What’s Wrong with the World

By "charismaticism" do you just mean to refer to people who belong to charismatic churches, believe in speaking and tongues and the like, or is there some other movement by this name that I'm unfamiliar with?

I have to say, Jeff, that your lists of ideas for within and within the fold of your proposed coalition seem to me pretty idiosyncratic. That's not bad in itself. I suppose if any of us were to write such lists, they would be idiosyncratic. But look at it this way: Which is more American--Mormonism or monarchy? The question answers itself, I should think. America is _by definition_ not a monarchy, and by definition, anything that is a monarchy is not America. Don't misunderstand me: I could make a political or ideological coalition with a person with a soft spot for monarchy as well as with a Mormon, but if we ask which of these is more out of touch with any distinctively _American_ conservatism, I would say monarchy wins hands down.

Also, why use the phrase "those whose sole animating beliefs..." only for the sets of ideas you list on the supposedly negative or bad side? I would have as much of a problem (more, probably) with a person whose "sole animating beliefs" were bound up with secession, monarchy, or distributism as with a person whose "sole animating beliefs" were bound up with capitalism! It seems to me that for several of your negatives, the big problem would not be with the ideas per se but with the picture of a person narrowly committed to them as his "sole animating beliefs." A person who has a judicious mix of sympathy for libertarianism or secession in his political makeup could be a very good ally indeed. A person with a bee in his bonnet about either would be a crank and a problem.

I think the very existence of following statements in a single essay from one and the same (and not a stupid or thoughtless) author are quite revealing:

(1) Our goal is to put ourselves out of business, to make conservatism unnecessary, to take the politics out of everyday living.

(2) The worst among us are habitual contrarians who lack the talent (or desire) for consensus-building [Consensus-building here, by implication, construed to be a good thing].

(3) I believe that we need a broad-based conservative movement that combines the ...

Point (1), yes. Absolutely! Conservatism is no ideology, and to the extent it becomes one, is ceases by that extent to be conservative. Conservatism, on this view, is nothing but anti-liberalism... which is why, in my view, point (3) simply cannot follow from point (1). To demand a "movement" is to demand that we accept the principles of liberalism, i.e., that "consensus" (point (2)) is an acceptable way to govern--that "consensus" may arrive (if we all just work hard enough) at good government. But conservatism ought to simply say no. We don't want consensus, and a thousand other words that make us feel good or included or entitled or whatever--we WANT good government.

Lydia's remarks are perfectly apropos... America conceivable as being "defined" as anything other than a particular mass of land and its historic or current occupants, is per se a liberal definition--in fact the biggest, broadest, and baddest liberal definition of all: America is an idea! These are the words of an ideologue--words no doubt taken in by all of us with our mother's milk, so that we might uphold our sacred (i.e., American) myths before we ever admit to facts on the ground. In this case the particular facts are that a republican form of government 1) can only be as good as the people who elects it, 2) will generally be far worse, and by these facts 3) tends inexorably toward bad government. All leftist conservatism ("loyal opposition" or "populist conservatism" or whatever we call it) does, or ever has been able to do these past 220 years or so, is to occasionally stall or slow-down the decline. Such opposition does not address the underlying root cause: Republican government does not ultimately work, and works worst in empires (which USG has become) and in pluralistic societies (among which America fancies herself).

The culture war is over--has been for 220 years (arguably 322 years). As the Harvard faculty go, so will USG 50 years hence. It's (more or less) imprinted on the fabric of our society. If you say you want to press back, to turn back the clock (but only so much), well then: What era of Harvard faculty do we choose? And more to the point: How do we make sure that some future Harvard faculty doesn't come in and drive things the other way? I say it cannot be done... at least by "ordinary" means. Tho' I'll of course not oppose any particular effort toward proper governance (i.e., good legislation), the real problem is democracy itself, and more importantly the utterly religious devotion, as seen equally among devotees of left (properly so-called) and right (improperly so-called), rendered thereunto.

The problem as I see it for traditionalists is that traditional society by definition is society that is built prior to the administrative state. Any conservative ideology that seeks to advance and, more importantly, to actually articulate a "traditional" ideal is bound for failure. The modern state can impose policies, but it can't establish traditions. I'd argue it can't even help them along very much.

When Chesterton praised tradition as the most democratic of systems because, after all, it depends for its vitality on the consent of those governed by it, he was right. But this points out the depth of our dilemma--tradition no longer holds the people's loyalty, and because it exists quite apart from formal institutional power it can never be established and advanced through strictly formal means, like a political platform. People can be made to pay a tax, or to attend a certain kind of school, but these are just forms of participation in formal structures. Traditional marriage was supported and recognized by "the state" after a fashion, but it was not established by it. And there's virtually nothing that we can do, from a purely political point of view, to change the terrible state of our traditions. People no longer even remember them, which is an essential prime requisite for their survival. Simply reading about them and trying to impose them later won't work, because their power comes from the fact that they make concrete those things that can't be articulated or rationalized. They just contain too much information to be definitively argued for, and it's that that differentiates them from ideologies, which seek to explain the whole of life according to one or several basic, explicit principles.

