Let me start with two bad jokes: first, Oakeshott out-Strausses Leo Strauss in his famous (1947) essay, “Rationalism in Politics.” Second, a true friend speaks truth to his friends in times of crisis, but Oakeshott (1901–1990) withholds the truth from the mass democrat and so is no friend of mass democracy. Don’t let these bad jokes discourage you from reading because the point of what follows is about democracy and war (no laughing matter, alas).
Amplifying your point about unions, I've long believed, and occasionally pointed out, that attitudes to unions are the true test of self-described conservatives. Unions are almost as old as industrial capitalism itself, predating the modern corporation. They represent all the things conservatives claim to value: social solidarity over individualism, civil society over the state, organic change over rational planning, valorisation of hard work over idleness. But nearly all conservatives oppose them. That's true not just of the rightwing radicals to whom the label is applied nowadays, but, as you point out, to more plausible representatives of conservatism like Oakeshott.
A surprising conservative who appreciated the point is George Shultz, who claimed that "free societies and free trade unions go together." He was clearly influenced by the encounter with Solidarity in Poland (although also had some surprising fondness of the 1950s industrial relations). Since he was part of the Reagan revolution all of this is a bit surprising. Anyway, it was reported back in the day, in fact,
Representative democracies, which Oakeshott incorrectly calls mass democracies, are the ONLY political form that has never warred on others of its own kind. Modern society is an extraordinarily complex network of relationships which is best termed, after the Scottish enlightenment figures, "civil society." I am so very tired of conservatives who know little about actual democracies putting on airs of superiority while supporting political forms that have left history drenched in blood.
On the whole I like where you are coming from. But it seems a bit easy to ignore that representative democracies have waged aggressive war against non-representative democracies.
Countries that are not treated as representative democracies: liberal democracies have colonized chunks of the world and/or fought to keep it that way. They have also attacked Iraq and Serbia (although the latter on a somewhat decent pretext), etc.
The places colonized were never democracies before colonization. Iraq and Serbia were democracies only if you remove all content from the terms- as in peoples' democracies. Liberal democracies have initiated wars, such as those with Iraq, when the opponent is not a liberal democracy. They are no better than other governments in that regard. But between themselves? Never. And they are unique in this regard. It is for systemic reasons illuminated by a Hayekian analysis, and nothing about their leaders being better people. Here is a piece by me that explains why. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248651907_Democracies_and_Peace_The_Self-Organizing_Foundation_for_the_Democratic_Peace
Amplifying your point about unions, I've long believed, and occasionally pointed out, that attitudes to unions are the true test of self-described conservatives. Unions are almost as old as industrial capitalism itself, predating the modern corporation. They represent all the things conservatives claim to value: social solidarity over individualism, civil society over the state, organic change over rational planning, valorisation of hard work over idleness. But nearly all conservatives oppose them. That's true not just of the rightwing radicals to whom the label is applied nowadays, but, as you point out, to more plausible representatives of conservatism like Oakeshott.
A surprising conservative who appreciated the point is George Shultz, who claimed that "free societies and free trade unions go together." He was clearly influenced by the encounter with Solidarity in Poland (although also had some surprising fondness of the 1950s industrial relations). Since he was part of the Reagan revolution all of this is a bit surprising. Anyway, it was reported back in the day, in fact,
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/13/business/economic-scene-worrying-over-weakened-unions.html
Very interesting !
Representative democracies, which Oakeshott incorrectly calls mass democracies, are the ONLY political form that has never warred on others of its own kind. Modern society is an extraordinarily complex network of relationships which is best termed, after the Scottish enlightenment figures, "civil society." I am so very tired of conservatives who know little about actual democracies putting on airs of superiority while supporting political forms that have left history drenched in blood.
Hi Gus,
On the whole I like where you are coming from. But it seems a bit easy to ignore that representative democracies have waged aggressive war against non-representative democracies.
What do you have in mind about non-representative democracies?
Countries that are not treated as representative democracies: liberal democracies have colonized chunks of the world and/or fought to keep it that way. They have also attacked Iraq and Serbia (although the latter on a somewhat decent pretext), etc.
The places colonized were never democracies before colonization. Iraq and Serbia were democracies only if you remove all content from the terms- as in peoples' democracies. Liberal democracies have initiated wars, such as those with Iraq, when the opponent is not a liberal democracy. They are no better than other governments in that regard. But between themselves? Never. And they are unique in this regard. It is for systemic reasons illuminated by a Hayekian analysis, and nothing about their leaders being better people. Here is a piece by me that explains why. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248651907_Democracies_and_Peace_The_Self-Organizing_Foundation_for_the_Democratic_Peace