I believe that this was an error in rhetorical judgement. To those who assume a general expanse of common ground between the American and French Revolutions, and try, like Paine, to explain Burke's change of heart, the Reflections should come as an explanation of precisely where Burke found that common ground lacking. In trying to understand Burke's objection to the interference of the untrammeled intellect in the affairs of society, we must venture beyond the simple claim that our powers of conception are not sufficient. Certainly Burke did not believe that any abstract system of government could satisfy the various needs of a complex human society, but there is a further implication which, while not as explicitly drawn, should interest us. No human society can consist of an omniscient dictator and perfectly compliant tools.
Every society consists of many members, each with differing capacities, skills, and desires.
Unless each member can understand and accept society's expectations and his assigned role, he cannot fulfill that role and any society must be diminished by his failure. Burke's objection to the French Revolution was that it did not conserve what was worth conserving and did not improve what needed improving, at least as he saw it. The French Revolution did not take into account the limited capacity of its citizens to change themselves and in that failure, Burke discerned all the horror to come. Bibliography Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France .