So what are we supposed to do? I don't know, really, but I would say that conservative political platforms must recognize the situation and must admit their inadequacy to restoring traditional life which, if it ever happens, will have to happen in the same way it happened the first time--over many, many generations without anyone ever fully articulating their basis.

Simply reading about them and trying to impose them later won't work, because their power comes from the fact that they make concrete those things that can't be articulated or rationalized.

Sage is right: we can't hope to fix the critical cultural problems through political activity. People have to rediscover and revive traditional manners and ways of life in their homes and their communities, and they have to do it themselves. But that doesn't mean the undertaking is hopeless. It simply means that it has to progress differently.

One of the biggest problems is that people of traditional dispositions are isolated: our schools, workplaces, and all too often churches are dominated by people who are blithely waddling towards the cliff of barbarism. Some manner of organization is needed to help traditionalists find each other.

Along similar lines, there are plenty of young people who are traditionalists without the benefit of having imbued the traditions: they were raised in a barn but resent the fact. These are people who want to participate in a reawakening---or at least a preserving---but who need somewhere to learn the things they ought to have been taught at the dinner table.

On a practical level the on-the-ground work isn't hard: start by saying no to t-shirts; throw cocktail parties; learn to mix milk punch and old fashioneds (no fruit) and abjure Keystone. If you're Catholic, teach your children how to pray in Latin (I'm afraid I don't know what traditionalist Protestants do). Dress for Sunday dinner. Abstain from fads and no-wrinkle shirts. Associate with like-minded people. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm afraid I don't know what traditionalist Protestants do

They throw the television out the window, for starters. They also start reconsidering "youth group." You can imagine why. In fact, a new movement which I'm very ambivalent about but for which I understand the motivation (Catholic readers, try not to yell "What???" too loudly) is the "home church" movement by which each home becomes a church unto itself. To some extent the super-traditionalist Protestants doing this are reacting to the worldliness of the churches, and the big churches especially, where their children have gotten messed up almost as effectively as in the public schools. The "home churchers" then form looser associations of families for regular Bible study groups and the like, but much more selectively than in larger churches.

Again, I'm not advocating this. But I am saying that to a real moral traditionalist, church is sometimes the problem, and that's a real problem.

the "home church" movement by which each home becomes a church unto itself

Well, Catholics believe that the family is an ecclesia domestica, in which the father's authority is analogous to that of the ordained episcopacy. But this does not appear to be what you are talking about.

You know, I'll admit that I actually enjoy having a tv. Little of what is broadcast is worth watching---and everything except sports will have to be axed once kids arrive---but I can really go for a classic movie now and then.

but I can really go for a classic movie now and then.

Rent?

Any church has to cope with the parable of the wheat and tares.

(Catholic readers, try not to yell "What???" too loudly) is the "home church" movement by which each home becomes a church unto itself.

Heh, heh, heh. Lydia, you're way too slow off the mark. John Paul II repeatedly referred to the family as "the domestic church." Of course, he didn't mean an independent church , he meant an organic unit of the larger Church, but a real and integral being within the whole body of Christ.

start by saying no to t-shirts; ... Abstain from fads and no-wrinkle shirts.

Titus, a smart and counter-cultural mother suggested, when my wife and I were starting out, to allow for the fact that the defects of our culture are going to impinge on us and make many things harder than they ought to be: you might as well take advantage of the non-defects of our culture to counterbalance, and then use those to make TIME to do all the important counter-cultural things that truly need doing. Now, if instead of wearing non-wrinkle shirts, you weave your own cloth and sew your own shirts, then by all means do that and don't bother buying non-wrinkle shirts. But if your choice is between buying highly processed, highly industrialized wrinkly cotton shirts, or buying highly processed blend shirts that don't wrinkle, hey, go for the latter and save some time for something worthwhile, like teaching the kids how to pray, or how to plant beans. In other words, YES, we need to think through ways that our culture presses us towards that cliff, and fight back, but our fighting back should be layered and thoughtful, with greater emphasis on truly fundamental issues.

I knew a family where the mom spent at least 4 hours a day (sometimes more, that was the minimum) cooking food that was from almost all unprocessed sources. Were they healthier? Some, not much. They still got colds and other stuff. Were they better off? I really couldn't say, but I do know that they had a HECK of a time managing to get school done day in and day out (meaning, they didn't a lot of the time).

My point is that it isn't enough to simply defy the barbarisms of our culture one by one by one. There isn't enough time in the day to make that a winning proposition.

But if your choice is between buying highly processed, highly industrialized wrinkly cotton shirts, or buying highly processed blend shirts that don't wrinkle, hey, go for the latter and save some time for something worthwhile, like teaching the kids how to pray, or how to plant beans. In other words, YES, we need to think through ways that our culture presses us towards that cliff, and fight back, but our fighting back should be layered and thoughtful, with greater emphasis on truly fundamental issues.

Whistling noises and loud, approving hoots. Crowd standing up and cheering loudly. And hey, who says no-wrinkle shirts are a barbarism, anyway? :-)

But I am saying that to a real moral traditionalist, church is sometimes the problem, and that's a real problem.

