The Reactionary Mind

The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin is a 2011 book written by political theorist Corey Robin. It argues that conservatism from the 17th century to today is based on the principle, "that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others".^[1]:18[2] Robin argues that rather than being about liberty, limited government, resistance to change, or public virtue, conservatism is a "mode of counterrevolutionary practice" to preserve hierarchy and power.^[1]:17

Overview

The book begins by redefining conservatism as an attempt to preserve hierarchy in the wake of a democratic movement. One example of this 19th century slogan is given:

To obey a real superior...is one of the most important of all virtues—a virtue absolutely essential to the attainment of anything great and lasting.^[1]:17

Robin goes through the history of conservatism starting with Edmund Burke and argues that traditional definitions of conservatism as an attempt to preserve some kind of tradition are inadequate. He cites passages from Burke and Joseph de Maistre which criticize the old order for being decadent and needing to be recreated. Thomas Hobbes's social contract is given as a conservative solution to a new order which is able to preserve itself under threat.^[1]:62

Robin argues that in the modern era conservatives are often more concerned about preserving power in the private sphere, which finds struggles against things like labor movements and feminism.^[1]:42

Reaction and controversy

Many reviews criticized the book. The New York Times called it "a diatribe that preaches to the converted" while blogs such as Crooked Timber (a blog Robin contributes to) have defended it.^[2] The New Republic gave a lukewarm review saying, "Robin’s arguments deserve widespread attention. But they [sic] way he has presented them almost ensures that they will not get it."^[3] Mark Lilla criticized Robin's argument, arguing that Robin's definition of conservatism "can be reduced to this: "those who react against movements of the left" react against movements of the left - which is a tautology, not an argument" and that one needs to "distinguish between conservatism, which is informed by a view of human nature; reaction, which is informed by a view of history; and the right, which is a shifting, engaged ideological family"^[4].

The book was also criticized by Sheri Berman, who argues that Robin mischaracterizes right-wing populism, arguing that "[T]aking right-wing populism seriously means accepting that those who support it believe what they say and have agency, rather than viewing them as being used or manipulated in the service of the elites. Robin clearly does not believe these things. He tries to explain his views of populism using a variety of odd and even nonsensical terms. For example, he says one way to understand populism is as 'democratic feudalism', which means "giving real, not imaginary, power to the members of the lower orders to wield over people beneath them" (emphasis added). Well, who then is 'giving' power to the lower orders? And why are they doing so if not in the service of their (the givers or elites) goals? Or how about 'upside-down populism', which means "getting the lower orders to identify with the higher orders" (emphasis added). Again, the use of the passive tense is instructive: as we all know, it is used in order to avoid identifying the real protagonist of a particular action." Berman also argued that "[Robin] repeatedly characterizes conservative leaders and thinkers as manipulative, repressive, "enlivened" by violence, and committed to the oppression of the "subordinate classes" or "lower orders". He dismisses conservatives' own characterizations of their views and motives, arguing that to give credence to factors such as a commitment to limited government or individual freedom would be to be tricked into missing the "more elemental force" at work, which is "the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors."^[5].

John Derbyshire negatively received the book, arguing that Robin "wants to cast down the mighty from their seats of power and exalt the meek and humble. He seems to think that the meek and humble, thus exalted, will conduct themselves with heroic restraint. History offers whole Himalayas of corpses as evidence to the contrary. It is astounding that Robin does not know this.". Derbyshire also criticized Robin for ignoring contemporary issues in American politics^[6].

References