At the twilight’s last
Reading the pundits, on the second Obama Inauguration — that imitation Coronation, performed out of church at fixed intervals — one might think that half of America was attracted, & half repulsed. That impression would be wrong. The pundits’ minds are supersaturate with politics. They do not understand their fellow men, whose minds are not. At most, I should think, one in ten was attracted, one in ten repulsed. These are the people who “engage” with politics. The rest looked upon the Inauguration, if they looked at all, as on a Superbowl, or a blockbuster Hollywood movie.
Emperor Obama invited the United Statists once again to “come together, right now, over me.” … He invited them to join him in advancing the great unifying causes: gay rights, climate change, the need to defend every penny of Entitlements. … “He say, I know you, you know me, one thing I can tell you is you got to be free.” … But America was discussing his wife’s new hairdo. (Thumbs down.) Some were remarking on how his daughters had grown, since his last Coronation. (True.) There were various opinions on Beyoncé’s rendition of the national anthem. (Mostly positive.) A few asked who James Taylor was. (An outpatient from the late ‘sixties.) And everybody loves a parade. (Well, almost everybody.)
“Got to be a joker, he just do what he please.”
It is amusing how representative democracy works. There is not a policy on Obama’s sleigh that enjoys widespread popular support, if polls are to be believed. Opposition to things like gay marriage, tax-funded greening, open-spigot welfare, Obamacare — & now arbitrary gun control & “immigration reform” — has been overwhelming. Even among Democrats in Congress, it is hard to buy majorities for any of those things. But Americans voted to get it all, & get it hard.
Why? Because they liked Obama better than they liked Romney. In fact, after one billion dollars of media effort (plus ten-billion-worth that was free), the Democrat machine was able to convince Americans that they didn’t like Romney at all. He murders people, & his running mate pushed his own grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair. That’s the sort of message that goes to the heart of The People. Whereas, public policy leaves them yawning. Axelrod & the boys got this: they know voters are stupid, & they proved it.
As to the pundits: many were appalled by an inauguration stump speech, which vowed to continue overthrowing every value enshrined in the U.S. Constitution; which promised to eliminate the last vestiges of Reaganism, & of Clintonism, too; which heralded perpetual expansion of centralized government under bureaucratic czars, to snuff the last embers of civil society. And many pundits were delighted by all this. But the majority were somewhere in the middle.
I disagree with those radical rightists who say America won’t be America any more. It isn’t America any more. Those who think the old Norman Rockwell can still be restored are, as the progressives say, “living in the past.” Likewise, “American exceptionalism” is not going, but gone, for the last few things that made America exceptional are passing into extinction.
Even American military might is superannuated. A correspondent in Texas observed, after consulting a little history, that FDR — out of his Yankee chauvinism, his Wilsonian idealism — did everything in his power to undermine & sabotage the British Empire. This destructive enterprise was at the heart of all his disagreements with Churchill. And Obama has carried the enterprise further, to bringing the American Empire down.
He is in that sense the American Gorbachov: after him, the deluge. The very premisses upon which U.S. power was projected to the ends of the earth, have been withdrawn; & the means to do so must necessarily follow. Should some future administration wish to re-assert “hegemony” within the old American sphere of influence — the Arab world, the Far East, the Americas, western Europe — they will find that it isn’t an option any more. They will be like Putin, trying to restore the Russian Empire. It is gone, & cannot be rebuilt on the backs of drunkards & punks & the frightened.
One of the oddest things I find, in surveying the pundits through Real Clear Politics & the like, is general agreement that American society is now characterized by decadence. This is often lamented on the Right with gnashing of teeth; on the Left it is casually admitted; but the “perception” is shared. Confirmation comes by every statistical indicator. At bottom, the birthrate is now plunging to European levels. There is even some general understanding that the Nanny State is unsustainable; that the Ponzi scheme, by which each new generation paid benefits for the last, collapses as each new generation shrinks proportionally — the quicker as the young are increasingly unemployed, & becoming basically unemployable. The only thing that varies is willingness to confront this hard reality, & its unambiguously moral causation: little on the Right, & almost none on the Left.
Yes, “fracking” & cheap domestic carbon energy may give a statistical appearance of recovery, a dead cat bounce. Such hopes are cited by the well-intentioned progressives of the Right, from an outlook as materialist as the progressives of the Left. It is the current variation on “technology will save us.” Look around you. Technology cannot save anything. (Even the digital links go dead after a few years.)
I myself loved the old “exceptionalist” America, for all its theological flaws; for all its strange trinity of “We the People,” & “In God We Trust,” & “E Pluribus Unum.” Moreover, I know how I feel about the destruction of my own Dominion of Canada. I am not being cute or insincere in expressing my heartbreak, to see that old United States of America likewise die, leaving a desiccated shell. As an old Loyalist, it was my country, too: the same language, the same fundamental attitudes shared by Loyalist & Patriot alike. The same pioneering spirit; the same self-reliance. The same egalitarianism, of an older kind: the kind that looked your neighbour in the eye; that looked your woman in the eye; that looked your children in the eyes. There was so much noble in that old America, replaced now in this “new era” with bullshit & sleaze.
But everything in this world must go, into that trash heap of history. “O dark dark dark, they all go into the dark, the vacant interstellar spaces, the vacant into the vacant.” And shining in that dark is Christ, whose Kingdom is not of this world. And nobility, too, is not of this world; is unkillable, & will take new forms. And consider: the last fond hope of the Enlightenment has now gone under the hill. That leaves us nothing to rebuild, but Christendom.
There was nothing very good about the “good old days”. Especially if you were not a white anglo saxon (preferably protestant and preferably male). Try to tell a 1950s era black man that he is benefiting from American exceptionalism. Or a 1960s era homosexual that American exceptionalism had his back. Or a 1940s American of Japanese descent that he was valued by his country.
Obama campaigned on the very same points that David rails against. And he was elected by a majority of voters. You don’t have to like it but there is no point harping on it.
If you want to criticize the Obama campaign’s attack on Romney, that is fair enough. Some of the attacks were definitely below the belt. But you can’t look at Obama’s ads and ignore Romney’s. In fact, the percentage of negative ads were almost identical for the two candidates, with Romney slightly edging out Obama.
These are all standard, highly selective, left-progressive “talking points.” I have heard each many thousand times, & as I learnt when my children were young, they are taught these talking points in our schools, by rote. Ask the kids what they know about the Catholic Church, for instance, & they will feed you back: “Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades. The trial of Galileo.”
One could go through each selective point, without hope of broadening the picture: i.e. the black man of the 1950s was likely still to have a family, & much unlikelier to have a criminal record, & in very few cases living in despair. The 1960s homosexual was not under assault, & even in the decade before, the homosexual W.H. Auden could refer drolly to the “homintern” controlling fashion in New York. The incarceration of Japanese in the 1940s was under conditions of war, &c. In every case, the most selective & vindictive garbage is dumped on the United States, while comparisons are ignored.
In the nit-picking “liberal” mind, there is no context for anything; nothing is considered “in the main.” There is no curiosity; “facts” are used in slogans, as rhetorical weapons; they are chosen for their efficacy as weapons, indifferently to any larger truth. That is why I used the term “bullshit” — not lying, necessarily, but indifference to truth. If the truth works, hurl it. If the lie works, hurl it. I’ve been dealing with such adversaries all my adult life.
The creation, by liberal media, of “statistics” to show negative Republican ads quantitatively ahead is typical of this kind of deceit. There was a profound qualitative difference between advertising negatives like “unemployment is high” & advertising “this man will push his own grandma off a cliff.” It takes years of Pavlovian training to be unable to see that.
I watched some parts of the Obama Inauguration on television with the same horror, and yet fascination, one might watch a chicken being devoured by a snake. The President kept his head up high and gazed around sternly like a Nero or Henry VIII might have done in their prime. This man appears to me to be a fanatic, but a very calm, and collected one. His sidekick, the ever goofy Biden, jaunted about in ecstasy, oblivious to all but his own narcissism. Yes, Virginia, in politics it is very true to say that the worst, if around long enough, rise to the top. (I’m sure Biden has completely forgotten what he and others of the same ilk did to Robert Bork.)
What I found notable besides Obama’s liberal/left imperialist glare were all the media idiots suggesting that the President would somehow unite the country. Religious Americans who actually take their holy books seriously; those who might question the latest fashion in alarmist popular “science”; those who can actually understand that money can’t be endlessly spent that isn’t there; will be non-entities in the New America championed by bellowing millionaire rock stars and Hollywood’s bed-hoppers and rehab-haunters. If you are not with Obama, you are a sinister bigot or a reactionary imbecile and will pay accordingly. Those who voted for Romney might consider just shutting up for the next four years or finding a new country to live in.
