Thinking about Burkean logic strikes me as, well, odd. At the core of his argument, Burke insists on refraining from challenging authoritative figures/decisions, i.e. tradition. Yet, in retrospect, it seems as though that's all Americans have ever done since the first settlers came to North America--Protestant Reformation anyone? Granted, much of that defiance was in response to an oppressive government, but there have long been contentious issues that have come and gone throughout American history. One of the more recent, and seemingly less controversial issues, that exists is that of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). As the name might suggest, SOPA was an act created to combat online theft of copyrighted materials.
But so what?
What I mean to say is that the fundamental principles that the U.S. was founded on wholeheartedly extol the idea of contesting goverment officials and laws--1st Amendment--if the people find fault with them; however, these laws and officials don't necessarily have to have the intention of being outwardly oppressive for citizens to find issue with them. In this specific case of SOPA, I think Burke was a little out of his league when he advocated to sustain traditional governments. Even though gradual change seems reasonable and could make for a better government, Burke couldn't have possible accounted for "the Digital Age"--a time of rapid and constant change.
As a result of endless enhancements for tablets, laptops, smart phones, iPods, etc., American laws are having difficulty keeping up with the times. Thus, policies like SOPA have to be created in order to slow the progress down and try to protect the livelihood of the hard-working individuals involved. Nevertheless, many American citizens find the act to be an act of censorship as opposed to an act of protection. Therefore, they continue to fight back...peacefully of course. As it is now, it just seems as though this will be a never-ending cycle of discord between tradition and progress.
But I guess in all of this, I'm just simply trying to say that Burke's philosophy about the way governments should be managed, especially that of the American government, is outdated at this point in time. Conventional views about government and tradition actually result in problems because current laws are ill-equiped accommodate technological progress. Unfortunately, this produces controversial decisions on the part of the officials that work within the bounds of the traditional laws.
I agree with your general comments about Burkean Logic. Our past is largely based on revolution and liberal movements. I give an example of a philosophy that might be outdated in my own blog post, "Labor Theory of Piracy", when I talk about Locke's Labor Theory and how it would be impossible to apply today. It's safe to say that Locke's ideas are not the only ideas that could not really be applied in today's more advanced, technology-enhanced world. A blind following of tradition is simply not advisable.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure that SOPA is a good example to support this, though. You seem to argue that America's reluctance to accept such a proposal is due to a Burkean-like love of tradition. I think you’re trying to say that we’re reluctant to change in the laws that have traditionally been used.
I don’t think this is the case, however. America saw SOPA as an act of censorship because it essentially gave the government the power to block any website they saw fit to block. On one hand, I suppose it would have limited piracy, but it would have done way more than that. Hence, it received very little support from anyone outside of the music and movie industry, liberal or conservative. Even if the bill only gave a better ability to stop piracy, it still could arguably be seen as the opposite of progress, depending on who you ask. But that’s a whole different debate all together.
I think Burke might even support this sort of legislation. It would have given government much more power in terms of regulating the internet, and Burke has very little trust in the common man. Would Burke have trusted the common man in such an unregulated area as the internet?
It is interesting that you applied Burkean logic to modern technology. I think SOPA is tough to categorize into Burkean or non-Burkean politics simply because on one hand it is government control over the masses, while on the other it results in the supposed protection of individual rights. Seeing as how Burke was a classical conservative, only believing in the rule of a monarchy, he would have cared little for the common people in terms of this act's goals. Also, Burkes views about classical conservatism are outdated in the sense that monarchies are no longer the most common or popular government systems, but it is hard to say that American conservatives, or even American politicians in general, are Burkean themselves. Our situation in this country is just too different from Burke's to give a viable comparison between the two.
ReplyDelete