Agreed, and few places is the Church more of a problem than in the Catholic One. Of course, and other have answered this well, the domestic ecclesia (assembly) is, in its very nature, a type of the Church. So I think good Catholics are well ahead on the "home church" curve. It's just that we cannot, alone, dispense valid Sacraments. So we have the Church, as in our local parish, as the dispensary of sacraments; and, where the local parish doesn't teach what the Church actually teaches (which is all too common), or fails to teach it well or fully, the home church may serve (in the interim) as a place of faithful doctrine and practice.

It sounds grim, but in some respects things have been grimmer.

Thanks Lydia.

Isn't there already a "creedal conservatism"? It's called neoconservatism.

I am not being facetious. Neoconservatives have been rather steadfast in remaking the older conservatism - one based in kith and kin, blood and soil loyalties - into a creedal set of beliefs.

By "charismaticism" do you just mean to refer to people who belong to charismatic churches, believe in speaking and tongues and the like, or is there some other movement by this name that I'm unfamiliar with?

Lydia, I refer not just to people who belong to charismatic churches, but to the entire subculture of charismaticist religion which is characterized, indeed, by "speaking in tongues and the like", but also by a cultural gnosticism and general instability.

I have to say, Jeff, that your lists of ideas for within and within the fold of your proposed coalition seem to me pretty idiosyncratic. That's not bad in itself. I suppose if any of us were to write such lists, they would be idiosyncratic.

Well, sure. But it's a starting point, and is not the only thing I would sign up for.

But look at it this way: Which is more American--Mormonism or monarchy? The question answers itself, I should think.

True, it answers itself. But I think it's the wrong question. I don't believe we should be primarily concerned with what is more "American" in origin when it comes to the content of an American conservative movement. David Koresh is more American than Padre Pio, but so what? An American conservative movement should exclude the American and include the Italian. In other words, let's include that which brings out the best in the American character and discard the rest.

America is _by definition_ not a monarchy, and by definition, anything that is a monarchy is not America.

Wow, we REALLY part company on this one. I couldn't disagree more. America is not, by definition, a republic or a monarchy or any other form of government: it is by definition the land, the people of this land, their culture, their mores, and their history. Various regions of America have been ruled in the past by English, French, and Spanish monarchs, and may well be ruled by monarchs in the future. The place names of America are a veritiable school of monarchial tradition. Take a close look at a map of the Old Dominion, otherwise known as the state of Virginia. Our "revolution", as it is improperly called, did not seek to erase or deny our monarchist heritage. The founding fathers were not anti-monarchy: they were anti-tyranny, according to their lights, and if the Declaration of Independance is to be believed, they would have preferred to retain their association with their king. Alexander Hamilton called the British monarchy "the best model the world has ever produced". After the War for Independence - which was won, incidentally, with the indispensable aid of the French and Spanish crowns - many Loyalists remained in the country, living as good citizens while retaining their monarchist sympathies. The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA was for generations ruled by bishops with Loyalist credentials. The monarchial impulse cannot be be eradicated from a Christian people, and it hasn't been eradicated in America.

Also, why use the phrase "those whose sole animating beliefs..." only for the sets of ideas you list on the supposedly negative or bad side? I would have as much of a problem (more, probably) with a person whose "sole animating beliefs" were bound up with secession, monarchy, or distributism as with a person whose "sole animating beliefs" were bound up with capitalism!

I use the phrase because, in my experience, one is hard pressed to find individuals or groups whose sole animating belief is distributism, monarchy, or secession. These are almost always subordinate components of a larger Christian worldview. (On second thought, perhaps I should exclude secession from the list, as I'm not familiar enough with the many small secessionist movements in this country.) I am fine with making alliances with those whose belief in capitalism, libertarianism, et al, is properly subordinate to creedal Christianity, but not with those who define their entire worldview by these things. As the defining element of Christendom, creedal Christianity is the necessary glue for any American conservative movement worth getting involved with - necessary, but obviously not sufficient, and so let there be room for a variety of other causes not inherently hostile to the core.

It seems to me that for several of your negatives, the big problem would not be with the ideas per se but with the picture of a person narrowly committed to them as his "sole animating beliefs." A person who has a judicious mix of sympathy for libertarianism or secession in his political makeup could be a very good ally indeed. A person with a bee in his bonnet about either would be a crank and a problem.

Yes, Lydia, precisely.

America is _by definition_ not a monarchy, and by definition, anything that is a monarchy is not America.

I couldn't disagree more. America is not, by definition, a republic or a monarchy or any other form of government: it is by definition the land, the people of this land, their culture, their mores, and their history.

But Jeff, at THIS time, our people and culture and history are those of 230 years without monarchy. A culture that makes a virtue out of non-monarchy, not putting the sovereign power permanently into the hands of a single individual. While I agree that nothing about the founding events essentially precluded an eventual monarchy, that was long ago, with many waters passing under that bridge. The monarchical model we had closest affinity to, Britain, is no longer a real monarchy either, and even then was passing from monarchy to an odd form of republicanism. A very odd form, I might say.

What one might suggest is that the very definition of America is that of a nation committed to a written constitution, the rule of law (sadly being destroyed), the concept of governance in practice arising out of the people governed, and a federal union created out of states agreeing to abridge aspects of their sovereignty by ceding such aspects to the federal level of government.

