The book by Levin, The Great Debate, is an excellent contribution to the studies of Burke versus Paine. Although their debates are over two centuries ago, they ring true today as well. The questions explored by Levin center around the "conservatism" of Burke and the "progressivism" of Paine. Although this alignment is attempted, that is much of the text deals with trying to understand both authors in a context interpretable today, in many ways there is a bit of current day "conservatism" and "progressivism" in both Burke and Paine. There is not one a to one alignment.
Levin presents his arguments in an exceptionally clear and concise manner. The book is quite readable and the structure of his argument is built in sections presented in each chapter. One does not have to dig to any depth to see where he wants to take the reader. Levin clearly understands Burke and also has a good grasp of Paine.
Burke was the conservative, born in Ireland and raised in the Church of England and a Member of Parliament. His career was highlighted by his writings as compared to any Legislative prowess. Paine was class wise a step or two below Burke, leaving England and starting anew in what was to become the United States. His skill as a pamphleteer was extraordinary and in so doing he absorbed and even created the sense of his times. Paine personally paid for his major work, Common Sense, which in many ways ignited the Revolution.
Levin begins by providing a brief overview of the lives of the two men. It is well done but it in some ways fails to dig deeper and understand what may have made a Paine and a Burke. Paine was in a sense an entrepreneur, he abandoned England and his "place in that society" to travel to American where he could create the person he became. Paine was the risk taker, seeing the need for change, albeit with risk, and taking the chance. Burke in total contrast knew his places and sought ways to maximize the best as possible his position in that place. Burke not only accepted the system as is but proselytized that system as the sine qua non of how things should be. Paine rejected that system and saw in the individual the path to change.
The reader should have some knowledge of the times to best understand some of the content. Let me provide a first example. On p 31 in discussing Burke there is the statement "Praising the gradualism of the English constitution ..." First, there is no document in existence which one can call the English Constitution. Second, when one looks for the English constitution one starts with the Magna Carta and then proceeds forward with an amalgam of Laws, Parliamentary proceedings and the rulings from Common Law courts, namely precedents. In addition the English constitution assumes that English society is built around three classes; the Crown, the Aristocracy, and the Commons. Namely, one always knew one's place, and one must act accordingly. It was this theme which flows throughout the book and also was essential to Burke's thought. In contrast in America one could be whatever one wanted, and class was essentially non-existent, thanks in many ways in which the English ruled.
There is a second theme that flows throughout the book, individualism. Levin comment on p 29 as follows: "Burke laid out an argument against radical individualism," A major issue which needs clarification is; what is the definition of individualism? This terms in in Burke and it returns a few decades later in de Tocqueville as a major characteristic of America in the early 19th century. Individualism was in many ways a rejection of the Burkean conservatism, namely of a society with an immutable class system, a society of strict structure. On p 36 the author states the core set of points upon which the battle between Burke and Paine rested, namely;
"...what makes a government legitimate, what the individual's place is in the larger society, and how each government should think about those who came before and those who will come after."
This question then flows throughout the book. Levin does a splendid job and going back and forth from Burke to Paine and exploring the details of the answers thereto.
Chapter 2 presents the two varying views of Nature that each had. These world views become the platforms upon which they build their ideas of government and society. To Burke there is formality and structure. Burke was a traditionalist, a royalist. On p 61 Levin presents the famous quote from Burke's Reflections where he states:
"We fear God; we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility."
This as Levin note is the totality of Burke's world view. The irony is that Burke, as an Irishman by birth, with a Catholic mother, see reverence to priests of the English Church but death to the priests of the Catholic or Irish Church. Again one must read de Tocqueville's comparative journey through Ireland in the mid-19th Century to best understand this comparison. The question is; is this conservatism or a dogmatic slavish following akin to Stalinism?
In contrast Levin ascribes a "radical liberal thinker" to Paine (p 57) and these types of thinkers, says Levin, "leave the human sentiments and role of the imagination out of the understanding of human nature". This was an Enlightenment battle between reason and custom.
In Chapter 3 the author begins a discussion of Justice and Order. He states on p 69, "For Paine, the appeal to nature is primarily an appeal to justice." One must ask; what definition of justice do we use here? On p 71 Levin presents an excellent discussion of the integration in Burke's conservatism of utilitarian ideas, a "procedural conservative" mind.
Chapter 4 is a key chapter wherein the issue of individual choice and obligations (duties) are discussed. This chapter alone is worth reading. As Levin states on p 92; "The idea of rights sits at the core of Thomas Paine's political philosophy. Rights are the organizing principle of his thought and the prime concern of all his writings about government." But what is most important is that rights refer to the individual, each individual, qua individual, has the rights. The rights are not group rights; they are rights to the person. Burke vied society as an amalgam, he rejected the individual qua individual. Burke believed in classes, groups, because English society was so structured. Paine understood most clearly as a result of the discussion of the Bill of Rights that they accrued to the person, each and every person. In contrast Levin speaks of Burke on p 101 where he states: "As Burke sees it, each man is in society not by choice but by birth. And the facts of his birth - the family, the station, and the nation he is born into - exert inescapable demands on him, while also granting him some privileges and protection ..." One need go no further to understand the difference. To Paine the individual is unbounded in potential, to Burke the individual is molded by eons of history and genetics. England had its Aristocracy, a core element in its English constitution; America had the individual, and the Bill of Rights.