There was a bit of humour to be found in the whole ludicrous and hypocritical affair, however. Some commentator said that Obama had himself sworn in on a stack of bibles. One of these bibles belonged to Martin Luther King, the black civil rights leader, and the other to Abraham Lincoln, the federal power fanatic and white supremacist.
Glory, Glory, but please skip the divisive Hallelujah
I’ve seen otherwise intelligent people be given a bad conscience by the incessant liberal propaganda; I’ve also been witness to people re-writing the history of their own lives to better conform to the liberal re-writing of societal history. The monstrous deceit and venomous bad faith is staggering. One wonders how much the everyday perpetrators are even aware of the degree of deception in their remarks — have they so insulated themselves from reality that they are candidates for being invincibly ignorant?
To tack a bit on to David’s responses:
* Before Johnson’s condescending Great Society project, black families were intact, the parents married. Today the fathers are absent and in fact frequently unwanted because they stand in the way of the welfare check.
* Back then nobody thought about gays enough to make much of deal out of them. The love that dare not speak its name has since become the love that just won’t shut up.
* The Japanese did get a raw deal — at the hands of one of the most progressive and liberal presidents of the century.
A correspondent in Texas also observes that the real key to BHO’s electoral success isn’t his policy agenda. Yes, he pulls in voters with his bag of goodies, but that isn’t what gets him over the 50% mark. The important feature is that he promises transformation. He tells the electorate they will be part of something “new” and “different.” Four years ago, he promised “hope and change.” He worded it a bit differently this time:
“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”
Through government we will have “new responses.” All around them voters see technological wizardry (internet, smartphones, etc.) They yearn for government to be “modernized.” Obama has tapped into that desire. From a rhetorical & political perspective, it’s brilliant.
It doesn’t matter that he won’t succeed. All the Repubs have to offer is “Stop!”
Which is why they appeal only to the sane. Which is why they can’t win elections. God save the Queen!
First they had to raise and educate a generation addicted to bright shiny objects. It was a project decades in the making. The popular conservatives, meanwhile, betrayed the fort years ago, settling for slowing the decay to a speed that better suited their own tastes rather than to actually combating it.
The America I was born into (1952) is not the same America my father was born into (1925). The America my son was born into (1984) will no doubt be a different America from the one his son will be born into (if and when he has a son).
Which of these three Americas to “prefer”? Which had more (or less) of the pioneering spirit? Which had more (or less) egalitarianism?
I recall one of my uncles telling my father how he could no longer recognize America, that everything had “gone to hell.” That was in 1962. Oklahoma.
Today the river I used to swim and fish in as a boy is dark and foul. The open country we freely rode our horses across is either gone (replaced by tract housing, strip malls, and/or freeways and parking lots) or fenced off.
Do I miss the signs on drug store water fountains that said, “Whites Only”? How my mother never raised her voice to my father, knowing that if she did, he’d beat her the next time he got drunk? How one of my uncles chased a Cherokee man off his property at gunpoint because the man was fool enough to respond to the sign in my uncle’s yard that said “Fresh Eggs For Sale”?
I must ask: what is the average American citizen to do in this situation? Is it time to hunker down? Find another country and move? These days with all the problems around the globe I’m finding it hard to tell what the right and proper thing is that a person can do.
Actually, there is a way for the Repubs to win. Instead of simply being the voice of anti-big-government, they should become the voice of local government. Federalism.
Good article David.
Well, the Green movement is taking over. Canada’s feds have sent me a letter to advise me that my tax report must now be done online. Or else. The paper option is no longer available which means I must have a computer that comes with a firewall, antivirus software and a valid Internet connection. Therefore, I must make enough money to be able to file a tax report.
If the Canada Revenue Agency needs paper, I can slice a couple of branches off a tree in my back yard.
Thus is how the masses will surrender to the Beast because he will make them believe it is for their own good.
Romney was short of a few votes. Darn. I would’ve voted Republican twice.
Empires rise and fall. If America is bought up by China and no longer plays the role of World Police, who will step up to the plate?
“Yes you can.” That was 2008. Now, it’s: “Sorry Pal.”
A little over five centuries ago there was a great Aztec general called Tlatelolco who worshipped the demon Huitzilopochtli. Good ol’ Tlateloco managed to form a mighty alliance of three kingdoms into a formidable empire. He celebrated that achievement by sacrificing thousands of captured poor and downtrodden to his demon-god. The situation in Tenochtitlan at the time was more or less as dire as it is today in Mexico (same place). But after a few years of fun, one Good Friday came Hernan Cortés and shattered the aforesaid bloody empire. In 1531 Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to one man who had been a witness to the great massacre when he was only a 13 year old kid. To make a long story short, that apparition resulted in 9 million Mexican converts. Almost at the same time Pizarro was landing in Peru; you know the story.
The moral of this tale is: whenever you see the wicked growing like grass, watch out because they are about to be cut off. The Founding Fathers knew this moment was inevitable and so they borrowed Aeneas’ prayer the Annuit Coeptis: may God favor my daring enterprise. They did two things: they kept the real name of the country secret (America is merely the name of the continent, and United States is not a name really, Brazil and Mexico are also United States) and they adopted the motto, “In God We Trust.” That secret country was trusted to the merciful God and to His omnipotent power.
Love justice, you rulers of the world. Set your minds sincerely on the Lord, and look for him with all honesty. Those who do not try to test him will find him; he will show himself to those who trust him. Dishonest thoughts separate people from God, and if we are foolish enough to test him, his power will put us to shame. Wisdom will never be at home with anyone who is deceitful or a slave of sin. Everyone who is holy has learned to stay away from deceitful people. He will not stay around when foolish thoughts are being expressed; he will not feel comfortable when injustice is done. (Wisdom 1)
The Founding Fathers were men of that kind. They knew the Fool was coming and they knew they could not stop him. But they also knew that God can be trusted and they put their hopes in Him:
My children behold the generations of men: and know ye that no one hath hoped in the Lord, and hath been confounded. For who hath continued in His commandment, and hath been forsaken? or who hath called upon Him, and He despised him? Ben Sira 2:10-11
The Founding Fathers knew that “In God We Trust” was money in the bank (no pun intended) and we shall be the ones who will see their wisdom revealed. Have faith, the morning sun is about to rise. And watch out for that Good Friday. …
All I read hear is defeatism. The glass is always half empty. The world is spiralling down. All because of the loss of Christian values. As David said, “bullshit”. For as long as there have been written records, people complained that things were better when they were younger. I simply refuse to buy into that crap. Life is far too short to whine and complain.
David can counter every remark by accusing the person of being a “liberal” or a “progressive,” as if these are negatives. But in doing so he fails to present a cogent argument.
Yes, things today are different than they were thirty years ago. Some things are better and some things are worse. But even these are subjective.
It amuses me that the same people who complain that the current level of government spending is not sustainable (which I agree with) take the opposite stand when it comes to greenhouse gases or birth rates. Somehow they feel that CO2 does not impact climate and that we can continue to increase population indefinitely.
But what do I know? I am just a liberal, progressive atheist.
I was fool enough to think that, maybe, the common sense of the American people might surprise me once more, but it took me only two days to make my peace with what happened.
Nothing left now but to try to be a saint and be ready to be martyred.
It escapes the liberals that Christians are the most persecuted segment of humanity. All they can think about is, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” It remains to be seen how the new rules go down in a country that’s 75% Christian.
I’ll be surprised if Obama and his ilk don’t get the civil war they’ve been asking for. Not that I’m advocating it, mind you. It’s just there’s been a whiff of psychosis across the land since the Obamanation came to town. Only an intellectual could be so stupid as to overlook what’s happening.
I’m with David. I’ll miss the old girl. The world will suffer and many, many people will die – already are dying – now that she’s not out there advocating for freedom any more.
What gets modeled matters. Now we model weakness and fraud. Everyone knows it. So they will all be weak in their own way, giving in to base impulses, imitating the Narcissist in Chief. And at his command, most importantly, the family must go because, as Chesterton said, without it we are helpless against the state.
As always, the indifference to truth that animates the liberals will give way to the more overt nihilists like the ones we saw last century. Then, sooner or later, only the Church will be standing.
Catino, the founding fathers never used the phrase “in god we trust” this was adopted as the motto in 1956. It first appeared on money in 1864, almost one hundred years after independence.
Acartia, Wikipedia takes the phrase back only to the War of 1812, when it is quoted in a song (the 4th stanza of “The Star Spangled Banner”); but my understanding, from an “Am Trad” class I attended as an exchange high school student in Berea, Ohio, a long time ago, is that it goes back indeed to the Founding Fathers. I think sometimes you liberal, progressive Atheists confuse the date on a piece of legislation with the date something was created. It may be one reason why you are always wrong.
