Edmund Burke’s Relevance to Foreign Policy
Luke Schumacher maintains that some Republicans’ hands-off approach to Ukraine is incompatible with conservatism as propounded by Edmund Burke. After all, Burke’s masterpiece, Reflections on the Revolution in France, sprang from the notion “that what happens over there matters right here at home.” Burke believed that French revolutionary leaders, driven by a universalist ideology, would seek to subvert other countries’ governments and export their own model of governance.
Not everyone agrees with this reading of Burke. However, notwithstanding some radically different interpretations of the great Irishman’s work, Schumacher’s view is correct. The project of containing hostile states is deeply rooted in Burkean thought and, therefore, in conservatism.
Burke: Opponent of Intervention?
One author with a very different perspective is Lewis Page, who works for the Journal of Democracy as associate editor. In one essay, this scholar contends that Burke would have charged the United States with acting too aggressive in its foreign relations. Page leans heavily on Burke’s long and vociferous criticism of Warren Hastings, a corrupt imperial official. For Page,
Burke as a critic of empire is clearly opposed to the neoconservative project. In the trial of Warren Hastings, Burke saw the abuse of imperial power abroad as both oppressive to its victims and deleterious to those who wielded power. . . . The same argument could be deployed against the neoconservatives . . .
However, such an analogy obviously requires one to believe that some part of “the neoconservative project”―however that be defined―can be aptly described as “abuse of imperial power.” Page presupposes this without arguing for it. The comparison is all the less plausible because the United States is not a truly “imperial” actor at all. As Zbigniew Brzezinski observes in The Grand Chessboard, “American hegemony involves the exercise of decisive influence but, unlike the empires of the past, not of direct control.”
Page’s general approach seems to be to enlist Burke for the cause of condemning the United States and American power. While he acknowledges that Burke “did not advocate for dismantling” the British Empire, Page supposes that the Irishman, were he alive today, would likely favor granting independence to Puerto Rico, or else pursuing an uspecified “middle path” on the issue. The reasons for thinking this remain obscure, and it seems to make little sense that the same person who did not call for Britain to give up its colonies would push for an independent Puerto Rico.
In sum, even as intelligent and informed a commentator as Page appears incapable of casting Burke as a non-interventionist, or as a likely opponent of Americanism in international relations, without relying on unwarranted presuppositions.
Burke and Democracy
One feature of American interventionism which Burke might indeed have opposed is democracy promotion. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke makes clear that he opposes “pure democracy,” a term which he tentatively applies to the revolutionary government in France. The father of conservatism is far more committed to the rule of law. Burke stresses that there is a “third option . . . between the despotism of the monarch and the despotism of the multitude.” Thus, he recommends constitutional monarchy with a democratic element or, as he puts it,
a monarchy directed by laws, controlled and balanced by the great hereditary wealth and hereditary dignity of a nation; and both again controlled by a judicious check from the reason and feeling of the people at large acting by a suitable and permanent organ.
Burke’s reasoning here dovetails with the argument Jeane J. Kirkpatrick would later make in her famous article “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” wherein she contends that “friendly or neutral autocracies” should be supported when rebellions against them might give rise to “totalitarian” regimes. However, rebels often masquerade as supporters of democracy. Consequently, the United States has often been enticed into supporting “democrats” over autocrats and thereby handing power to totalitarians. In Burke’s parlance, American leaders have allowed “controlled and balanced” monarchs to be overthrown and replaced by despots.
Burke and Kirkpatrick show that liberty and the rule of law are values worthier of promoting abroad than democracy per se. Yet the fixation on democracy persists in some quarters. Lately, as Noah Rothman describes, supposed “realists” in American politics have attacked Ukraine for failing to hold presidential elections in time, even though this should not matter from a principled realist standpoint. This criticism is advanced despite the fact that Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections under martial law. “Apparently,” remarks Rothman, “we’re back in the democracy promotion business, and with the Kremlin’s blessing.” In a sense, the error is the same one Kirkpatrick identified in politicians like Jimmy Carter. A lack of democracy―not even a real one, in this case―is cited to justify betraying a free, allied country to a despotic enemy.
Promoting freedom and the rule of law is likely to increase mankind’s total productivity. It is widely known that these factors conduce to economic achievement. What is less well-known is that the same can be said of achievement in the sciences and arts. Charles Murray’s landmark study Human Accomplishment finds that, over the centuries, societies with abundant individual freedom have accomplished much more, scientifically and artistically, than their unfree counterparts. Concerning systems of government, Murray writes that “totalitarian states effectively quash human accomplishment in the arts and philosophy” and “are only slightly less stifling in the sciences.” He later adds that “parliamentary monarchies and liberal democracies were generally more productive than tolerant autocracies.” As Burke would surely have expected, provided that state power is limited, the differences between democracies and monarchies or autocracies is less significant than the gulf which separates them from totalitarian polities.
Democratic peace theory does furnish a sound reason for supporting democracy as a general principle. Specifics override the general, however, and when deciding what to do in specific cases, upholding individual liberties and the rule of law should take precedence over securing popular rule. There have been autocratic countries friendly to the United States, but it is hard to think of a totalitarian state that was similarly inclined.
Burke and Prudence
Though Burke was no non-interventionist, he did counsel caution in foreign affairs. John Bolton argues that Burke made prudence central to his vision of international politics, even dubbing it “the god of this lower world.”
Concerning the restive mood in the American colonies, “Burke’s approach . . . utilized practical, commercial, non-coercive means.” The regnant approach among his countrymen was to counter American discontent by emphasizing George III’s “sovereign rights.” By contrast, Burke wished to conciliate the Americans by exempting them from taxation. After all, recounts Bolton, “taxation had not previously been deemed necessary.”
Conclusion
Edmund Burke was not a non-interventionist on foreign policy, and was keenly aware of the need to restrain foreign powers which aim, out of pure ideology and without just cause, to subvert order in other countries. His policy proposals were also meant to preserve Britain’s power rather than to surrender it based on sheer idealism, as Page seems to suggest. However, Burke did advocate for caution in foreign affairs.