As such, it was possible for "America" to accrue new territory, and new peoples, including places not touching the lower 48 states (Alaska) and across the sea (Hawaii). As such, it would not be impossible for a portion of the moon to be colonized and eventually be admitted to the union as a state. Which means that the definition of America is not found in its land.

Which means that the definition of America is not found in its land.

True; because the US is an empire and has been for a long time (at least since 1865 and probably long before that) with DC as the imperial capital and the states as provinces. The US would be more understandable if everyone were to acknowledge this. Canada and Mexico are empires too; it appears to be something of a trend in the Americas. The lack of a rooted blood and soil definition of America is because the US just isn't a real 'country'. Conservatism always fails in part because conservatism is local and particular and imperial politics are anything but.

It should be a goal of conservatism to make itself unnecessary as a conscious political desire, but realize that a 'movement' will never voluntarily put itself out of business. This is another thing that conservatives need to realize: electoral politics won't save us.

The monarchical model we had closest affinity to, Britain, is no longer a real monarchy either, and even then was passing from monarchy to an odd form of republicanism. A very odd form, I might say.

It's like Rome's history in reverse. In fact, if the Queen didn't have the prerogative to name Prince William to the throne in place of Charles, Parliament would probably be left with no choice but to formally abolish the monarchy.

While I agree that nothing about the founding events essentially precluded an eventual monarchy,

That baffles me. The Constitution of the United States doesn't preclude a monarchy?

Keep your TV, cancel your cable. Buy or rent only what you want to watch.

Dump your cell phone if possible; if not, at least dump texting. It is convenient, but it depersonalizes and dumbs down communication.

Get off "the grid" as much as you can. Doing this, of course, will vary from person to person, region to region.

Apply asceticism to your purchases and lifestyle; by doing so you stick it to the corporate managerial state, which wants us in debt and buying all their useless crap.

