A question

John Adams, Robespierre, Burke, Richard Price, and Pius VI all agreed there was something wrong with the public atheism of the philosophes that were behind the French Revolution. Adams and Richard Price were friends. Richard Price was the leader of the radical dissenters in England, who were very supportive of the French Revolution. Burke was a Whig, who eventually became known as a leading "Conservative." Pius VI was the Pope, of course, who eventually was imprisoned by the revolutionaries themselves, and he died in exile.

From the standpoint of philosophical worldview, Adams, Robespierre, Price, and Burke all shared common assumptions about human nature and religion. Why, then, would they end up being percieved as "opposites" in modern politics?

A question

John Adams, Robespierre, Burke, Richard Price, and Pius VI all agreed there was something wrong with the public atheism of the philosophes that were behind the French Revolution. Adams and Richard Price were friends. Richard Price was the leader of the radical dissenters in England, who were very supportive of the French Revolution. Burke was a Whig, who eventually became known as a leading "Conservative." Pius VI was the Pope, of course, who eventually was imprisoned by the revolutionaries themselves, and he died in exile.

From the standpoint of philosophical worldview, Adams, Robespierre, Price, and Burke all shared common assumptions about human nature and religion. Why, then, would they end up being percieved as "opposites" in modern politics?

Principle, History, and Tradition

What distinguishes Burke & Adams on the one hand, from Pius VI, on the other, is the commitment to a robust principles of the moral order.

Pius VI saw the destructive effects of all revolutions. Burke and Adams wanted to be conservative revolutionaries. They wanted revolution, but without the radicals, especially the relativisti or hedonistic radicals. Thus, for a time, conservative and liberal revolutionaries will unite to undo the old order. The conservatives hope that their good intentions will enable them to preserve what is good from history and tradition, without giving in to the excesses of the radicals. The radicals can respond: we have drawn the line here, why not take it one step further? Unless the conservatives renounce the revolutionary ideal, they will have difficulty responding.

This is the ambiguity that persists in conservatism this day. They want tradition and history, but lack solid commitment to principle, in deed and in truth.