In today’s world where anger makes sense, prudence can feel obsolete. Moderation is hard to believe in the wake of recent White House decisions. But two unlikely figures, a radical hero and a conservative icon, both have something to say. In this discussion, “radical” does not mean extreme, but deep-seated, meaning that it gets to the root of what makes good decisions. In Douglas and Burke, prudence means judgment, not mere moderation.
Liberal democracies are under real pressure. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, hope disappeared. Alliances are fraying, conflicts are increasing, and public trust is eroding. Much of this decline is driven by populist movements that treat civil rights as a problem rather than progress.
This affects everyone. Liberal democracy can only survive if all sides respect its institutions. If conservatives defend democratic norms, those norms will survive. When that stops, democracy weakens.
For Edmund Burke, prudence was the highest political virtue. For Russell Kirk, today’s leading conservative thinker, it was the soul of conservatism. Today, we are witnessing the cost of that absence. Without prudence, democracy loses its balance. We fall into the trap that Burke feared most. It is a divisive state where moderation is derided as weakness and compromise is seen as betrayal.
The turmoil of the 2026 political season makes prudence seem even less important. Nowadays, winning at any cost is considered strength. The only rule left is victory. The strategy is to defeat the opponent at their own game. “When in doubt, speak up.” Respecting boundaries is no longer appealing, but it once helped conservatives maintain order without becoming authoritarian and liberals avoid turning reform into bureaucracy.
Frederick Douglass illustrates this in human terms. More than any other black leader of his time, he made Abraham Lincoln recognize his moral authority. He helped black Americans prepare for civil life and urged white Americans to accept the new political order. Mr. Douglas, a fiery speaker who rarely retracted his statements, later admitted that his sense of urgency had blinded him to what was required of him in leadership.
At first, Douglas thought Lincoln was moving too slowly. Over time, he realized that Lincoln’s restraint was not a sign of weakness, but of good judgment and faith. Lincoln wanted to protect a fragile constitutional system so that liberty and justice would survive.
Douglass understood that even a good cause would fail if it condemned more than it persuaded. Anger, even when justified, can deepen the injustice it opposes. The purpose was to end slavery, not to commit inhumane acts. He urged abolitionists to remain involved in an institution they despised. The system can only be changed from within.
Although Burke may seem to be the opposite of Douglas, he may have recognized in him a moral radical who knew the difference between restraint and submission. Burke defended the American Revolution and supported reform. He opposed changes that ignored context and consent.
In Lincoln, Douglass understood what Burke most valued: a drive for lasting good and perseverance rather than passivity.
Our political divide could narrow if each side was more faithful to history. Liberals admire Douglass’ righteous anger, but they often forget how much effort he went to turn anger into persuasion. Conservatives respect Mr. Burke as a proponent of order, but they often overlook how much he values reform. Each tradition becomes hollow when it forgets its own inheritance. Democracy is stronger when reform includes restraint, and restraint opens up to reform.
Recovery starts locally, with meetings where people care about what happens next. Surviving recurring crises means valuing the work of these conferences as much as the strength of our arguments. Productive disagreements do not erase differences. It changes our perspective. “I’ve never thought of it that way before” is often the first sign of better judgment.
Douglas understood that. He once said:
“I will unite with anyone to do what is right, and I will unite with anyone to do what is wrong.”
For Douglass, consensus was about ethics, not just emotion, and about principles, not just strategy. He was trained as a preacher, spoke like a prophet, and became a public thinker out of necessity. His confidence was contagious and he prayed with confidence. We can do the same.
Lord, save us from softness and sentimentality. Grant us the victory over our moods, the generosity before the limits of life, the strength to accept the self-denial that our hopes and desires demand. Paint a great vision of what we will become and what you intend for your world.
Amen.
notes and reading
“Careful”-from latin prudencia (‘foresight’, ‘practical wisdom’), abbreviated form of: providencia (“providence”). Its central meaning is “looking ahead” and is therefore associated with prudent judgment and predicting outcomes.
aristotle—The best treatment is prudence (phronesis) is located in Nicomachean ethics, Volume VI, especially Chapter 5 (1140a24–1140b30).
Story of the life of American slave Frederick Douglass (175th Anniversary Edition, 2020). A basic account of moral urgency disciplined by political intelligence.
Measuring a Man: The Writings of Frederick Douglass on Abraham Lincolned. Lucas E. Morrell and Jonathan W. White (2025). Documents Douglass’ journey from righteous indignation to recognition of Lincoln’s constitutional prudence.
“Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship”―Hannah Arendt (1964). Arendt rejects the “cog in the machine” excuse. Resistance comes from thinking for yourself, not from better “values.” Without judgment, morality becomes dangerous, and no cause can compensate for it. (Essay online at WordPress.com)
“Burke’s Revolutionary Thoughts”—Dominic Green new standard (January 2026). Reevaluating Burke’s reformism as a defense of order against enthusiasm. The second essay is “Born in freedom” It emphasizes Burke’s moral culture, but makes discretion partisan.
“Memorial to Abraham Lincoln”—Frederick Douglass, Cooper Union (1865). A complex tribute that recognizes Lincoln as both a “white man’s president” and a martyr whose self-restraint made freedom possible. (Online essay, loa.org)
Speak up to strengthen the guardrails of democracy—Divided Communities Project, OSU Moritz School of Law Conflict Resolution Program (2023). A 45-page guide with contributions from leaders, academics, and practitioners. (online moritzlaw.osu.edu/)
[Prayer – inspired by Joseph Ferguson King, former senior pastor, First Church, Oberlin.]
See also aggressive blessing – Snitch #170
“We’re not all in the same boat. We’re all in the same storm.”
Nicolas Maduro – After the Scapegoat
Approximately 2+2=5
Source: 2 + 2 = 5 – williamgreen.substack.com