"Throw out the radio and take down the fiddle from the wall."
~~~ Andrew Lytle

On second thought, perhaps I should exclude secession from the list, as I'm not familiar enough with the many small secessionist movements in this country.

Thank you for correcting that. That item really didn't fit well with the others.

The US would be more understandable if everyone were to acknowledge this.

Everyone in D.C. does acknowledge this, which is why so much of the perpetual war/national security state has been continued if not expanded under the Obama administration, with only a whisper of protest by liberal groups and apparent amnesia by libertarian groups. Conservatives at the national level at least are consistent on this issue.

Everyone in D.C. does acknowledge this, which is why so much of the perpetual war/national security state has been continued if not expanded under the Obama administration, with only a whisper of protest by liberal groups and apparent amnesia by libertarian groups. Conservatives at the national level at least are consistent on this issue.

You have it backwards. No one acknowledges the imperial nature of the US except some conservative traditionalists and political libertarians because that imperial nature is the dark side of our history. The entire Civil War is a repudiation of the notion that the federal government's authority is based on the consent of the governed. Even if you believe that it was fought to end slavery (which it wasn't), and that that justified the conquest of the Confederacy, only a Kool Aid-drinking dumbass would claim that the reconquest of the Confederacy was consistent with government by consent of the governed rather than right of conquest.

Furthermore, our treatment of territories is a rather interesting expose of our treatment of the states. Puerto Rico has more sovereignty than any of the 50 states because the federal government. Every time the federal government gives them a referendum on their statues, one option is secession.

How ironic that political entities which have actual power in the body politic have less of a legal right to leave than a mere territory.

On a related note, this article about homeschooling in Sweden is a good reminder of how entrenched politics is into every aspect of Western life. It is like a cancer that has managed to riddle every single solitary last organ, even the skin and bones.

The only way conservatives can counter this is to accept the fact that the state exists for a specific reason and that its sovereignty exists only for that reason and in its natural sphere of authority. To that end, the state has no natural right to dangle families around like puppets, altering and abolishing parental authority as it pleases.

I don't see how politics can be taken out of daily life until people reject the notion that the state may do whatever it (or "the people") please to the other institutions in society.

Even if you believe that it was fought to end slavery (which it wasn't), and that that justified the conquest of the Confederacy, only a Kool Aid-drinking dumbass would claim that the reconquest of the Confederacy was consistent with government by consent of the governed rather than right of conquest.

The problem, here, is that there wasn't one government during the Civil War, there were, technically, two, each with their own, "consent of the governed", and during the war, as well as afterwards, at no time did either group lose the ability to consent. Although the war was fought, in part, to resolve the issue of secession, the slavery issue was a related issue and not negligible in the history, since it was, in fact, the almost single issue which was forced on the South. To say that the Civil War was nothing more than a right of conquest of the South by the North is to seriously misunderstand the conflict. The South (as amorphous a term as that was), in the end, had stronger common links to the northern states than common differences. They were welcomed back into the union with identical standing to what they had when they left (although seriously hurt, economically), which is something that almost never happens to a conquered people.

The Chicken

To that end, the state has no natural right to dangle families around like puppets, altering and abolishing parental authority as it pleases.

Agreed, in general. There are specific cases, such as child abuse, where the state must have the ability to abolish parental authority.

I don't see how politics can be taken out of daily life until people reject the notion that the state may do whatever it (or "the people") please to the other institutions in society.

St. Thomas, in the Summa (II.I. Q 96) answers:

Whether human law should be framed for the community rather than for the individual?
/
I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6).

Without government, the other institutions in society would not have the benefits of natural justice, which, of its nature and when rightly done, is ordered to the common good.

I suspect one of your problems with government is that sometimes, they overstep their range and become intrusive in areas not governed by either natural or Divine prudence and justice, but rather substitute their own definitions. This a form of abuse and is not binding on individuals, even though to resist may result in force. How does one get rid of a poison in the government? One may purge the system or isolate the affected areas or provide a counter toxin. The solution, here, is obvious: have ten children and raise them all to be Godly men and women. The cure will take place in two generations. Have them quickly. The government may be on to us.

The Chicken

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Obviously, secession had everything to do with slavery.

Without starting the whole Civil War debate again, it seems inarguable that one of the results of Northern victory was consolidation of power in Washington and the beginning of the end of states' rights as a defense against that consolidation. To that extent the Northern victory was a blow against the consent of the governed.

"secession had everything to do with slavery"

Well, not everything. There was also the matter of the tariffs. But as Jeffrey R. Hummel puts it, "Even if slavery explains why the southern states left the Union, it does not necessarily either explain or justify the national government's refusal to recognize their independence."

In other words, slavery and secession may be related issues, but they are separate. The South may very well have seceded over slavery, but the North certainly didn't invade the South because of it.

"That baffles me. The Constitution of the United States doesn't preclude a monarchy?"

Ummm, has Jeff read the Constitution, say Article 1, section 9,

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

This whole ein volk thing is about as far from America as one can get. Of course, this is California so we could always try an initiative to offer ourselves to Juan Carlos. Real Americans don't think like serfs. A nation founded on the best impulses of the Enlightenment can never be governed by conservatives. One would think the experiences of 1995 - 2008 would have been enough.

"The monarchial impulse cannot be be eradicated from a Christian people, and it hasn't been eradicated in America. "

Based on what? British behavior in 1649 and 1688? I see no problem with a crown on the head as long as the head is on a pike.

The problem with conservatism in America today is that many conservatives aren't conservative at all. In fact, they are reactionaries.
They want to undo all the progress that has been made in America in recent years and return to a time when
homosexuals lived in the closet and in fear of being exposed and losing their jobs, and they also want to make abortion illegal again, which would only force many women to back-alley abortionists (don't deny this,please), and the poorest women would attempt abortion on themselves with the inevitable catastrophic results, while women who could afford it would easily arrange safe legal ones or fly off to Europe and elsewhere.And to make contraceptives illegal, which would only INCREASE the number of abortions and create a