Chapter 5 the author discusses Reason and Prescription. Reason is the core to the Enlightenment, namely by reason we can come to truth. Prescription is term defined by Levin on p 1`40 as; "The term prescription originated in Roman property law, where it referred to ownership by virtue of long-term use, rather than by formal deed." Simply put, the battle between Reason and Prescription is the battle between what we think NOW is best as compared to what tradition had determined as best. It arguably is what many think is the contrast between liberal and conservative in current day America. I would argue that perhaps that is not the case and that the battle is truly between the individual versus the group. But here in two adjoining chapters Levin lays out the principles as advocated by Burke and Paine, and as battled today.
There is an undercurrent discussion in Chapter 5 as well, the discussion on equality. On p 151 there is a discussion of equality and the individual. For Paine one should be allowed to open the discussion up on the laws at least in every generation, for Burke he sees a slow representative government. The issue is the individual and equality. This theme comes again when Paine enters the fray of the French Revolution. The Liberty, Equality, Fraternity motto was focused on Liberty in the Americas and Equality in France. One can see Paine struggling with this issue. Whereas Liberty is consonant with Individualism, Equality may be taken to an extreme and destroy the individual. The resolution is left unsaid.
On p 153 the author makes a most important observation; ""He (Paine) argues that every individual is capable of employing his own reason to discern the truth or falsehood of a political question ... Paine believes that every individual has the capacity to begin from scratch, rather than beginning where others left off."
In the Conclusion the author makes the following statement on p 237:
"The fundamental utopian goal at the core of Paine's thinking - the goal of liberating the individual from the constraints of the obligations imposed upon him by his time, his place, and his relations to others - remains essential to the left in America."
I would argue that Paine placed power in the individual and not the group and that the left empowers the group often against the individual. Progressive ideas are ideas of group culture and are often opposed to individual culture. Paine I would argue is the champion of the individual and it is Burke who empowers the group. But Levin does a superb job in bringing these issues to the fore. His book is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the differences in our present day culture and more importantly the bases from which they sprung. What makes a conservative or a progressive? This book helps one think through that process better than any other.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Reviews with images
For Political Theory neophytes and savants alike
Scholar Yuval Levin explores the fascinating dynamic between two of the enlightenment’s greatest intellectuals, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, in his work The Great Debate. The book delineates the philosophical beliefs that underpinned the thought of both illuminaries during the American and French Revolutions. Levin argues that Burke and Paine birthed the contemporary political right and left in America, respectfully, and that within modern discourse remains large remnants of their thought and practice. Burke’s classical conservatism is a philosophy of order that prioritizes the stability of a nation, for only when a nation has a strong structure of government can individuals realize their freedom. Classical conservatism is based on communities, beginning with the family then extending to a person’s locality; persons are individuals insofar as they have a society to act upon their individuality - this fact makes maintaining a stable community, built around comradeship and respect for authority, integral to conservative philosophy. In contrast, Levin demonstrates how Paine ushered in the revolutionary ideals present in contemporary liberalism. Classical liberal philosophy seeks to build society off of principles of justice reached through rational inquiry. Paine ascribes to the enlightenment ideals of individualism, where individuals possess inalienable rights to their own personage and property. These rights must be guaranteed by the government for citizens to pursue their desires unencumbered. Levin presents salient subjects of the era and explicates the positions of both writers on various issues such as justice, choice, and generational obligation throughout the book. For example, In “Chapter 5: Reason and Prescription,” the author looks into both theorist’s views on government formation. Paine argued that governments must be built on simple moral truths achieved through rational discourse: popular sovereignty, equality of man, and abolition of slavery. Paine’s “politics of reason [...] will largely resolve what may appear to be inherent tensions in human nature” (165). Once a government is built on these principles of justice, acquirable through reason and followed by conviction, “a course is irrevocably set that will lead to a fairer and more effective government” (160). For Paine, government’s are unjust if built on unjust principles; if the state has been built on unjust principles, there must be a revolution to create a just state. However, unlike Paine, Burke greatly distrusts man’s reasoning, stating: “I never ventured to put your solid interests upon speculative grounds” (131). To Burke, government is a historical duty between subsequent generations to reform and maintain a state that attends to the people of their current society while looking to the past for guidance -only having gradual change to not disrupt the order of society. Burke feared Paine’s idealism reaching England stating: “[b]ecause they pursue the vindication of a principle, they cannot stop short of total success. Even when their aims are well conceived, the radicals will not accept a food thing if it ‘does not come up to the full perfection of the abstract idea’” (133). Each chapter follows this shape and articulates an analysis in regard to the respective subject.The average reader is not only able to understand the text, but also grapple with the ideas presented as their own citizen theorist. Throughout the book Levin’s bias towards Burke is evident, although despite this attachment both philosophers are presented in a scholarly and deft fashion. While an excellent work, Levin falls short in tying the ideals of Burke and Paine to our contemporary notions of right and left; he typecasts the modern parties as descendents from these two theorists without recognizing the combination and influences both parties have from both men, (i.e. I argue the modern right is a combination of both Burke and Paine’s philosophies). Levin’s publication is a fun intellectual endeavour for anyone who wants to engage in the conservative vs. liberal debate that permeates contemporary culture from a theoretical perspective. Readers will obtain a greater understanding of the progressive forward-thinking nature of American liberals and the reverence to tradition and historical consideration of American conservatives applicable to modern issues (e.g. confederate statues or universal child care). While a fun read for the average nonfiction buff, it is a rewarding source of material for acolytes of political philosophy.
Top reviews from other countries
D Walls
This is enlightenment - to get further insight into the ideas behind right and left
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 23, 2016
Blair
Reflections on the Origin of Conservative and Liberal Thinking
Reviewed in Canada on October 30, 2015