24
A second reason for Oakeshott’s elusiveness is that engaging in explicitly partisan
political rhetoric, even in defense of gentility, departs from his ideal of a gentleman. As his
admirers know, Oakeshott genuinely disdains partisan wrangling. Sheldon Wolin infers from On
Human Conduct that Oakeshott fears “passionate” politics and therefore tries to neuter its
fundamental categories and banish from consideration the rancorous struggles between
competing interests. Thus Oakeshott supposedly hides his arguments’ ideological character
because he fears making himself “vulnerable” by disclosing political passions.
35
Wolin’s textual
psychoanalysis is far-fetched, but his suspicion that Oakeshott masks partisan commitments is
well founded. Consider how Oakeshott describes his father Joseph and himself in response to a
biographical inquiry from Robert Grant:
I don’t think [my father] took to the Webbs…. He didn’t have much time for
Asquith and had the greatest contempt for Lloyd George. The truth is that his
interests were always more literary than political…. He was never a ‘party’ man,
any more than I am, and the only political issue I can think of where he knew
where he stood was Votes for Women, but of course he would have nothing to do
with the Pankhursts…. [I do not think] that ‘politics’ at the level of opinion was a
very significant part of his life, and it is certainly not with me.
Joseph Oakeshott was a New Liberal who penned reformist tracts for the socialist Fabian
Society.
36
Michael Oakeshott was a Conservative who attended meetings with a group of Tory
MPs, dons and journalists.
37
His writings self-consciously articulate foundations for a new
conservative ideology. They abound with snide pot-shots at left-wing policies and movements.
Convention