black market in contraceptives.
In their aversion to anything remotely smacking of xsocialism,they would greatly reduce or eliminate government programs to help the poor or the unfortunate, reduce taxes to the point where the government could no longer even function,deregulate business to the point where it would be free to exploit and harm the public and despoil the environment with impunity, give all the tax breaks to the wealthy in the mistaken assumption that this will increase general prosperity, despite that prosperity does not "trickle down",never has and never will.
Conservatives cry out for "freedom" yet would like the government to pry into the bedrooms of private citizens,and in the name of restoring"decency" to television and films would like the government to censor what we read or view in public or in private.
They also believe that cnesoring pornography will improve public morality,which is hardly the case.
They would like to restore Christian prayer and Bible readings to our public schools,even for students from Jewish,Muslim,Hindu,Buddhist,atheist or agnostic homes.
But with freedom like this,who needs tyranny?
Let's face it; right-wing governments can be just as oppressive as leftwing ones. Both are equally bad.

al,

In 1688, otherwise known as the Glorious Revolution, I don't think any Kings wound up with their heads on a pike. But your quote was amusing nonetheless.

Robert Berger,

While it is always interesting to have new folks show up in the comments section over here, where did you come from, the "all liberal cliches, all the time" website? While I hardly know where to begin refuting your long list of amusing assertions, I guess I'll start with your claim that conservatives (especially the group that posts here) want to "reduce taxes to the point where the government could no longer even function". Care to back that wild claim up with some evidence? Maybe just one link to a serious conservative author who makes the claim?

I'm afraid this many be an exercise in troll-feeding, but are there any more leftist cliches you'd care to spout, Mr. Berger? How about how conservatives want to take school lunches from poor children, or end Social Security?

"A nation founded on the best impulses of the Enlightenment can never be governed by conservatives. One would think the experiences of 1995 - 2008 would have been enough."

There was nothing particularly conservative about the Bush administration, Al. If you paid attention to the various discussions here and elsewhere on this subject you'd know this.

And undoubtedly what you think are the 'best impulses of the Enlightenment' and what many of us here think they are are likely to be quite different.

Robert Berger, has been on here before, and made a similar comment in the "Liberals: Guardians of Tradition?" thread.

"That baffles me. The Constitution of the United States doesn't preclude a monarchy?"

Ummm, has Jeff read the Constitution, say Article 1, section 9,

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

First, it was Tony, not me, who wrote "nothing about the founding events essentially precluded an eventual monarchy", which is the statement that baffled Lydia.

Second, Article 1, Section 9 proves you wrong: Congress may give its consent for any American statesman to accept offices and titles from kings and princes.

Third, the Constitution may be legally amended to provide directly for a monarchy.

Fourth, the American people adopted a constitution where none existed before. There is no reason why they could not do the same with a monarchy.

"The monarchial impulse cannot be be eradicated from a Christian people, and it hasn't been eradicated in America."

Based on what? British behavior in 1649 and 1688?

Based on the behavior of Americans right up to the present day. You see, Al, most Americans are a lot like you: inconsistent. Their actions betray one set of beliefs, their words another. For example, you have shown yourself to be a strict constructionist by nature (hence you appeal to an archaic, rigid, literalistic interpretation of the Constitution against monarchy and aristocracy), but you treat the Constitution as a "living document" when it suits your ideology.

Americans still have the monarchial impulse. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."

Having said all of this, let me be clear that I am not personally advocating for a monarchy in the United States at the present time. Tony is right in that monarchy is not the most accessible concept for the American people - myself included. Besides, there are no viable candidates for the position. What I am suggesting is that we need a society that is willing to make room for a healthy monarchial impulse, if for no other reason than to prevent it from being misdirected. I am also suggesting that Christian monarchists who are more committed to the idea than I am be offered a place at the table. In the meantime, a constitutional republic is what living Americans know how to do, and it makes sense to work within that framework.

Third, the Constitution may be legally amended to provide directly for a monarchy.

There was some discussion back in the topic on the Swiss minaret ban about this. Some hold, I don't know any in particular or how prevalent this belief is, that there are informal limits on an amendment process, such that the US constitution couldn't be amended to e.g. set up a monarchy or something even more drastic. I found the argument lacking, but there it is (and I'm not exactly giving it a rigorous explanation here).

One thing I noticed when following the link to SC's secession document was how airtight their case really was. The North was flagrantly defying the rule of law.

Steve Nicoloso, you wrote:

To demand a "movement" is to demand that we accept the principles of liberalism, i.e., that "consensus" (point (2)) is an acceptable way to govern--that "consensus" may arrive (if we all just work hard enough) at good government. But conservatism ought to simply say no. We don't want consensus, and a thousand other words that make us feel good or included or entitled or whatever--we WANT good government.

Steve, I really don't know what to make of your comment. Consensus is absolutely necessary in order to get anything done, even if that consensus amounts to nothing more than "obey your leader". But I'm not talking about governing here, I'm talking about convincing conservatives - volunteers - to work together against a common enemy. Herding cats, I know, but I believe it can be done.

You say that the culture war was lost 220 years ago, or earlier, but the Left doesn't think so and marches on today in search of pockets of sanity to obliterate. I don't intend to roll over for the next wave of attacks. We're all fighting this as individuals anyway, so why eschew cooperative action if it can be effective?

If it wasn't clear in the post, the goal isn't to form another political party, "think tank", or "family values" organization. We're too far gone for that. The goal here is retreat, retrench, and consolidate back in our own communities and neighborhoods, without the handicap of "big tent" party politics, with a focus on strengthening the cultural foundations we hope to defend.

Sage, you wrote:

And there's virtually nothing that we can do, from a purely political point of view, to change the terrible state of our traditions. People no longer even remember them, which is an essential prime requisite for their survival.

I am highly sympathetic to this line of thought. Sometimes I think this is the only sober view and that my dreams of resistance are nothing but denial.

