Also, it ought not to place excessive emphasis on some ends at the expense of others; in particular, it should not give rein to a moral idealism (as in the French Revolution) that sets itself in radical opposition to the existing order. Such attempts cut across the natural processes of social development, initiating uncontrollable forces or provoking a dialectical reaction of excluded factors. Burke's hope, in effect, is not a realization of particular ends, such as the “liberty” and “equality” of the French Revolution, but an intensification and reconciliation of the diverse elements of the good life that community exists to forward. The Rights of Man for Burke should not be a woolly mix of promised ideals, for man’s nature is too complex for this to work, “The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of men are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned. Political reason is a computing principle; adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, morally and not metaphysically or mathematically, true moral denominations.” (1790:163)
In his own day, Burke's writings on France were an important inspiration to German and French counterrevolutionary thought. His influence in England has been more diffuse, more balanced, and more durable. He stands as the original exponent of long-lived constitutional conventions, the idea of party, and the role of the member of Parliament as free representative, not delegate. More generally, his remains the most persuasive statement of certain inarticulate political and social principles long and widely held in England: the validity of status and hierarchy and the limited role of politics in the life of society. This was one of Burke’s greatest criticism to the French constitution, it was too pervasive on society, “The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and, therefore, no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs. When I hear the simplicity of contrivance aimed at and boasted of in any new political constitutions, I am at no loss to decide that the artificers are grossly ignorant of their trade or totally negligent of their duty.” (1790: 170) Burke is particularly concerned with preserving nobility, understood not as a specific group of people but rather as a goal of life, both individual and collective. Some people are recognized as being noble; all should be trying to become so. He critiques the levelling tendencies of the French Revolution on this ground, claiming that they thereby abandon the concept of nobility itself. Some – many – social critics of today's society might claim the same thing, i.e., that mass culture makes people "equal" only in their shared reduction to the lowest common denominator.
Much of what Burke attacks in the Reflections is wholly consistent with this ‘conservative’ element—there is the impatience with theory and abstraction, the distrust of egalitarian ‘levelling’, the disapproval of all radical change. But it is when we come to see more closely just exactly what , or rather whom, Burke was attacking that the conventional recall of Burke starts to become troubled. This is when we see Burke’s views as right versus left, or Conservatism versus radicalism, when he was writing this was more of a fight for aristocracy but against the Jacobins and when this is considered in the context of his pro America, India or Irish stance it does seem to be slightly contradictory.
Burke’s views on the Rights of Man are closely linked with his ideas of nationalism, there are five main points that he recognises. Firstly that man is tied to a family, locality and nation, secondly that society is organic rather than mechanistic, thirdly that the past, present and future are linked, fourthly that as a nation we must put our own people first, and finally that equality, like most abstract doctrines, is "a monstrous fiction". These points were all fundamental to Burke's world view. For Edmund Burke, rights were not universal but particular to each society and handed down by our forefathers. Burke claimed that his view of rights was the traditional British view. In Magna Carta and in the 1689 Declaration of Rights there is no mention of "the rights of man". In these documents, rights were regarded as a patrimony or inheritance. Burke defined rights as: "an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity; an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom without any reference whatever to any more general or prior right". (1790:29-33). We receive and transmit our privileges "in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives".(1790:124). Modern critics see this position as "startlingly illiberal": It implies, for instance, that people who have no bequest of democracy or liberty from their ancestors have no automatic right to them. . If Burke is correct, Westminster-style democracies will never flourish in Africa or Asia, which lack the culture out of which democracy emerged. Britain's liberties would have no relevance outside Britain and would not be for export except to people of our own blood. This is a view which does apparently have some weight to it as the British constitutional system is a bit of an anomaly in the modern world, it stands out as being uncodified and organic. It is also reasonably strong which also seems to justifies Burkes views if you accept that the state must work in favour of it’s citizens and protect the status quo.
In Burke's day, Britain's Empire was a possible means of exporting liberties, but, he implied, only to her own colonists. "Wherever the Chosen race and sons of England worship freedom they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply the more friends you will have....Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. Freedom they can have from none but you" (1790:235). It is no accident that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.A. are among the world's few stable democracies. Such things as freedom of the press and the secret ballot were British inventions. Our liberties were not derived from universal principles but were the legacy of our ancestors' hard-won battles. As National Democrats we to uphold the rights of the British people, but we do not wish to impose such rights on other lands, this would not be in keeping with Burke’s views on the role of the state (i.e. to work in favour of its citizens) or his views on the rights of man (i.e. that we are not born equal).
Burke did not realise it while he was writing but his views would eventually become a counter argument to Marx, this was most starkly seen at the time with his opposition to the acquisition of property by the French revolutionaries. Burke saw the greatest threat from this new kind of "state" as directed against the institution of property: "It is the contempt of property, and the setting up against its principle certain pretended advantages of the state (which, by the way, exists only for its conservation), that has led to all the other evils." (1790:237). He also immediately identified the fundamentally totalitarian nature of the revolutionists, which also distinguished them from other governments. Indeed, he correctly saw that the consequences of the Revolution would be precisely the opposite of the liberating appeal of its slogans, such as "the Rights of Man." He cautioned, "You have theories enough concerning the Rights of Men. It may not be amiss to add a small degree of attention to their Nature and disposition. It is with Man in the concrete . . . you are to be concerned." (1790: 136) More disturbing to Burke was that "the Rights of Man" ultimately seemed to have little or nothing to do with what was really happening in France--the ever-growing power of the government over aspects of life that had never before been thought "political".
Burke was able to make his argument so well with such autority by using the French Revolution as a warning to the peoples of the rest of the world. He was able to make the point that while man does have rights they are inherited from their nations heritage and constitutions already, organically set up. He believed that by saying that every man is equal the state would be run by totalitarianism rather than democracy, man, he believed, is not born equal and by making him so the state would be left open to corruption much as it had done in France. His views on the Rights of Man are incredibly important even today although there are criticisms that seem to be fairly strong arguments. In the modern world it does seem ethically unfair to disregard the ideas of equality because of the dangers that they possess, tyranny most often occurs through the lack of equality and in many countries across the world where sudden political change has taken place, strong democracies have flourished (i.e. France, Germany, Japan, etc.). With nations across the world becoming more and more ethnically and culturally diverse the idea of strong national heritage and identity is also being pushed, for centuries the right have been using Burkean arguments to warn of too much ethnical diversity and yet with even with continual ethnical diversity their fears have not been realised. The idea of ‘the rights of men’ will almost certainly be debated centuries to come and whether Burke’s view lasts the distance or not it has been and still is one of the best made arguments on the subject, it is undoubtedly complex but also for important for the right and left (of the politics world) alike.