I think all nations should adopt for budgetary purposes the phrase, “In God we trust,” with the addition of the phrase, “All others cash please.”
Acartia, I am aware of those details. It is easier sometimes to refer to a familiar image to state something more complex. Rhapsodies are not history but sometimes they tell the story much more accurately. But there is more early trusting in God:
“[We] armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” (P. Henry, 1775)
Further reading of the correspondence of the Founding Fathers, even of those who were less religious than the average, will confirm that they were very aware that they were sending a nation into the mysterious future. They were also aware of their limitations and were humble and faithful enough to trust the ship to Someone who would be there when they were gone. Ever wondered why the country does not have a real name, like England, or Uruguay? The secret name has never been uttered for a reason. It may very well be lost but it is still protecting us. Only God knows it now.
Soon enough the destiny of the US will be revealed. The US will be purified but not completely abandoned.
They that fear the Lord, will not be incredulous to His word: and they that love him, will keep His way. They that fear the Lord, will seek after the things that are well pleasing to Him: and they that love Him, shall be filled with His law. They that fear the Lord, will prepare their hearts, and in His sight will sanctify their souls. They that fear the Lord, keep His Commandments, and will have patience even until His visitation, Saying: If we do not penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men. For according to His greatness, so also is His mercy with Him. Ben Sira 2:18-22
Acartia wrote, “But what do I know? I am just a liberal, progressive atheist.”
That was pretty much my thought about your remarks too.
“The world is spiralling down. All because of the loss of Christian values.”
The loss of Christian values has resulted in easy divorce, numerous broken homes, staggering levels of illegitimacy, numerous single-parent families, an epidemic of alcoholism and drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, abortions by the millions, and increasing instances of atheism. Wars and rumors of wars we have had aplenty, and always will; the disintegration of the moral structure of society, meanwhile – that is indeed a worse phenomenon than what previous generations saw. Brave new world indeed.
David. Is this the same “Star Spangled Banner” that took 116 years to become the national anthem? That certainly sounds like a ringing endorsement for that phrase.
At age 66, loving my country, I find this commentary painful and apt. Hopefully, Truth, Justice and The American Way will have another round, another chance. I think that may be. But a reading of John Glubb’s “The Fate of Empires” suggests that America is just another “empire” at the end of the average 250 year lifespan of empires.
At least there is the goal of resurrecting Christendom to inspire.
So which party is to “blame” finally for the degradation of America? Neither, or both.
During the election I was reminded of the tag line to the sci-fi movie, Alien vs Predator. “Whoever Wins, We Lose.”
Maineman speaks of Obama as Narcissist in Chief, while Romney in his ignorance and vanity didn’t even prepare a concession speech.
Obama offers only more rhetoric at his second inaugural. He tells us a decade of war is now ending — while new wars are in the works. After all, war is the only business the U.S. has left.
I think often these days of my father, a combat veteran and old fashioned conservative, who hated war, the waste of it, the sometime terrible necessity of it, and the unforgiveable lies that can also lie behind it.
And Herodotus. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons.
Plus ça change. …
Liberal progressive atheists live in a hall of fun house mirrors. Not only can they not see beyond their own reflection, everything is humorously (frightfully actually) distorted. Is this a mere assertion? No, the data are in. The intellectual gymnastics required to believe that there is such a thing as progress in a dead world prepared from the foundation of the earth by Chance are so twisted that only the distortions of the fun house mirrors make it seem reasonable and only because all reflections are of self. But fun houses are made by man and man sleeps. The difficulty for LPAs arises when the fun house closes for the night. They never see it coming. There are no clocks in the fun house.
MKD, the crisis is profound but we will survive because these are no ordinary times and the US is no ordinary empire. Take a step back and observe History from something other than the usual point of view. The destruction of Christendom began in earnest with the German Reformation. Think about it. Luther dismissed the paternity of the Pope and got the ball rolling. That rebellion was a rebellion against the paternity of God that the Pope represented. Then came the rebellion against nobility (another form of paternity) and other rebellions followed. In essence all of those rebellions have one objective: to get rid of God’s paternity.
I always illustrate this with a TV parable: from Robert Young’s Father Knows Best we “evolved” into Mike Brady: the somewhat effeminate father of the Brady Bunch living in a house ruled by two women with masculine hairdos. From there we moved to Homer Simpson, the hapless ne’er do well father of The Simpsons. With them finally the American family is upside down.
We are at the end of those five centuries of “reorganization” of the world. Now, the American Revolution stands in the stream of History as an anomaly because it has all the traits of a Christian revolution: God, social order, private property, law, and most importantly fathers and is made subordinate by its Founders to a Father. Chesterton wrote that only a living thing can swim against the tide. In my view the American Revolution is a living grace from God that preserved Mankind from early self-destruction. Now there are many in the US that do not condone the culture of death that is killing the country. I doubt that the Judge of the Earth is going to destroy the just along with the unjust. Since dying is in the nature of the culture of death, it will die. The God in Whom we trust will see that the just are left standing.
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.” Matthew 5:5
“All I read hear is defeatism. The glass is always half empty. The world is spiralling down. All because of the loss of Christian values.”
Well, the coffee is better than it used to be.
“Is this the same ‘Star Spangled Banner’ that took 116 years to become the national anthem? That certainly sounds like a ringing endorsement for that phrase.”
Not sure I see where the argument is in this, but it does set up a nice “Did you know?” entry.
Did you know that “God Save the Queen” is not the official national anthem of the United Kingdom? They don’t actually have one; the tune & the words emerged from the music halls in the 18th century, adapted from some ancient plainchant. People started singing it, & spontaneously rising when it was sung. The song made itself into the national anthem, without legislation.
The same could have been said for “O Canada,” a rich Catholic hymn, in French, freely adapted into Protestant English: it made itself into our national anthem. Except, very late in the day, the Trudeau Government (cross yourself!) “officialized” it by Act of Parliament, for the express purpose of tampering with the lyrics & imposing the new ones by law.
Same story, basically, for the “Star Spangled Banner” & most other national anthems. The LPADs (that’s short for Liberal Progressive Atheist Darwinoids) are characteristically blind to such “acts” of civil society, in which public institutions arise spontaneously from the people, instead of from a bureaucratic department of state. They do not recognize the validity of anything unless it can be read on the toe of the jackboot of Power.
(See my next Essay in Idleness, which makes a related point.)
Someone else notices Obama’s rhetorical trick:
“He knows that his base loves him precisely for the sake of these special ‘moments’, when he turns on the rhetorical charm and makes them feel as if they are part of a special, unique, unrepeatable history-making experience — again and again and again. And the rest of us will have to hear about it, again and again and again.”
(I would provide a link, but that has been outlawed by the Doghouse Monarch. I’m quoting Robert Tracinski at RCP. Good piece. I hope you can find it.)
So the UK has no anthem and no constitution? No Bill of Rights? No Charter of R’s and F’s? However does she manage to survive?
Well, there has to be payback sometime, and what is happening to America now is not the beginning of that payback, but the rapid acceleration of it.
The American Revolution was the product of freemason squires who made it quite clear that God was to be subordinate to man (i.e. Christ the King in the Catholic sense was definitely out.) That same revolution was the initial run for the ferociously atheistic and very violent French Revolution that shortly followed. (The French Revolution actually began the same year that the United States Constitution was ratified.)
Never before in history had man as a collectivity, not as an individual person as per emperors and the like, been worshipped directly. The human race was suddenly transformed from what Catholics would call the laity, into the very person of the deity. Man through his own efforts and without divine assistance would reshape human history and bring the much yearned for utopia to all of his kind. Equality, fraternity and liberty would bring heaven on earth. (Similarly, with Vatican II, the focus turned from Jesus Christ to the “people of God.”)
Most often in the history of an individual man we see the consequences of sin (godlessness) occur very rapidly. In the history of nations, however, we often see the consequences of that sinfulness play out over a much longer period of time. This is likely because God wishes mankind to see what sin in all its forms, especially idolatry, leads to. The monstrously evil Third Reich fell within approximately a decade, while the United States, with its good mixed with evil, has taken centuries.
“God bless America” should be rephrased as “God have mercy on America.”
As a poet yourself, Lord Dochart, you should realize that “God have mercy on America” will not scan. Let us propose instead, “God save America.”
As to whether there will always be an England, or even still is one, Mattmuggs, we note that she entered her corkscrew descent simultaneously with acquiring the habit of writing everything down. More & more of British is not only codified but, having been codified becomes subject to amendment by the Commissioners in the black heart of Europe. The question that intrigues me is, “How did America survive so long with a written Constitution?” Truly, God has been patient with them.