Simply reading about them and trying to impose them later won't work, because their power comes from the fact that they make concrete those things that can't be articulated or rationalized. They just contain too much information to be definitively argued for, and it's that that differentiates them from ideologies, which seek to explain the whole of life according to one or several basic, explicit principles.

Normally, you would be right. But we are, today, at a point where a critical mass of individuals have not been given any authoritative traditions to embrace. What are such people to do? Living in this way is despair, emptiness, the void. For the men of the West there is Goethe's solution:

"What you have as heritage, take now as task. Thus you will make it your own."

In other words, adoption. But not the adoption of that which is unnatural or remote: the adoption of our own heritage as the rightful heirs of Christendom. Yes, that has an artificial and non-traditional feel about it, but it's really the only way forward. We are, perhaps, true orphans, but let our children and grandchildren receive at least a portion of the inheritance we have been denied.

So what are we supposed to do? I don't know, really, but I would say that conservative political platforms must recognize the situation and must admit their inadequacy to restoring traditional life which, if it ever happens, will have to happen in the same way it happened the first time--over many, many generations without anyone ever fully articulating their basis.

I agree with this, Sage, but would add that a little progress can be made with each generation, and that even if traditional life cannot be fully articulated, we can still make use of reason and persuasion to advance its precepts.

M.A. Roberts, you wrote:

Isn't there already a "creedal conservatism"? It's called neoconservatism.

Except that neoconservatism isn't conservatism.

I am not being facetious. Neoconservatives have been rather steadfast in remaking the older conservatism - one based in kith and kin, blood and soil loyalties - into a creedal set of beliefs.

OK, but not just any conservatism will do, and not just any creed will do either. A conservatism limited to "kith and kin, blood and soil" is just ordinary paganism, not the conservatism of America or the Christian West. Granted that Christianity introduces some un-conservative changes into a blood-and-soil pagan culture - not every belief or custom is worth conserving, after all - but would you have it any other way? Grace builds on nature, and nature is purified by grace.

A conservatism limited to "kith and kin, blood and soil" is just ordinary paganism,

Amen to that, Jeff. And double amen.

As for monarchical amendments to the constitution (and I know this was just theoretical, and you're not proposing it), that's sort of pointless as far as what America is--even, is by definition. The Constitution could also be amended (read, radically altered by an amendment) to make sharia the law of the land. If we assume that there are no limits to what amendments can do, then it tells us nothing about what America--by which I mean the United States of America--is and always has been to talk about what totally different type of country it could be changed into.

As for the monarchical impulse--Ride on, King Jesus! :-) I like the Narnia stories, too, but I also think monarchy in the real world--real monarchy, not monarchy with a mere figurehead--is too centralized, and it would be a bad idea to return to it.

"Second, Article 1, Section 9 proves you wrong: Congress may give its consent for any American statesman to accept offices and titles from kings and princes."

True but the operative part re: the attitudes around the founding is the first part, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:...". Sorry for assigning Tony's comment wrongly.

"Third, the Constitution may be legally amended to provide directly for a monarchy."

Backing up a bit, how about some detail on what you envision as the role a Christian monarch would play. Who is your role model?

Lewis's statement is simply nonsense. He seems to be saying that all we have to do do prevent the public's usually fleeting enthrallment to all manner of trivial and unsavory characters is to have a monarch. Even if we have a monarch, that person would only be one more addition to the world of fandom. Lewis was 180 degrees off.

"You see, Al, most Americans are a lot like you: inconsistent. Their actions betray one set of beliefs, their words another. For example, you have shown yourself to be a strict constructionist by nature (hence you appeal to an archaic, rigid, literalistic interpretation of the Constitution against monarchy and aristocracy), but you treat the Constitution as a "living document" when it suits your ideology."

Adhering to a religion that is self-considered to be revealed becomes problematic when that consideration carries over to things that, while clearly not being revealed (to some, at least), approach a level of significance that leads some of those who accept revelation to treat them as if they were revealed. Our Constitution is one of those things.

1. There is no such thing as "strict construction" as a principle of constitutional interpretation. Usually, those who use the term merely wish (consciously or unconsciously) to enact some version of "Social Statics".

2. If one rejects notions of revelation and credits the Authors with more then the sense of a grasshopper, then one may assume that, with the intent of writing a document that would stand the test of time, their constitution will contain a combination of fixed rules, clear in their meaning and application and concepts clear in meaning but open to changing application as times change (guideposts for future generations).

The age requirements for various offices and the outright prohibition of titles of nobility are examples of the former. The Commerce Clause and elements like Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges or Immunities are examples of the latter.

Jeff,

I follow Amy Alkon on Twitter and she retweeted this editorial. I think it dovetails quite nicely with the subject of politics in daily life, as that man was so afraid of the hysteria in Britain about sex offenders that he let a child die.

I said that right-wing governments can be just as oppressive as left-wing ones.This is true,and shows that I'm not even a doctrinaire left-winger at all.
And I wasn't spouting "left-wing cliches", but stating facts about which conservatives are in denial.
In fact, I'm a bit more libertarian than left-wing.
Conservatives think I'm a left-wing commie pinko and left-wingers think I'm much too conservative, because while I'm pro-choice and pro homosexual rights,believe in separation of church and state,and most liberal viewpoints,I'm no America-hating,politically correct and multicultural,blame America first, anti-Israel,
paranoid about seeing racism and sexism everywhere doctrinaire left-winger either.
I'm opposed to tyranny whether it's tyranny of the left-wing or right-wing kind.
I'm not hostile to Catholics or other Christians,either.I'm just opposed to any religion getting political power.

That baffles me. The Constitution of the United States doesn't preclude a monarchy?

Sorry to have upset everyone: I was thinking primarily of the FIRST part of the founding of America, which reached its culmination in the 9 years from Lexington to the signing of the peace treaty, and the defining moment in the signing of the Declaration. At that moment, monarchy was NOT contrary to the American program. The fact that G. Washington almost had to shoot people to avoid being made king rather proves it.

Certainly in the aftermath, from 1783 through 1789 and Washington's administration, we began an explicit program that eschewed monarchy, and set our tiller on a course that steered ever further from the possibility of a return to monarchy. (Gee, that's kind of what I said to begin with, isn't it?) But that path was not a foregone conclusion in 1776. There could, possibly, have been some constitutional monarchy that would have served after the war, at least for a while.

