CONSERVATISM IN BRITAIN
557
tended by others to the theory of politics, and that if this were done,
it is fairly clear in which particular political direction it would lead.
It is of course possible for people to defend the status quo with the
same moral fervor as others defend reform-that is undeniable:
if
however one is deliberately without moral fervor, if one practices
what Butterfield in another context calls "self-emptying," then it is
extremely unlikely that one will be on the side of reform-for where
is one to find the justification for all the turmoil and upheaval and
suffering that no reformist program can ever entirely dispense with?
Historically it is a fact that "the politics of fallen creation" have not
been the politics of change: on the contrary they have favored con–
servation and preached the virtue of reconciling oneself to one's
lot. Again, the 'purist' conception of morals that we find in Butter–
field, according to which morality is degraded by, rather than de–
signed for, application to concrete cases, is bound to inhibit those
with broad- or even those with less broad-visions of society in their
considered efforts to realize these visions. There is of course in the
last resort no direct connection between the particular epistemology or
morals to which one subscribes and the particular moral views one
holds. So much logical theory tells us. And the lesson is important.
It
should not however lead us to forget the complementary and no
less important lesson that common sense has for us: namely, that there
is a great deal in the way of indirect connection between the two.
Offhand I would think it very improbable-and facts confirm this
a priori
estimate-that anyone who holds a skeptical theory of moral
knowledge would also hold any very bold or revolutionary moral
principles.
Little has been proved. The subtle and elusive teachings of two
professors-one of them not known to be a conservative, and neither
of them even a television personality-scarcely constitute in them–
selves a movement of ideas. Moreover, as is well known, though it
is just possible that revolution might be the work of ideas, it is in–
conceivable that counterrevolution could be. (Witness the intense
animosity of the Conservative party to ideas. Not that the Conserva–
tive party is dedicated to counter-revolution: it is interested in some–
thing even more 'un-ideological' than reaction, i.e. conservation. And
the first principle of conservation, as any housewife knows, is to try