(An aside here of praise for a local council in County Kerry, Ireland, which in the face of the Euro-Demo-Bureacracy, is trying to restore the rights of rural drunk drivers. They have correctly deduced that regulations against drunks, smokers, singers, shooters, & other formerly happy & well-adjusted persons, have not only hurt the pub trade, but contributed to social despair, female sterility, atheism, tax fraud, the decline of ornithology, & suicide. I’d give the link, but the Doghouse Monarch does not permit such things.)
Time will tell. The U.S. will survive in spite of free masons, sinners, and gliberals. I hope I can be there to tell you “I told you so.” There are plenty of supernatural signs pointing at that.
As for God Save The Queen, the song is also a prayer. My favorite part is:
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!
Would that this article and the accompanying comments could go viral.
Well sung, Catino. … “O Canada” is (was) also worded as a prayer; & in French, the most unambiguously Cath-o-lick prayer you could hope for. (We were, after all, founded as a Catholic country, & remained so until swamped by all those Protties fleeing that American Revolution; my reprobate ancestors, for instance.)
It is one reason why, were I a Yanqui, I would sing “God Bless America” as my national anthem. Because it is a prayer. “The Star Spangled Banner” is not. It is also implicitly anti-British &, you know, a bit “Robespierre.” Whereas, my heart actually leaps when Kate Smith sings:
“God Bless America! Land that I love! Stand beside her, & guide her, through the Night with a Light from Above!”
Now that is a real national anthem, for a Christian country. And written by a Jew, to make it better still.
Otiosus, “God save America” makes no sense to me. That would presume that God should somehow preserve in all perpetuity the godless, freemason political entity that is the United States of America. “God have mercy on America” is a prayer that God will have mercy on the people of America who are largely unaware of the atheistic (or at best vaguely deist) origins of their great nation.
Surely the reason that American presidents in their speeches call on “God” is because they can hardly call on the “deified collectivity that is ourselves.” The voters would not understand what that meant, or would find it blasphemous if they happened to be religious.
Reagan too was a master of rhetorical charm. Former B-movie star, shill for big tobacco and laundry soap. Many past presidents had rhetorical gifts.
Hapless Romney seemed to have a gift for gaffes and a seemingly pathological absence of political saavy. Then came the Boca Raton video which wouldn’t go away. Even efforts by Republican talking heads to clarify his remarks only made things worse. (Mary Matalin: “There are makers and takers, there are producers and there are parasites.” Ironic remark in its own way, since Romney himself was primarily a speculator not a maker. Interestingly, speculation was a crime in the 17th century. Speculators were hanged.) Perhaps it’s worth recalling that the last time a large segment of the population was vilified as parasites: “Der Juda als Weltparasit.”
The U.S. will continue to act recklessly, no matter which party sits in the White House. Obama will continue to support the development of cold-blooded robotic warfare. Nothing will change in spite of his peace rhetoric. Nothing would change had Romney been elected. Billionaires may have felt more at ease, but little else. The meek would have been no closer to possessing the land.
Over the past few years I’ve encountered Christians who, unlike Catino, feel the American Revolution was a tragedy. That breaking away from the British throne was a grave mistake.
I tend to be skeptical when a nation/empire promotes the sense that God has a “special interest” in their military ventures, whether it’s “Got mit uns” or “Deus Lo Volt.” I cannot conceive of a stone-faced Christ rising from the tomb to strains of military-style music and bearing a clinched fist as in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”
The proposed “God save America” has something of a British-sounding pedigree. But we already have “God bless America” and “God bless the USA.”
CTC’s remarks about Obama’s use of manufactured special “moments” is spot on. It’s a contemporary marketing approach applied to politics — one that has proven successful with a population that is especially susceptible to suggestion.
The world is a nasty place, MKD. We have real enemies who refuse to play nice. Sometimes a little force is required, as Holy Church has recognized from the beginning, & Christ showed in overturning the moneychangers’ tables. I’m with Obama when it comes to rubbing out Islamist terrorists; though I preferred the more mano-a-mano approach of Bush.
To make an implicit comparison between such activities, & Hitler’s ministrations, is, you know, not nice. It could also be characterized as insane.
Notwithstanding, we should be careful, & even thoughtful, when choosing our wars, & generally in the use of lethal weapons. Which is not to say that most wars are chosen.
See also, the Bhagavad Gita. Paperback translation though it was, it was the book that first convinced me that “pacifism” is, invariably, false sentimentality & a moral fraud. And as a fine Catholic Deacon of my acquaintance likes to say, “There is no such thing as an innocent bystander.”
God writes in the palimpsest of History in any way he pleases. We are all His creatures, even those born in the U.S. Even in the Bible He warns the ever wandering Israelites: “Shall I call my servant the King of Assyria?”
Leaving God out of military considerations equates to abandoning them to the atheists. Given the choice, I’ll take my chances with invocations of the Deity.
During the course of the movie “Lincoln,” which I saw last night, Abe tells a story I much enjoyed.
After the Revolution to rid us of Monarchy, Ethan Allen went to England. There, he went into a water closet of his host and found a portrait of George Washington mounted on the wall opposite from where he sat. When he returned:
“Did you see George Washington in there?” he was asked.
“Oh yes,” said Allen. “Perfectly appropriate place for him.”
“What do you mean?” his host asked.
“Well,” he said, “there is nothing to make an Englishman shit faster than the sight of General George Washington.”
We have many concocted stories from our own side of that, & the 1812 conflict, but I will not tell them for they’re in very poor taste.
Pacifism is indeed a fraud as noted above. If Christ had come with a message of pacifism he would have told the Centurion that spoke to him to “sin no more.” Centurions, of course, were not accountants.
Predator drones seem fine to me if they are well aimed and don’t do an unacceptable amount of collateral damage. What the civilized nations should make certain they possess, however, is proper defenses against predator drones. An operator of a predator drone in New Mexico, could one day be an operator in Tehran.
Well said, David. The Gita had a similar effect on me as well. Like you, I first read it in a paperback translation. I was 17, and U.S. troops were in Vietnam. At the same time, I was reading essays by Thomas Merton. Both were having a profound effect on me, and generated many discussions/arguments among my more literate and thoughtful friends.
Agreeing (for the most part) that the world is a nasty place, I have no problem in comparing the mindset of Hitler’s Germany to any other place, or any other people. All are capable of atrocities whether Japanese, Chinese, American, or Russian. Examples abound. In this sense, Hitler’s Germany was not exceptional. But I well understand your reaction.
Back to the Gita: it never presents simplistic oppositions such as war vs pacifism, violence vs non-violence. The Mahabharata battle is not a war for dominance or conquest. It is a war to uphold Dharma for the sake of universal good. Because of this, I see a difference between the Western and ancient Hindu approach. In the Gita, the use of force is only to protect Dharma. Not always by any means, but recently (to an unfortunate degree), ours have been wars of dominance — whether for political and/or economic dominance, or to gain control of natural resources. The Gita certainly does not advocate war, but the selfless and active defense of Dharma.
Of course, in modern, materialistic, nihilistic America, there is no consistent sense of what Dharma is or isn’t. I count as an exception of course, you, and those within the Church. Among persons whom I’ve met in life who profess to be Christians, only those within the Catholic Church have a truly universal spirit and are willing to generously embrace the variety of human expressions of faith in the Divine.
Ethan Allen: speculator.
Is the CTC Ross Perot? This suddenly occurred to me. How cool would that be.
Americans can be proud (by any historical comparison) of the extraordinary freedom from the sort of low motives that MKD listed, in any of the wars in which they have engaged through recent history. Facing in every case real, monstrous enemies, the Americans made huge sacrifices in both blood & money, without even trying to reap profits or territory.
The Iraq War is a very good example. Foolish or not, the Americans actually tried to establish a free, democratic, constitutional government there. They did not appropriate any Iraqi resources, & in fact stood by when the Iraqi government they’d installed skewed bidding processes to eliminate American oil companies from participating (except one quite minor case) in any of the lucrative oil projects that followed the fall of Saddam.
Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is in the interest of every trading nation: the Americans being far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than European countries which refuse to carry their share of the defence burden. And yet the asinine Left calls this “American Imperialism,” & smug European (& Canadian) “intellectuals” drop acid condescension upon Americans risking their lives to protect not only their freedom, but their bourgeois lifestyles.
