Reference no: EM133811480
Assignment:
In responding to the statement below, answer the following questions:
- Differences in viewpoints on social order?
- The circumstances where there may be potential justification for revolution?
- Would historically underrepresented groups in the United States be justified in starting a revolution against the US government? Why or why not?
- Should these groups (e.g., women, Native Americans, the Black community, the LGBTQ community, the economically disadvantaged population) start a revolution against the US government? Why or why not?
The Statement:
Burke's argument against revolution and in favor of incremental reform was something that was clearly studied by US Framers. Much like writings in the Federalist Papers, Burke felt that humans were flawed and driven by "fleeting" passions. Revolutions were considered dangerous in that sudden upheavals could unleash destructive forces, whereas incremental reform allows for careful consideration and moderation. Additionally, Burke believed that there was something to established institutions. These authorities hold valuable tradition and wisdom. Any rapid changes could, again, be viewed as dangerous, possibly disrupting the social fabric of a civilization. This, in turn, would lead to chaos, tyranny, or anarchy. Finally, Burke studied historical societies that ended in disaster rather than improvement when they did not embark on gradual change that was more effective and sustainable. Overall, Burke's argument was a defense of continuity, stability, and a cautious approach to political change.
Recently, as the country becomes more and more politically polarized, there are numerous individuals calling for the elimination of our governmental norms including the abolishment or packing of the Supreme Court and the elimination of the electoral college, claiming they are no longer relevant or are ineffective. These institutions are fundamental to the balance of power that maintains our republic and are more likely to be in the way of the change one party calls for. The dissolution of these entities would lead to chaos given the historical waxing and waning between liberalism and conservatism in the United States. With each change, the country would be subjected to massive changes leading to anarchy and disenfranchisement within the citizenry. I would argue that these institutions are functioning exactly as intended, as both were specifically designed to withstand the pressure and tyranny of the majority. As the oldest living Constitution in the world, the Framers seemed to understand and agree with Burke's theories on implemental and deliberate change.