sensibilities. As Burke suggests, “virtue is never tried but by some difficulty, some struggle.” One must wonder whether this explains why there we encounter so few virtuous people: so many now tread the path of least resistance.


6 thoughts on “Easy Peasy

  1. Always glad to see your post. The thought that resonates with me is people should be given equal opportunity or at least a fair shot, yet for a society to succeed it must reward merit to some (I would say great) extent, otherwise the community will stagnate and die. Each of us has different talents and challenges. And, each of us have different work ethics. In “Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell defines successful people as (1) being smart enough, (2) working hard at their craft, (3) being given opportunity and (4) seizing opportunity. I believe if society can do its darnedest to see that opportunities are given (or at least not denied), then we will be better off. Items 1, 2 and 4 are more up to them. Great post. BTG

  2. Wonderfully chewy Brother Hugh, and as usual you have your finger in some vulnerable places in our social dike.

    Indeed none of us would willingly allow the cobbler at our appendix unless a/ he spent some time in med school or b/ it was him or none; who can argue here? But the key, as you note is when do we close the door–on his way to med school?

    I’m reading of the Reconstruction (though in fact I could select any years since 1860) and this is precisely the issue (to pick only one of many possible topic candidates) with conservative whites: when to extend the rights of citizenship to blacks? When they own property? When the finish school? When they pass our test? When hell freezes over?

    For some (too many!) that time would be never; blacks, they would argue, are inherently inferior, always were, always would be.

    The argument comes to taunt in a variety of perhaps more contemporary ways (though in the aftermath of the Zimmerman case perhaps “contemporary” is a misplaced adjective.)

    I can recall a number of years ago having a discussion with a science colleague at my University who chaired the Pre-Med Program. As Director of Academic Advising she was telling me it was “their” wish to exclude/preclude all potential majors who fell below a certain SAT level. “Absolute predictor of success” she said. “Absolute?” I inquired. “No one with a low high school test score ever made it through a pre-med program?”

    “Well, perhaps not “absolute” but nearly so…”

    “Well if it’s not absolute don’t we have to treat any interested applicant as a potential exception to the general rule?” And likewise, don’t we have to leave our doors open to almost any who wish to make the effort? Plenty of time at the end of the course to grade and sort.

    I love what Teddy Roosevelt made of his rich start in life; I also admire that Illinois rail splitter who never quite made it to Harvard Law.

    • You sound like someone who taught at a college that had open admission! Give ’em a chance and let’s see who can make it!


      • Well, actually Hugh, no…rather a selective liberal arts college…but the folks in science felty they knew more, worked harder and had higher standards than anyone else, and to prove it, they felt they should/could exclude all the riff raft before they dirtied their hands with them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s