Burke Vs Rousseau

Rousseau and Burke differ on the amount of power a government can have and both their reasoning make sense. Rousseau’s optimistic and idealistic nature is an inspiring one indeed, however, Burke seems to represent a more realistic examination. This is until Rousseau delves further into his blueprint, breaks down the mechanisms of the state, and outlines what makes a good government in his eyes.
Rousseau outlines three main components of the state: the government, the sovereign, and the people. There are certain responsibilities assigned to the three roles in society. He argues that the government is the “intermediary body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual communication” (Rousseau). A good government, according

A good government is one that is founded in long-standing tradition and has undergone thorough refinement and care through the ages. The government and the political institutions seat people who are well versed in the political realm and who have its people’s interests at heart. He warns that “those who attempt to level, never equalize”. Politics is fundamentally practical as it looks at the details of life. It should be based on the considerations and issues at hand and therefore it is important to not destroy present government and institutions down to the ground because they are repositories of practical experience” (Burke). The rights and stability that society has is a result of these long-standing political institutions, and therefore it is important to improve on them rather than eradicate. Despite the French’s eagerness for freedom, they fail to understand that it is only one amongst a range of benefits. A sacrifice would have to take place which Burke was not at all pleased about. For him, a government was good if it enforced the rules, made all of which were required in mutual connection for a life of civil government that was civilized in the proper