I was appalled by the way the USA was fighting the war in Vietnam — a vast unnecessary bureaucratic machinery, whose encumbrances were placed on brave front line fighting forces both American & Vietnamese, that were restrained from invading North Vietnam directly, & putting an end to it. Bombing campaigns that actually hardened resistance in the North. (Long argument there.) But I was also tremendously impressed by the American refusal to take any economic advantage — in Vietnam or elsewhere through South-east Asia — from a position (then) of irresistible strength. (Japanese capitalists were cleaning up, for example; while the Yankees were saving the Japanese taxpayer most of the cost even of defending Japan.)
There & everywhere else the Americans landed, through the 20th century, their military commitment was followed by huge aid efforts, both public & private. The Americans paid out & paid out in return for practically nothing. And in every case, they vexed themselves with moral considerations that would hardly have detained their allies, let alone their enemies.
For it is not just their government. It is their people. They can be brash & boorish, but at first hand I have witnessed the most extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice & generosity from these “American Imperialists,” towards people who could do nothing for them in return. And in Vietnam & elsewhere, I have seen their military endure ghastly casualties rather than “level the place,” the way almost any European power, similarly equipped, would have done in the circumstances.
Yes, there was My Lai, & Abu Ghraib, & other war crimes committed by American soldiers. There have been such incidents on every side of every war. Even in such cases, the vigour & rigour of the Pentagon response was impressive. These were in almost every case atrocities journalists only found out about, from official American military investigators.
O Lord could I go on.
Mattmugg: I have conducted tests on him to determine that my Chief Texas Correspondent is not in fact Ross Perot. He passed most of those tests.
To others who have inquired: There is no truth to the rumour that I have invented the character of Acartia to use as a straw man in advancing my own rightwing arguments.
Some Americans profited hugely from the invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, much of what you say about Americans abroad is valid and true.
Thanks for the cover, DW.
Where shall we go in the corporate jet this weekend? It will be nippy in Florida and cold in Santa Fe. How about Bermuda or the Bahamas? (I’m not going back to Cuba, and I know you’ve had your fill of Dallas.)
“There is no truth to the rumour that I have invented the character of Acartia to use as a straw man in advancing my own rightwing arguments.”
I can attest to that. But I do enjoy the fact that when I, an admitted liberal, progressive atheist, claim that the U.S. founding fathers were not particularly God fearing men, David jumps all over me. But when others, whose politics and religion are more agreeable to our scribe, make the same claim, he remains rather silent.
Oh well, it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Acartia, the founders of the United States were god-fearing men in the sense of being deists or atheists who make gods of themselves. Just because someone claims to be a believer in the Christian God, does not mean that that God would really be in fact Christ. George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin etc. were all firm supporters of the French Revolution, so they could hardly be viewed as Christian. Like all politicians, the American founding fathers would never have been so stupid as to tell the voters exactly what they believed.
I think it is very mean to suggest that the Chief Texas Correspondent is Ross Perot. Anyone who appears to lean to the right who would run against a Republican candidate for president, would be a Democrat in my view.
Perhaps somebody should notice that the U.S. Founding Fathers were not quite a closed camp. Some were more religious than others, they had various Protestant affiliations, & there is quite a variety of temperaments beyond this. George III, a fairly astute observer of character in men, when he wasn’t hallucinating, had a high regard for that imperious Anglican, George Washington, for instance. While I’ll admit a prejudice against slaveholders, & a strong preference for the opposing Guy Carleton, I will grant Washington certain virtues, & have noticed that, for the most part, I share his assessment of his fellow revolutionists.
I have a high regard for the conventionally Presbyterian Alexander Hamilton, for instance; can bear John Adams’s squeakiness, to a point; & have always rather liked the atheist, John Jay. Like Washington, I have no idea who invited the old geezer Benjamin Franklin to the party, or what he is doing there, given the pleasure he takes in giving electrical shocks to turkeys, & other indications that he is not quite well in the head. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney seems stable enough, though watch out for his cousin. Too, I share Washington’s ever lower opinion of the incendiary Thomas Jefferson; & ever growing suspicion of the pointy-headed intellectual, James Madison, whose shortness of physical stature becomes more & more irritating over time. Patrick Henry is another yahoo, but seems to settle with age & a remunerative marriage. Aaron Burr is beneath contempt, & so on. …
They really should have made Washington their king, under the circumstances. He played the role well enough, spoke in platitudes, & was judiciously aloof, seldom intervening when unneeded, & generally treating his politicians as privy councillors. Of course, the kingship would have given him less power than the presidency. He had no children, but he has around 8,000 descendants today through his brothers, & I gather there’s an elderly gentleman in Texas, named Paul Washington, who would be king now through the usual workings of primogeniture, & that he likes to carry swords about & dress up in three-pointed hats. I’d take anyone like that over Obama if I were a Yanqui.
On wars: there’s an interesting post (with comments) at Daniel Larison’s blog (via The American Conservative) entitled, “Defining ‘War of Necessity’ Down.”
The question as to whether or not the U.S. founding fathers were “particularly God fearing” is not very difficult, it can be easily answered by reading their own writings. What I find more interesting is the notion (somewhat widespread today) that they were God inspired. And the implications of that belief.
Ross Perot was a Democrat, at least in the sense that he did more than any other man alive to throw the White House to the Dems in 1992. And, I’m sorry to say, I supported him. One of the ten worst mistakes I ever made. (I won’t discuss the others, so don’t ask.)
Just a little clarification note here. One may be fully aware of the fact that the founders of the United States were supporters of the satanic French Revolution, but nevertheless, support many of their successors. After all, it was Franklin Roosevelt (certainly not a devout Catholic) who was in charge of the great American war machine that did so much to defeat the Third Reich.
Glancing through this thread at two in the morning: what an extraordinary little townhall or extended family of ingenious nutters. Somehow even Acartia belongs.
As nutter-in-chief, Lord Mayor of Banterville, I wanted to thank participants generally for keeping the tone a little above the “raw ignorance, enlivened by coarse invective” to be found in most Internet discussions.
I have to second our gracious and learned host’s sentiments. A rare opportunity for this bear of little brain to learn some important history, revisionist and otherwise.
While I’m at it, a wee bit of self-defense: Any attempt to equate the narcissism of one who says, just to pick one of several thousand examples, that he is going to cause the sea level to drop with that of a man who doesn’t bother to write a concession speech until he needs to concede is pretty daffy.
If we could just get rid of Monarchy in this sandbox, … you know, … vote on the rules and such. …
This is a Royal Sandbox, my good Texas man. Refugees come here to escape the tyranny of voting.
Ah, David: flattery will get you everything.
Being viewed as a “nutter” today is something to be proud of and strived for. Many times in comment emporiums attached to the secular media I have been called “a right wing religious fanatic,” “a crackpot out on the margins,” “an ignorant reactionary fruitcake,” or something more creative. In such forums where liberals, socialists, democrats, secularized Protestants, “progressive” Catholics, perverts, Church of Darwin disciples, druids etc. abound, the worst thing to be called is civil, sensible, open and tolerant. (Such words flood my being with loathing.)
When the devil and his minions are free with the compliments, damnation is most assured.
They trade the tyranny of voting for the tyranny of the monarch (or some other despot), you’re saying? This would mean tyranny is inescapable and freedom is an illusion.
My CTC learns something every day.
I think Viscount Dochart might get more attention than some of us. My experience with the leftists is that they ostracize and ignore those they differ with — i.e. they avoid as much direct contact as possible. The appearance of a direct interaction is risked only when they dictate the very unequal terms of engagement; even then one must count on liberal doses of obfuscation.
In my experience, liberals make use of artifice and cheap rhetorical devices such as these:
Who needs to have well-constructed reasons when we can take a shortcut to having the appearance of possessing the intellectual high ground by just sneering?
What purpose is there in defining terms when ambiguity provides the cover needed to accomplish the objectives that our fellow travelers already know well enough?
When would we ever rely on words (which require thought) when we do so well with images, symbols, and signs (which appeal directly to emotions that we know how to readily manipulate)?
Where have our demagogues and their hordes ever failed to route the isolated man of good will?
Why trouble with explanations when it is simpler to undermine someone’s platform by assaulting their integrity, intellectual tradition, and/or ancestry?
The modernists know their tactics. They profoundly misunderstand reality, human nature, religion, philosophy, history, literature, economics, and a host of other disciplines and areas of interest. But they know their tactics very well.
No free will?
Plenty. But you were asking for an escape from human tyranny. Not in this world.
Democracy could have a limited place when the people who do the voting are not in the majority depraved, stupid, ignorant and prone to falling into line behind fashionable demagogues. Since that ideal majority does not exist, we would be better under a benevolent but firm dictator like say, a Francisco Franco or a St. Louis of France. (Please note that the two men mentioned were both devout Catholics, one a military general, and the other a monarch.)
