Disclaimer: personally I think Burke is one of the more overrated thinkers and the meanderings of his prose, ultimately not making much of a strong argument (I

Disclaimer: personally I think Burke is one of the more overrated thinkers and the meanderings of his prose, ultimately not making much of a strong argument (I mean his main book here), just made it easier for people to read things into it. An example of books serving as totem authority more than being actually interacted with. I misread the title for Edward Gibbon initially... But on the topic of "complication", it is worth for people to be aware of two connections of Burke. First is to Thomas Paine, whose Rights of Man prompted Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Paine argued, ultimately in line with Jefferson, that the French Revolution is justified because it vindicates the natural rights of people which are discoverable by reason. Burke's response is more of less that you cannot reason about politics from first principles, and there are mobs and brutality in France. Which could lead us to a historical discussion about standards of mobs, brutality and state violence in the 18th century in general. [edit: I checked and it is actually the other way around, it was Paine responding to Burke, but the books can be read as a debate on similar points anyway] Second, there is a traditional comparison in political science between Burke and de Maistre, which makes me queasy about calling Burke a "reactionary" (even discounting his positive stance on American Revolution). De Maistre argued for eternal authority of Catholic Church barring any change to society, while Burke is seen as an "evolutionary" conservative allowing some change if it is slow and invisible to people, essentially. (One interpretation of course.) It's not that we "haven't realized" it, as TFA suggests, maybe just politicians lack education and basic underpinnings of what they claim to believe.