Growing up in the United States, a country so committed to liberal ideology, can make the appreciation of conservatism quite difficult. I for one found Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France to seem quite foreign and, in many ways, to be against everything I had been taught to believe. Burke argues against equality, freedom, and change. While this may cause readers to disregard Burke I would argue that his concerns for change should be taken quite seriously: His argument that "Plausible schemes … have often shameful and lamentable consequences” is quite a valid one.
In December 2008 Bernie Madoff was revealed to have orchestrated the largest ponzi scheme in history, losing more than 50 billion dollars through fraudulent investment. At an unclear point in Madoff's extremely lucrative career, he lost money and began his scheme rather than coming clean to his investors. Eventually he dug a hole so deep that he couldn't himself out. "To fool his investors and any regulators who happened to come sniffing around, Madoff built a Potemkin-like investment operation complete with traders at fake terminals pretending to buy and sell stocks and a bogus paper trail of transactions and accounting reports"
But, what does this have to do with Burke's model of classical conservatism? I would argue the proof that the logic behind Burke's political ideology is sound. His core argument hinges on the idea that practical processes can't be based off of untested theories. In his paper he uses the examples of freedom and equality; the core motivators behind the French revolution. Burke argues that, in theory, the concepts of freedom and equality may seem amazing but politics isn't a conceptual world which can be based off theory. Politics needs to be run on real processes which have withstood the test of time and are therefore proven to work.
Economics, like politics, is a practical world. The concept of astounding returns on an investment may seem fantastic, but being taken in by such a concept can be dangerous. Skepticism is key, one needs to be hesitant about being attracted to concepts. Untested concepts have no place in the practical world, according to Burke. Bernie Madoff's scheme cost a lot of people their life savings; the scheme was so effective because it pulled in new investors by promising them easy money. Easy money, like freedom or equality, are concepts which seem to be appealing at first glance. However, actual examination of such a concept can reveal that it is quite literally too good to be true.
Schemes are effective because they make promises. People's susceptibility to ideology is one of our greatest weaknesses. Put simply, many of us are suckers who can be manipulated. This weakness gives schemers the opportunity to do some serious damage to the people they are able to manipulate. Madoff's fraudulent investment ruined many people's lives, and the French revolution did lead to chaos in France. Burke would view both of these events as schemes which manipulate people under the pretext of an idea. The idea may seem good at the surface: the promise of a better life can easily motivate people to action. These schemes have devastating consequences: People fail to see how powerful collective action can be and when they act under false pretexts they can cause unimaginable destruction; causing the loss of billions of dollars, or of social order.
But where does this leave us; the United States is a country founded on the backs of a revolution. We cast off proven history for the sake of ideology and in doing so violated Burke's most basic beliefs. How can American's empathize with an ideology that their very existence conflicts with? Risk has an uncertain nature. Burke's ideology specifically states that "Plausible schemes … have often shameful and lamentable consequences.” But not always. The reality is that risk taking is completely necessary in our world. Without risk taking nothing would ever be accomplished; progress would cease to exist. Yet, this does not mean the world has no room for healthy skepticism and doubt. Burke's philosophy is a reminder that action and change do carry risks. Schemes, like Madoff's, exist in many forms. Despite the fact that progress requires risk classical conservatism can be a useful tool; reminding us that schemes may appear, disguised as progress, and we can't allow ourselves to be fooled by them.
Matt, this post was super interesting to read. Your political parallels to the economic world were well thought out and written about. To add to your argument, the idea of "in theory" and "in practice" is the most important rule about this class. I feel that this rule is not expressed enough. Without coming off as super conservative, in theory, economic equality is a great and desirable goal. However, again this is a theory. Every single human being in the world is DIFFERENT and not the same. People are good at different things and bad at different things. Some are better than others in certain aspects of life and worse than others in others aspects of life. This is what makes America great. The idea that everyone is unique and therefore contributes something different to society is our nation's driving force. In reality, some people's contributions are more valued. Not to say that these people are unequal with regards to their self worth, but they are unequal with regards to the value of their specific influence on the world. Economically, money is a signifier of this worth. This is the reality of the world and proves ideas of conservative valid in practice. While it is not to say that a more economically liberal agenda could not work in practice, the idea of economic equality is realistically impossible. It is the desire to improve and work hard that cause significant positive change in the world. The incentive to make something of oneself through their own merit is a concept that unfortunately can not exist in a world of economic equality. In addition, human beings are complex and have innate human drives and feelings that also would make this idea of equality difficult to attain. Maybe in our society, certain work is valued less than it should and certain work is valued more so, but that is a different issue. The reevaluation of our priorities as a society may need to change, but not necessarily our entire economic system.
ReplyDeleteThis post gives an excellent examination of modern political issues and how we can approach them using older concepts of ideology. In the case of Bernie Madoff, his infamous scheme was able to function for decades because he provided investors with promises that were literally too good to be true. This led the investors to take unnecessary risks without doing proper research or realizing that investments are not supposed to pay off dramatically year after year. Professor Manty talked about how we can be "liberal conservatives" in a recent lecture, and I think that this post explains why that idea is so important when making political decisions. As citizens in the 21st century, we have the luxury of enormous amounts of hindsight. Throughout the world's history, and even America's history, countless different types of political systems have been employed. Needless to say, some of these systems have worked better than others, and this is what has led us to instituting a stable democracy that operates through free market principles. We should always hold a certain amount of skepticism towards political change. In modern times, facts are often exaggerated or manipulated to suit the needs of special interests. Even while watching mainstream media stations, it is easy to notice bias fact manipulation. This highlights the fact that while change at times is needed and important, we must always be on our guard to ensure that the proposed change will bring about its promised benefits. It is interesting to consider that America was founded upon values that were extremely liberal for the 18th century time period, but revolutions are often minority movements that aren't necessarily representative of the nation as a whole. I think of it in this way: I believe that America was founded on a core set of principles, not an ideology that proposes constant change. The changes that we do make in our country should be carefully calculated and should reinforce our core beliefs of freedom, liberty, equality, and opportunity. In my opinion, making political decisions that defend those core principles is the definition of being a "liberal conservative." When all is said and done, I think that many people in America are eager to jump on the bandwagon when a new idea is proposed. Unfortunately, hindsight and practicality are often ignored when this happens, leading all of us to buy into the newest ponzi scheme.
ReplyDelete