It is impossible for men to be good without God (except in brief spurts when godless men adhere strictly to Natural Law or attempt for some reason or other to ape the ethical and moral example of true followers of Christ.)
Overall though, men will always be condemned to be ruled by egomaniacal scum, so freedom will always be indeed, an illusion.
If we have free will, it follows we have the power to select our leadership, just as we have the power to make other consequential decisions. Monarchy and other forms of despotism deny this power. These forms posit that the inhabitants of their realms will not be authorized to exercise their free will.
Monarchy in your sandbox “works” because we have voluntarily submitted to your despotism, and we can easily end that submission. This isn’t a practical solution when the Monarch rules a nation.
Free will belongs to the person, not to the collective, my dear CTC. By wantonly confusing these in your liberal-progressive way, you leap to the usual democratic conclusion. Think harder & you should be able to realize why democracy has, in 100% of cases, led to the creation of Nanny States, having done so in old monarchies in 0% of cases. It is a statistical argument I know, but I believe the difference is statistically significant; & as I say, it can be explained. Indeed, I have already gone to some trouble to explain it on this very website, passim.
I haven’t asserted free will belongs to the collective. You propose a superior free will should belong to the Monarch. Everyone else is to exercise their free will only at the Monarch’s discretion (as is the case in your sandbox).
So, I ask you: If free will does not belong to the collective, why should a Monarch possess a superior free will over the collective?
Sean makes some good points above about the tactics of the liberal/left herd when they are arguing with those they do not agree with.
I’ve found from long experience that the typical liberal/left columnist/ journalist generally stays aloof from the fray after putting out some misinformation and propaganda, leaving it for various toady jackals or just ordinary uninformed people to attack any conservative or religious dissenters who may dare to express a contrary opinion. If one cares to engage in letters to the editor or online comment slugfests, it is always good to remember that it is not the left/liberals who one wants to reach or influence, but those who may be reading the “debates” from the sidelines. When Pius XII is portrayed as a Nazi sympathizer for example, and one corrects such an outrageous slander, it won’t be the liberal/left bigots who will listen, but someone who just happens to be scrolling along looking for something to read. If one corrects or challenges the liberal/left establishment on a regular basis, then the effect on the general population can be positive. It takes a very thick skin, however, and a dedication that is difficult to maintain over a long period of time.
As per monarchies above, when a king screws up the subjects under him don’t feel responsible in the same way that those in a democracy might do when a president screws up. Because people have voted for the president and the party that has done the wrong thing, subconscious excuses come into play. What the usual reaction is, especially if the president has really made a serious error, is that he has been undermined by the opposition or misrepresented by the media. Also, one must not forget the malignancy of political parties coming into play where people only vote Democrat because their families always have, or because at a young age they fell deeply in love with themselves, voted Democrat, and never recovered from such an evil experience.
CTC is assuming that his peculiarly modern ideal of “equality” has any meaning to me. I’ve seen what comes of it, & want nothing to do with it. Some people are born with more & some with less, & so what, you’ll live. He is further assuming that a king has anything like the power a politician has, with a battering ram of 65,899,660 voters behind him.
He is perhaps thinking of the concept of absolute monarchy that emerged decidedly after the Reformation, as one of the monstrosities of modernity, & from which absolute democracy subsequently arose — a remedy which turned out worse than the disease.
But my notions of kingship are entirely Mediaeval. The king’s power is strictly limited by his station, just as every other person’s power is limited by his station. It is a notion of specific “rights” corresponding to specific “duties” that applies to each person throughout the hierarchy. It is not the abstraction of “human rights” with which we now live — by which all men are taken as interchangeable atoms. This is a whole different concept from the one CTC is working with. It is not just his concept of everything else, but with my king shoved in the top.
And as I’ve said before, & often: the king is born to his station, trained to its duties as well as its rights. He did not need ambition to get him there — unless he was a usurper with some mob to propel him forward. He did not have to sucker the mob into voting for him; he does not have the mob behind him, nor the mob to beg. He has a royal court which, through the ages, has not been the bureaucracy of a Nanny State, but rather the principal patron, after the Church, of high civilization: the sciences & the arts.
Note further: hierarchical systems rising to kingship emerge everywhere, from the natural dynamics of human society. Democratic & egalitarian systems require to be imposed by force, & sustained by propaganda. This is because they are not natural. One of my innumerable reasons for resenting the tyranny of democracy is that, as an adult, I’m sick of being hectored like a child about the benefits of democracy, progress, human rights, “liberty,” public healthcare, &c. It is all lies & I do not like being told to salute them.
Read Shakespeare’s Henry V, for an introduction to the idea of kingship. On the eve of Agincourt, when the king is wandering through his troops in disguise:
Henry V: “Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the king’s company, his cause being just & his quarrel honourable.”
Williams: “That’s more than we know.”
Bates: “Aye, or more than we should seek after, for we know enough if we know we are the king’s subjects.” …
Williams: “But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make when all those legs & arms & heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day & cry all, ‘We died at such a place’.”
Brood on it. The king is morally responsible for himself, in his own person, before God. He does not speak for anyone else, in an abstract way. He has no such excuses. He speaks for himself; & we speak for ourselves, for we are kings in our own domains. Democracy loosened the screws on the moral order; & now it is all but blown away.
Well, King David of the Sandbox, what I’m getting at is the lack of moral justification for Monarchy. And, I don’t see that you are treating that. Specifically, you are not addressing my point about free will. I’ll repeat it: If man has free will, but the collective doesn’t, why should one man’s free will dominate that of all others?
Are you, thinking pragmatically in the fashion of Obama, simply saying we should have it because it works?
If so, why did your preferred form of Monarchy not survive?
You reply so quickly to what King David Tas-de-Sablon instructed you to brood upon, my CTC, that I cannot believe you have taken it in. Especially when I have already answered your last question: monarchy was overthrown by force, by blood running in the gutters, by the seizure of power by ideologues. The head of the King of France was severed from his body & dropped in a basket. George III could have ended the same way, but had the Atlantic Ocean for a moat. Are you arguing that might makes right?
And you want a moral justification for a moral order. I’m sorry, but I’ll need more whisky for that.
P.S. free will is not some kind of “right,” as you continue to imply. It is an endowment. You have free will whether you like it or not. As I said, clearly I think, it is an endowment of the human person. The mob does not have free will, only its individual members. Please work on this.
It could not defend itself. Its weakness was exploited. It didn’t work (after all).
Still no moral justification has been offered for will being vested in one person (as opposed to residing in all individuals). And, now we see such an arrangement is inherently weak and cannot be justified pragmatically.
You should try pleading that in court.
“The victim, your honour, could not defend herself. She was weak, your honour, & therefore had no right to live.”
How does my CTC justify having been born in Texas? Assuming, of course, that he considers that a blessing. I myself cannot justify my having been born with red hair. On the other hand, I never tried to justify it. And Barack Obama being black, just when it finally counted. How can he justify that?
Now, we’re getting somewhere. The victim you mention – the one so stupidly defended – has, of course, the right to live. We all have the right to live.
But we do not have the right to rule anyone other than ourselves (and our children). Surely we can agree on that.
From what source does your Monarch derive the moral justification to rule? To assert his will against the free will possessed by all individuals? To contravene the inherent right of every individual to exercise free will?
(Birth in Texas is a privilege, not a right.)
I post the following as a mental exercise; I am not a monarchist. I suppose if I were born under a monarch I wouldn’t mind it terribly; it’s just not what I’m accustomed to.
Recently I attempted to vote a fellow into the office of president, but the fellow I voted for did not receive sufficient votes to win. I’m told by the winner that I should keep my views to myself and submit to the will of the majority.
It seems that the chief difference between the outcome of a vote and the directive of a monarch is that instead of submitting to the will of a ruler at the top of a hierarchy, one is submitting to the will of a committee of his peers. Yet if, as CTC contends, being unable to realize one’s own will in the political realm is a mark of despotism, how does the command of a monarch differ from the dictate of a popular vote?
And again, CTC, I’ve explained. It is the way the world works. Some people have more power, & some have less. Some are born into more or less money, more or less charm, better or worse family connexions. This will continue to be the case, even under a Communist system, & even if you don’t like it. And this is one of the reasons I like Monarchy so much, & will consider your advice to make it more powerful, to see off the next putsch:
For when all is said & done, it keeps that power out of the hands of liberals. …
And here I thought birth in Texas was “a blessing.” I stand corrected by my own CTC.
CTC wrote, “From what source does your Monarch derive the moral justification to rule? To assert his will against the free will possessed by all individuals?”
This is a careless statement without a single historical example to support it. If any monarch ever resisted the will of all individuals, he would be out of business as monarch lightning quick.
