@yhazony article on Burkean conservatism in American Affairs is interesting. This is, probably, the cutting edge of conservatism.... https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/

This is just ROFL :"every page of [Fortescue's] work breathes the spirit of English nationalism—the belief that through long centuries of experience, and thanks to a powerful ongoing identification with Hebrew Scripture,...

... the English had succeeded in creating a form of government more conducive to human freedom and flourishing than any other known to man." Ethnonarcism of the finest vintage.

"Fortescue’s Praise of the Laws of England spoke in a resounding voice to that period of heightened nationalist sentiment in which English traditions, now inextricably identified with Protestantism" Any explanation of why this happened?

Nope, it just skips to this "We turn now to the decisive chapter in the formation of[...]conservatism: the great [...]battle between defenders of the traditional English constitution against political absolutism [...]and[...]Lockean universalist rationalism on the other.

But at least now we are getting to Hazony's argument "Coke, Eliot, and Selden [...] defend the same liberties that we ourselves hold dear [...]But they did not do so in the name of [...]universal reason, natural rights, or “self-evident” truths. [...] they were [...]not liberals.

And here we get to the point: "Selden responds to the claims of universal reason by arguing for a position that can be called historical empiricism. On this view, our reasoning in political and legal matters should be based upon inherited national tradition. "

At this point its worth taking a detour into MacIntyre. This form of "tradition" does not invite debate as to the good of the tradition at all. It, as MacIntyre points out, contrasts "tradition with reason and the stability of tradition with conflict"

The result of this Burkean conservatism is not a tradition in good order, but a shabby defense of anglo culture and political structures on the grounds of "anything else but our current power disbursement is scary, wooooh, better not change anything"

Of course Hazony simply does not understand MacIntyre's arguments, for whatever reason, but its clear as day when you look at Macintyre's criticism of Blackstone in relation to Stair in "Whose Justice?, Which Rationality?"

Sure Hazony cites Seldon to the effect that "He pours scorn on those who embrace errors originating in the distant past, which, he says, have often been accepted as true by entire communities" But this misses the point, what if the WHOLE of the previous tradition is wrong!

Look at the development of new scientific paradigms as comparable. By this logic any break from an already existing paradigm is impossible. This is how ridiculous and malformed this theorizing about traditions is.

And even in this example of English laws, the supposed handing down of common laws from time immemorial was basically a fiction any way. So there isn't even a need to use the science paradigm comparison to demonstrate the vacuity of Burke.

Can Hozany go more than 5 mins without pointing out he is Jewish. "Selden explains that this natural law has been discovered over long generations since the biblical times and has come down to us in various versions. Of these, the most reliable is [...]the Talmud."

The Talmud proscribes "murder, theft, sexual perversity, cruelty to beasts, idolatry and defaming God" OK, cool story, but weren't we just justifying things based on what had always been done before? Isn't this switching to a different argument?

"Nonetheless, Selden emphasizes that no nation can govern itself by directly appealing to such fundamental law, because “diverse nations, as diverse men, have their diverse collections and inferences" So they aren't relevant then.

This is how you begin on the path that leads to "the conservative case for drag queen story hour" : Selden thus offers us a picture of a philosophical parliamentarian or jurist. He must constantly maintain the strength and stability of the inherited national edifice as a...

...whole—but also recognize the need to make repairs and improvements where these are needed. In doing so, he seeks to gradually approach, by trial and error, the best that is possible for each nation."

And we are back to the crux of Hazony's argument, that conservatism is based on ancients rights, or accumulated crud to be taken as good and right as a whole, and not be questioned in entirety, even though they are fake. "[The] Bill of Rights. [...]reasserted the ancient rights"

"What came to be called the “Glorious Revolution” was glorious precisely because it reaffirmed the traditional English constitution and protected the English nation from renewed attacks on “their religion, rights and liberties.”

So, Hazony's intellectual scheme lays on a differentiation between a conservative, liberal, and absolutist tradition. "conservatism [....] opposed both[...] the absolutism of the Stuarts" (Hobbes/Filmer) [...] as well as [...]liberal theories of universal reason' (Grotius/Locke)

The he goes right into making the false dichotomy of rationalism versus tradition that MacIntyre derides.

And his interpretation of history is woeful: "Anyone comparing the Constitution that emerged with the earlier Articles of Confederation immediately recognizes that what took place at this convention was a reprise of the Glorious Revolution of 1689."

But then we get this gem: "the Constitution of 1787 allowed slavery, which was forbidden in England—a wretched innovation for which America would pay a price the framers could not have imagined in their wildest nightmares." But, Burke! time honored tradition!

This is enough of this. Basically Hazony is trying to build a conservative theoretical framework on 16th century misunderstanding as to the origin of law in England which itself only came about as an attempt to reject the development of sovereignty.