Rousseau demonstrates his foundationalism by advocating for a government that flows from the means of the “general will” to achieve the end of the “public good.” While Rousseau supports liberty in the form of revolution, he offers stipulations which culminate in his conception of the “general will.” In a sense, Rousseau’s concept of the general will would fall into the category of foundationalist conservatism. Rousseau’s proclamation that “Every legitimate government is republican” demonstrates his belief that there is an objective political reality where republicanism is the only correct structure for legitimate government (180). By this, Rousseau means that legitimate governments are guided by the general will, which “... is always right”
…show more content…
They render deliberation a matter, not of choice, but of necessity; they make all change a subject of compromise, which naturally begets moderation. (31)
It is in this sense that, rather counterintuitively, the foundationalist conservatism that supports Rousseau’s republicanism would also allow for Burke’s monarchy. Foundationalist conservatism isn’t a political belief in itself, but rather the belief of consistency with a movement’s foundational principles. To illustrate the confusion of this notion, theoretically, if the majority of citizens believed it was permissible to enslave the minority, Burke would actually be more …show more content…
Burke is often lauded by contemporary conservatives as the embodiment of conservative theory, positing arguments that are interchangeably supported by foundationalist or traditionalist ideas of conservatism through the course of his thoroughly opinionated letter. Burke’s relative flexibility within the category of conservatism is most succinctly articulated with his claim of “lov[ing] a manly, moral, regulated liberty” (7). In this statement, Burke affirms his loyalties to both foundationalist and traditionalist conservative thought. The words “manly” and “moral” indicate foundationalism, while “regulated” invokes traditionalism. Although Burke distances himself from Rousseau ideologically, Burke’s own work contains the same principles: so long as there is moderation and continuity, the populace is free to modify the government. In this sense, both Burke and Rousseau could be considered political moderates, existing somewhere between the territories of conservatism and liberalism. Burke himself doesn’t condemn the entire abstract notion of revolution; his call for prudence doesn’t mean that he’s anti-revolution, as he supported the Glorious Revolution on the basis that it was more “evolution” than revolution, and would later support the American revolution as the inevitable destiny of Englishmen exercising their rights. Perhaps
They render deliberation a matter, not of choice, but of necessity; they make all change a subject of compromise, which naturally begets moderation. (31)
It is in this sense that, rather counterintuitively, the foundationalist conservatism that supports Rousseau’s republicanism would also allow for Burke’s monarchy. Foundationalist conservatism isn’t a political belief in itself, but rather the belief of consistency with a movement’s foundational principles. To illustrate the confusion of this notion, theoretically, if the majority of citizens believed it was permissible to enslave the minority, Burke would actually be more …show more content…
Burke is often lauded by contemporary conservatives as the embodiment of conservative theory, positing arguments that are interchangeably supported by foundationalist or traditionalist ideas of conservatism through the course of his thoroughly opinionated letter. Burke’s relative flexibility within the category of conservatism is most succinctly articulated with his claim of “lov[ing] a manly, moral, regulated liberty” (7). In this statement, Burke affirms his loyalties to both foundationalist and traditionalist conservative thought. The words “manly” and “moral” indicate foundationalism, while “regulated” invokes traditionalism. Although Burke distances himself from Rousseau ideologically, Burke’s own work contains the same principles: so long as there is moderation and continuity, the populace is free to modify the government. In this sense, both Burke and Rousseau could be considered political moderates, existing somewhere between the territories of conservatism and liberalism. Burke himself doesn’t condemn the entire abstract notion of revolution; his call for prudence doesn’t mean that he’s anti-revolution, as he supported the Glorious Revolution on the basis that it was more “evolution” than revolution, and would later support the American revolution as the inevitable destiny of Englishmen exercising their rights. Perhaps