Monarchs had obligations towards their subjects; they were like fathers to their people — and a father does have authority over those in his care.
Ideas about popular sovereignty muddle the affair. I’ve observed this principle asserted any number of times, but I’ve never seen it adequately defended. If the authority to govern comes only from the consent of the governed, then where does the power to wage war or negotiate treaties come from? No individual has the right to do those things; ergo, this is not a power that can be granted to another.
Sean:
a. Assuming you’re in the USA, whether or not you are a citizen, you need not obey commands to keep your views to yourself. (Citation: First Amendment.) I urge you not to obey.
b. You voluntarily submit to the will of the majority because that is the bargain that has been made, and honorable men live up to their bargains. Or, alternatively, you depart the jurisdiction.
c. The command of a Monarch differs from the command of the majority in that it does not arise from a bargain.
(Admittedly, those of us now living were not parties to the bargain when made. It was a legacy bestowed upon us by our forefathers.)
The question seems to be (and I miss the point of nearly everything) is man hierarchical? Does man flourish in a hierarchy or in a collective of equality? But that’s a trick question because every single collective is run by a class above. Equality of outcome is either a delusional notion for the feeble minded or in practice the oppression by suppression of the best down into the lowest common denominator by a privileged ruling class operating in the name of the oppressed. In other words it is a lie wrapped around an empty can of irony.
A king who believes in God is bound by a moral landscape. A secular political leader feels free to imagine his own landscape bound only by his energy and might. I would rather be ruled by a God fearing king than a secular do-gooder who requires the transformation of society, shaped to his whim and will. The one is fully human, but with an eye to the divine. The other is fully inhuman with an eye out for self-interest.
It is perhaps a kind of irony that the best thinkers schooled by the enlightenment built a mechanistic political device (a “machine” actually) of finely balanced powers and interests to ensure its survival. They called it a democratic republic and it had a great windup. But all machines wind down. Entropy will out. We are historically privileged to see the death of the machine by little men, shade tree mechanics, men without chests who don’t even realize the subtlety and elegance of what they are hammering off the spindles.
King David:
No, Monarchy is not the “way the world works.” It’s the way Saudi Arabia, for example, works.
Sean says:
“If the authority to govern comes only from the consent of the governed, then where does the power to wage war or negotiate treaties come from? No individual has the right to do those things; ergo, this is not a power that can be granted to another.”
War (when just) amounts to self-defense, and we each have that right (inherently).
Treaties are collective bargains, and we each also have that right.
CTC, you challenged Otiosus to justify the power of a hereditary Monarch. Perhaps you could try to justify the power of an elected Monarch (i.e. the President), especially when that power stems from only 20 percent of the population. Consent of the governed does not work because the governed never consented to the arrangement. The governed inherited it.
Thank you for the revelation. At long last I understand why no American would laugh when I would say “NSMs do this and NSMs say that,” and “NSM is the greatest country on earth. We’re so lucky to have you as our neighbour.” They were upset because a lowly unholy Canuck dared speak their secret name out loud: Natted States Merca. The Natted States Mercans were politely telling this uncouth scoundrel “hush your mouth.” But I wouldn’t pay no never mind and all….
I have to say, it’s an interesting thread, and I congratulate all of you on your stamina. But most of this is in Aristotle’s Politics; what is not there is in Plato’s Gorgias; and if there are many more comments, the Politics will be a shorter read.
Note King Otio’s comment especially on not escaping human tyranny in this world. I’d be glad to live in a good republic or a good monarchy (or both at once). But that’s a contingency that we should strive to bring about or sustain, and when needed fight for, just not something to serve as the first purposes and final ends of life. Fortunately, the Kingdom of God is within us, which truth allows us to rule ourselves in all the ways that count. Any government worthy of its sovereignty knows and protects that. I think Texas does, mostly. Most governments don’t.
Lord Dochart, with all due respect, your views on the American Founders are just off. The knew well the limits of what they were doing as well as its likelihood of failure. Most were not Catholics, but they did not idolize themselves, still less did their citizens idolize themselves, just as loyalist Canadians did not idolize the monarch. The Founders were far from perfect, but their work deserves better than that kind of deconstruction.
“No, Monarchy is not the ‘way the world works’. It’s the way Saudi Arabia, for example, works.”
Actually, CTC, Saudi Arabia works on oil. That gone, so will the desert monarchy be, & we’ll have ourselves yet another Islamist Republic. Maybe even before; & won’t that be the usual improvement.
Are you actually under the impression that monarchical government was not the default position, prior to the Age of Revolution? Or are you just playing the fool?
CTC, it’s good to know that my voice is being factored in to the changes being applied via ramrod by the federal government. For instance, Catholic institutions in the U.S. are being compelled to comply with immoral directives — to violate the integrity of their own existence — or get out of healthcare. But it’s good to know that I don’t have to shut up — it doesn’t address my point, but I suppose on some level it could theoretically be consoling to know. Your solution is interesting: if one doesn’t like grossly immoral conduct in democratically elected leaders, then just leave. So much for free will and the voice of the people, eh?
Calling people honorable for consenting to a bargain they did not choose or have a part in is, well, really just condescending. It’s not honorable to keep a bad bargain. Having a majority does not make an unjust command good. Having a monarch does not make a just command bad.
Wars and treaties are not conducted like individual acts of self defense and personal bargains. Scale is part of it; the instruments used are too — there is simply nothing on the individual level that corresponds to what is done on the national level. To put it another way: can a fellow have his own personal atomic bomb?
Scalia deals with your “scale” issue, Sean, in the context of the death penalty. It’s in an essay titled “God’s Justice and Ours” in the May 2002 issue of First Things. I would provide you with a link, but the King’s writ prohibits this form of kindness.
I’ll add that I agree with the rest that a government does indeed have authority, including the authority to explode atomic devices. Popular sovereignty is a theory about the source of that authority. What I’m considering is a gap in the theory — specifically, the gap between what an individual has the authority to do and what his government has the authority to do.
Broadly speaking, the theory mentioned has it that a government’s authority must first exist in the individual. Where matters appear to break down is in the case of a government with powers that individuals do not possess. Over-generalizing — e.g. calling the execution of a war simply another version of individual self-defense — avoids the problem.
As an individual I have the authority to own and use a gun; thus a government will be able to gather a group of men, arm them with guns, and send them off to fight. On the other hand, as an individual I do not have authority to detonate gargantuan explosive devices, for self-defense or otherwise. Yet a government does have the authority for this. Declaring that groups of individuals can do what individuals per se cannot is begging the question — it is, arguably, rhetorical sleight of hand that diverts attention from this gap.
I haven’t offered an alternate theory; I’m merely ruminating on the one under discussion.
CTC, Scalia’s position I know — in fact, it has served as silage for my own ruminations. I think you’ll see that Scalia’s positions accords with the points I’ve been raising; he is not a popular sovereignty advocate.
Scalia wrote: “The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual.”
Exactly — the government does have authority that individuals do not. Scalia observes that a government’s authority is not identical with private authority.
Now, what is the source for a government’s authority?
Scalia wrote, “government … derives its moral authority from God.”
That is the traditional view, stated by St. Paul and forming the bedrock of all claims of governmental authority in the West for nearly two millennia. This is the antithesis of what popular sovereignty asserts.
Scalia points out – as I have been approaching with my ruminations – that the “tendency of democracy [is] to obscure the divine authority behind government. …”
To sum up: a government does have authority, and that authority exceeds what individuals are able to vest in it.
Aside: in the essay referenced by CTC, Scalia also explains why the Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong on this topic. From the pen of the justice: “We need some new staffers at the Congregation of Prudence in the Vatican.” Amen.
“On the other hand, as an individual I do not have authority to detonate gargantuan explosive devices, for self-defense or otherwise.”
You are denied that authority by the government. In the absence of governmental prohibition, you would have the authority to use whatever means necessary to avoid the threat. Put another way, it would not be immoral per se to use a large explosive device for self-defense.
This is more rhetorical sleight of hand. The government — who has authority only that my peers and I grant it — can exercise its authority to deny my authority. This becomes a roundabout way of saying that I have denied myself my own authority via third party.
I’m with Scalia on this one: popular sovereignty does not adequately account for where a government’s authority comes from.
I don’t see any circularity.
The individual has the power of self-defense.
Individuals grant that power of self-defense to the government (so that individuals may act collectively against forces that require collective action).
Self-defense includes action to protect against the use of massively destructive weapons.
Ergo, government may deny the authority of individuals to possess and use atomic weapons.
This is Sean’s horse, not mine, but I really truly honestly sincerely do not get how you can possibly miss his point. It’s just so shriekingly clear.
