Yuval Levin analyzes two relationships through the perspectives of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine: the individual and community, and the past and present in "The Great Debate". These two politically foundational thinkers of the 18th century are popularly considered the fathers of the modern right and left, and Levin, a modern conservative writer, gives an unfiltered account of boths’ opinions. His clear presentation of Burke’s thoughts gives life to a different facet of modern conservative politics, and, by contrasting Burke to Paine, Levin provides a clear glimpse into a foundational political debate: balancing individual freedoms and communal responsibilities. By exploring their disagreements over the French Revolution Levin writes a modernizing comparison of their schools of thought. Paine advocated fiercely for the natural equality of individuals and their freedoms, and so strongly supported the French Revolution and the revolutionary ideas born therein. Burke however was sceptical and avidly critical of the revolution’s implications of decomposing the foundations of society. While Paine believed logic and rationality applied to natural freedoms were the origins of government, Burke emphasized that political development was possible to balance with respect for past generations’ traditions, and viewed reform as mending rather than correcting society. Both men, according to Levin, give honest and consistent descriptions of society and its politics, but differ greatly in their value for the authority of the past in determining the present and future - politically and socially.

Thomas Paine is known for his political activism surrounding the American and French revolutions of the late 18th century. He advocated fiercely for the natural equality of men, and supported the revolutions because he believed that the political failings of governments’ past would best be corrected by the formation of entirely new political systems. Levin says: “Paine’s is a politics of applied principle, and he believes the only way to rescue polities constructed on the wrong principles is to tear them down and rebuild from scratch.” (Levin 33) His works Common Sense and Rights of Man are popularly considered foundational to the revolutionary intellectual movement of his time. During his career of political activism Paine met with Burke several times before their disagreements over the French Revolution formed. Once this philosophical schism began: “Paine clearly believed that this assertive effort to overcome long-standing local prejudices... and rationally establish a new French national identity... was both wise and encouraging. ... Paine expected this report to please Burke...” (Levin 26). Put simply Paine believed that legitimate governments were formed only by innately equal citizens that consent to relinquish certain natural rights for a measured amount of communal social benefit. “Paine believed that every man stands in an equal relation to his origin with every other, and therefore that none is somehow entitled to reign supreme.” (Lein 88) Paine believed that because all men are equal no one could be born to rule, and thus all hereditary governments were illegitimate. While Burke argued for respecting the traditions inherited from the past generations, Paine believed Burke hadn’t gone far enough in his philosophical deduction of the formation of government. Levin quotes Paine: “The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity.” (Levin 44). Paine began his reasoning in the state of nature, which Burke believed to be impractical. Levin quotes Burke: “When statesmen practice such egalitarian abstraction, they fail to know their people. And this failure translates into practice as a failure to account for crucial differences...” (Levin 132). This disagreement evolves from their perspective on the relationship between the past and present. Paine placed natural equality at the core of modern liberal political views. He believed that all governments that didn’t actualize this view were tyrannical, and he argued that citizens have an obligation to revolt. “Nothing short of a total remedy can address such a profound corruption of government. To speak of revolution... is for Paine to speak of lifting up the burden of generations of misrule...” (Levin 178). For Burke this is an idealized form of thinking - something he calls metaphysical politics. He believed that these radical social revolutions would result in a destructive upheaval of collective values. “Burke’s foremost fear... was that in crisis conditions [people] would be tempted to seek after speculative metaphysical politics.” (Levin 143). Levin quotes Burke: “The levelers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things.” (Levin 83).Burke argues that no government or society can change the innate hierarchy that people form collectively.

From Paine’s perspective Burke had little to no writings or thoughts on the limitation of governments’ powers. Burke believed the opposite: that, by supporting total societal revolution, Paine was enabling the government to be more powerful than ever before. Levin quotes Burke: “Indeed it is precisely because the new regime is built upon a rational plan that it has the potential to wield immense and previously inconceivable power and overrun the individual.” (Levin 190). While Paine believed these revolutions would enable the people to form a truly legitimate government, Burke believed it wasn’t guaranteed that a successful society would be the result. Levin quotes Burke when speaking on the French Revolution: “It is true that this may be no more than a sudden explosion; if so, no indication can be taken from it; but if it should be character rather than accident, then the people are not fit for liberty...” (Levin 25). “Paine’s idea of revolution, therefore, seems to Burke a recipe for societal suicide, because it relies on the presumption - which Burke takes to be false - that by the nature of things, the society will persist when its regime has been dissolved.” (Levin 56). For Paine the goal of government was to enable a society of free and equal individuals. Burke believed, however, that the goal of politics should not be equality itself. Paine’s idea of the social contract was a willing exchange between free individuals with natural rights that they willingly relinquished to form communal benefits that better their lives. Levin writes about Burke’s social contract: “His [Burke’s] contract is not a set of quid pro quos, with rights exchanged for obligations by free people... but a description of relations that are inescapable and binding.” (Levin 107). Paine and Burke are on opposite sides of the isle on the issue of the relationship between the individual and society. Paine defends individual freedoms and stands against anything that impedes it. Burke emphasizes that no individual’s freedoms are upheld outside of society.

The Great Debate was a very interesting work, with a clear layout that helps develop readers’ understandings of modern liberal and conservative politics, and their roots. Levin says about his writing: “It [The Great Debate] will argue that Burke and Paine each offers a coherent and, for the most part, internally consistent case about the character of society and politics, and that each man’s case is greatly illuminated by contrasting it with the other’s.”(Levin xv). Their disagreements and intellectual developments on the subject formed what political philosophy would become in the next centuries. “The tension between those two dispositions comes down to some very basic questions: Should our society be made to answer to the demands of stark and abstract commitments to ideals like social equality or to the patterns of its own concrete political traditions and foundations? Should the citizen’s relationship to his society be defined above all by the individual right to free choice or by a web of obligations and conventions?” (Levin 103). Paine’s work revolved around his belief in the natural born rights and equality of all men. This has become the central view of liberal politics today. This abstract reasoning is what led to Paine’s belief that an absolute upheaval of social structures was required to build a government that enabled the freedoms of the individual. “Paine seeks to understand man apart from his social setting, while Burke thinks man is incomprehensible apart from the circumstances into which he is born.” (Levin 206). Burke has a different view: that men need greater respect for the traditions of past generations, and that individuals can’t be abstracted from their settings. Levin does an excellent job of explaining how these mens’ works evolved into the modern political divide of left and right. He says: “Today’s liberals are left philosophically adrift and far too open to utilitarianism...” (Levin 229). Levin believes that the modern left is collectivist materially and individualist morally, and could use a lesson from Paine’s writings on the limitations of government. He also wrote: ““Today’s conservatives are thus too rhetorically strident and far too open to hyperindividualism.” (Levin 229). Levin believes the modern right could learn from Burke’s description of the social character of men, and his broadly liberal views. By giving an honest image of each thinker and their respective modern political groups’ beliefs Levin builds an unbiased image that largely supports Burke’s views, and brings his perspective to the modern reader.