Accueil
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/oakeshott/
"If we wish to attach any label to Oakeshott at all, and some are determined to do so, then it should not be the labels most commonly used, of ideologist, of conservative or of liberal. I want to suggest that he is best characterised as a republican. I am aware, of course, that a suggestion to link him to this tradition has already been made by Wendell John Coats Jr, but my argument and reasons are different from his, and indeed my evidence rests on different texts (Coats 1992, 99–115). W. H. Greenleaf long ago suggested that Oakeshott was not a conservative of any recognisable complexion, and was indeed hostile to much of what goes under the name of liberalism. He suggested that Oakeshott was more of an old fashioned Whig, and Whigs, of course are themselves related to the republican tradition (Greenleaf 1966, 82–83). I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Oakeshott is a radical republican of the modern communitarian mode. Indeed, much of what goes under the guise of modern republicanism would be anathema to him. He is, in my view, a classical republican of conservative leanings, suitably adapted for the political climate through which it has become modified. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that he belongs to the Aristotelian strand of republicanism that equates freedom with participation, but instead I contend that he belongs to the Roman form of republicanism, exemplified by Cicero, in which freedom is equated with the rule of law." (p.81)
-David Boucher, "Oakeshott, Freedom and Republicanism", The British journal of politics and international relations, Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 81-96.
"If we wish to attach any label to Oakeshott at all, and some are determined to do so, then it should not be the labels most commonly used, of ideologist, of conservative or of liberal. I want to suggest that he is best characterised as a republican. I am aware, of course, that a suggestion to link him to this tradition has already been made by Wendell John Coats Jr, but my argument and reasons are different from his, and indeed my evidence rests on different texts (Coats 1992, 99–115). W. H. Greenleaf long ago suggested that Oakeshott was not a conservative of any recognisable complexion, and was indeed hostile to much of what goes under the name of liberalism. He suggested that Oakeshott was more of an old fashioned Whig, and Whigs, of course are themselves related to the republican tradition (Greenleaf 1966, 82–83). I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Oakeshott is a radical republican of the modern communitarian mode. Indeed, much of what goes under the guise of modern republicanism would be anathema to him. He is, in my view, a classical republican of conservative leanings, suitably adapted for the political climate through which it has become modified. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that he belongs to the Aristotelian strand of republicanism that equates freedom with participation, but instead I contend that he belongs to the Roman form of republicanism, exemplified by Cicero, in which freedom is equated with the rule of law." (p.81)
-David Boucher, "Oakeshott, Freedom and Republicanism", The British journal of politics and international relations, Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 81-96.