I ought to try harder to understand it, however, for my CTC is hardly the only person who buys into this logically indefensible evasion — the very one that erects the Leviathan — that there is such a thing as “We the People.” It is after all lettered large at the beginning of a significant American legal document, & I have, after all, long understood that the problem starts there.
Curiously enough, even Robert Bork did not seem to get it when I asked him this question directly: “How can ‘We the People’ will anything?” They are not a creature, they do not have a mind, yet the fiction that they do is at heart of democracy. It was also at the heart of monarchical absolutism, & dare I add, the source of the “royal we” — the idea that the king embodies the nation, that he speaks for everyone, not merely for the state.
I blame Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, whose book Leviathan everyone should read (well down that list from Aristotle’s Politics.) The very same who dismisses the Daemons, the Satyres, the woods with Fawnes, the Nymphs, the sea with Tritons, Charon, Cerberus, & the Furies, the Larvae, the Lemures, the house with its Lares & every man with his Genius, & the Ghosts of men deceased, the whole kingdom of Fayries & Bugbears — that Thomas Hobbes — could then himself believe in an abstraction that drives all these others into the shade. And more than that, make other men believe it, to the point where they wrote social contracts with it.
Well, CTC referenced an essay by Scalia to explain his position — only it turned out that Scalia’s essay reinforced the point I was making, not the one CTC sought to explain. He also declined to comment on a few salient points that exposed gaps in his defense. Then there’s his use of sheer assertion in lieu of modus ponens. Must be the air in Texas.
So then, my experience that popular sovereignty has never been adequately defended — merely declared to be so — continues unabated. The ruminations will continue as well; perhaps Scalia and I will get a chance to discuss it some day.
Let me see if I can help you, DW.
“We” is a plural pronoun, as is “they.” The former denotes the speaker and those with whom he is aligned, while the latter refers to a group which does not include the speaker. Perhaps you are already aware of this.
“We” is often used by a wife or a husband. Thus, John might say, “We have decided to name our child, Xavier.” In this instance, the members of “we” are apparent from the context. But John might also say, ” We, the couple, have decided . . . . ,” in which case John would be explicit about the size of the group making the decision.
Does “We the couple” have a mind? No, it has two minds. Is “We the couple” a creature? No, it is two creatures. Yet, the minds of these two creatures may arrive at a joint decision.
(Yes, I know, your Church says a married couple is “one.” If you want to take that fictional route, substitute business partners, John & Jake, naming their partnership “J&J Auto Repair.”)
Thus we, the correspondents, see there is nothing “fictional” about “We the People.” It’s just plain old everyday language, denoting unified action by multiple creatures, possessing minds.
This is all very glib, CTC.
“We the People” are not a married couple or an auto repair partnership. No one can possibly imagine, even begin to imagine all the persons in that “we” — the dead, the living, the unborn; with all their incredibly varied aspirations — subsumed in one arbitrary “we.” At best it could mean, by your analogy, “we the signatories on this piece of paper.”
As I may have mentioned before, my people were Americans, too: loyal to the order into which they had been born, & which was violently overthrown. More deeply, even instinctively: loyal to a very ancient idea of legitimacy & right which the Revolution had turned over. They were not a tiny minority: over very large areas they were a clear majority. Very large numbers enlisted for a fight they had never asked for, to defend their own most fundamental right to live as they had always lived, in their own country; for the right not to be molested. They lost, & in very many cases, lost everything as a result: not only property & goods, but their own country.
Think of New York at the end of the war, teeming with refugees who had fled there for safety, because it had held out as a Loyalist town. Finally surrendered without a shot, to conclude the peace. Try, if you will, to imagine all those faces: miserable defeated men women & children, waiting to be evacuated, praying to find a place to huddle — on any British ship, to anywhere. Your fellow Americans, your old neighbours.
“We the People.”
Does one have to be a Loyalist to understand what that means? A “we” that expressly includes those who expressly demand to be excluded.
David, the response given when I made a similar point was that if you don’t like it, you’re free to leave. Glib indeed – especially when partnered with the assertion that it’s not tyranny.
I’m reminded of the ancient Athenians, whose contradictions had become habitual. They bullied smaller neighbors whose protests included appeals to Athens’ own democratic legacy. The good democratic folk of Athens said that was all well and good, but do it our way or else.
This was why the war was fought, DW. Some of the people wished to remain under the thumb of Geo3 and no procedure was in place to resolve the matter.
“We the People” did not appear until 1787, after those afraid of freedom had been subdued.
Friction of this sort isn’t uncommon. John & Jake might have a third partner, Jerry, who desired the name “Happy Face Auto Repair,” rather that “JJ&J Auto Repair.” Thus, a vote of the partners would be necessary to settle the issue.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have the impression the real thrust of your complaint is that you reject the propriety of decisions being made by voting. You reject it because it may lead to decisions you deem wrong. If so, then the fundamental debate between you and me boils down to absolutism versus relativism.
I think David’s point has been clear enough. That CTC keeps re-casting the matter in terms he favors — to the disadvantage of the position he opposes, apparently without understanding it — is telling.
If you want to make a point, Sean, please do so, but your last remark is simply insulting.
Addendum:
I have made the point “We the People” is not a fiction. You may disagree with my assessment, but that does not mean you are right and I am wrong.
What have I “recast”?
What is it that I do not “understand”?
What is it that is “told” (without being specified)?
Let’s attempt to engage in meaningful conversation, not cast slurs on those we disagree with.
“… after those afraid of freedom had been subdued.”
You start with very glib. And you end with very monstrous. … So you must break a few eggs to make an omelette, eh?
Let me add one more story. My direct ancestor, on my mama’s side, was named Stetson Holmes. This man joined the Continental Army: not entirely voluntarily from what I can make out. Nevertheless off he went, & when the war was won, he returned to his native Massachusetts, an older & wiser man.
That is when he became a Loyalist: when he saw what “We the People” were now doing to his old neighbours — those people who “afraid of freedom had to be subdued.” They’d been subdued now. The war was over. But “We the People” were now re-educating them, with e.g. tar & feathers.
Abandoned his home & farm, got what he could carry into a cart, & with his wife, sons, & daughters walked to “freedom” in the new Republic of Vermont. When Vermont joined the Union, they walked again, to the coast of Maine where they found fishing-schooner passage to Halifax; finally “Holmeville” (now “Homeville”) in Cape Breton, & virgin, not especially arable land.
This is quite literally one of a million stories, of my “absolutists” fleeing your triumphant “relativists” — creating their majority before putting it to a vote.
Note: I do not suggest the stories are black & white. Much ignominious behaviour on the Loyal side, much decent & even noble behaviour on the Patriot side. Washington himself was intervening to stop the lynching of those who had ended behind the lines on the wrong side of history. Restitution for confiscated Loyalist private property was promised in the peace terms by which the British surrendered New York to him, even if it was never delivered.
Here is my point: “We the People” is words, an abstraction, a slogan, an excuse, a formula from the Age of Enlightenment. The actual people have flesh & can bleed.
You’re asserting the British neither slaughtered nor abused anyone, in say India or South Africa? Come on, armed conflict is brutish. You know that. And, Monarchy offers no protection from that. As we have seen, again and again, it engenders bloodshed. Thus, it has failed in the West (but survives in Saudi Arabia).
Yes, the actual people have flesh and blood. This is a point akin to the one I made, above, when I pointed out they have minds.
Your primary point, I take it, is that you don’t much care for a slogan. Fine. That is of no consequence.
Precisely, nail on the head, CTC, if not in the head. The fact “I” don’t agree with a slogan “is of no consequence.” (Where “I” may designate any human being.) So if you have a majority, or even if you only say that you do, you can do anything you want to that “I.”
That is the absolutism of the Enlightenment, & as I mentioned before, it developed from an absolutist “theory” of monarchy, at the root of modern statism. I do not accept absolutism because you call it “democracy” any more than you accept it when you substitute “monarchy.”
Now if you reread the thread, with attention, you will find answers to each of the questions you listed. I will not waste time parsing what has already been said.
As to Sean’s arguably insulting use of the third person, in one instance where he might perhaps have used the second person, how do you compare that with e.g. your dripping explanation of how “we is a plural noun”?
(It is a pronoun, incidentally.)
(So, now you’re reduced to correcting grammatical mistakes.)
We the People do not condone the majority doing anything it may desire to you – even though you’re not a citizen, you are entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights.
With regard to the alleged mistreatment of Loyalists, it isn’t like you to cast yourself or your forefathers as victims.
(No, it was an error of vocabulary.)
I think we’re in the tail of this comet, now. … Let’s find a harder nugget, & move on.
Confirmed.
Fine with me.