1. There is no such thing as "strict construction" as a principle of constitutional interpretation...
then one may assume that, with the intent of writing a document that would stand the test of time, their constitution will contain a combination of fixed rules, clear in their meaning and application and concepts clear in meaning but open to changing application as times change (guideposts for future generations).

It certainly sounds nice Al. Too bad that's mostly fiction. See, you either have the rule of law, or you don't. When law has been made explicit and concrete, then you have to change the explicit and concrete LAW as written in order to change the practical application as times change. And that's what the founders provided for: lower laws are open to being changed with a mere majority of Congress, "as times change." That's what lawmakers are for. That's why we invest them with authority, for "changing application."

Indeed, the founders also provided for the higher laws, the Constitution itself, to be changed as well. See, they saw clearly that the people in later generations cannot have less fundamental authority than the generation who set the Constitution down. And if that founding generation had the authority to set it down with specific provisions, then later generations had the authority to take up some of those provisions and alter them, "as times change." That's what amendments are for.

What liberals love is the notion of being able to change the meaning of the Constitution with the whim of a few men here and there, when they want to. But this means denying the right of the people to establish law as a fixed reality. Finally, it denies the possibility of the rule of law. In effect, you do away with meaning altogether. Like "marrying" someone of the same sex, or your dog, or your dead Aunt Betty, or the Eiffel Tower. That ain't marriage.

No, if you want to change application when the law bears on it, you have to change the explicit law as expressed. Re-modeling the "meaning" of the law means the rule of a man who decides what HE thinks that it best ought to mean, and not the rule of law. The language in which the law is written is not under the power of the judge, it is a given to which he must conform himself and his judgment. It is given by the people, by society, by the culture, by the lawmakers, who have written the law that they wanted in the words they expressed. If the people think that the Constitution no longer expresses what it ought, then it is up to the people to change its meaning by changing its words, not a judge by deciding what he would like it to mean "for today".

"Lewis's statement is simply nonsense. He seems to be saying that all we have to do do prevent the public's usually fleeting enthrallment to all manner of trivial and unsavory characters is to have a monarch."

Methinks, Al, that you're the one who's 180 degrees off. Lewis wasn't saying that at all. What he was saying is that the public has an innate bent towards honoring leaders, esp. if those leaders are wealthy and powerful. If they are prevented from honoring a monarch, that bent towards honor will surface elsewhere. This occurred even in the former Soviet Union; the Tsar is eliminated as an object of honor, and Lenin, Stalin, et al, move into that vacancy.

But then, I have to wonder if you think that the assassination of the Tsar and his family was a good "Enlightenment" activity, a mark of "progress."

Lydia, you wrote:

The Constitution could also be amended (read, radically altered by an amendment) to make sharia the law of the land. If we assume that there are no limits to what amendments can do, then it tells us nothing about what America--by which I mean the United States of America--is and always has been to talk about what totally different type of country it could be changed into.

The question of whether the Constitution defines America is an interesting one. I believe the answer is negative. It has precious little to do with everyday life for most Americans, who have never read the document, seldom think about it, and hold some very incorrect opinions about what it actually means. Such has always been the case. I would agree that the principles behind the Constitution can be said to have protected the American way of life, but I do not agree that our Constitution is the only reasonable expression or application of those principles, or even that those principles are necessarily irreformable.

In many respects we already have a "totally different type of country" from that which the founders knew and envisioned. The Constitution didn't prevent that from happening. Returning to some form of Christian monarchy - indeed, to the specific kind of monarchy under which the English colonists thrived for a century, prior to the abuses of George III - would actually place us closer to the founders' vision of America than we are today.

It is worth noting that government intrusion, coercion and manipulation is today many times more oppressive than anything the colonists had to endure from their distant king.

In many respects we already have a "totally different type of country" from that which the founders knew and envisioned. The Constitution didn't prevent that from happening.

It is worth noting that government intrusion, coercion and manipulation is today many times more oppressive than anything the colonists had to endure from their distant king.

All true. Especially the second one. But I still don't agree that America could still be the U.S.A. and be a monarchy. And I'd like us to return to that 1789 ideal. And I think that one way to encourage a laid-back attitude about our present government intrusion and to undermine what American spirit of liberty remains is to "diss" the ideal of freedom and to tell people centralized government ain't so bad.

And I think that one way to encourage a laid-back attitude about our present government intrusion and to undermine what American spirit of liberty remains is to "diss" the ideal of freedom and to tell people centralized government ain't so bad.

I'm in favor of freedom, Lydia.

But think about that for a minute. When a stranger tells you - in the USA circa 2010 - that he believes in "freedom", does that tell you anything meaningful? The first thing that comes to your mind is probably a question as to what, exactly, he likes to do with his freedom? Maybe you're also wondering how many illicit substances he's into, why he sports a ring in his nose, and who is the voluptuous half-naked female waiting on the Harley outside?

I'm not "dissing" the ideal of freedom properly understood. But I'm forever going to "dis" the ideal of freedom apart from concrete actions and a specific religious and moral context. I don't want freedom for the Barbarians, I want freedom for the Good Guys. To the extent that we can't enjoy the latter without tolerating the former, yes, I'm in favor of tolerating the former. Nevertheless I believe it is a serious mistake to elevate an un-nuanced abstraction of "freedom" to the level of a social and political organizing principle in the 21st century.

I do realize, of course, that "freedom" was the American propaganda line throughout the previous century, when the ideal was more correctly understood, and I grant that it was extremely effective. But through endless repetition and careless usage the American ideal of freedom has now completely lost its moorings. What the barbarians mean by "freedom" and what Lydia McGrew means by freedom are, presumably, two entirely different things.

True freedom is not at all incompatible with monarchy, nor is subsidiarity. In actual historical practice monarchies have honored subsidiarity to a far greater extent than have modern democracies. For the time being, anyway, the question of monarchy is only theoretical in the United States and I am reluctant to spend much more time discussing it here.

I follow Amy Alkon on Twitter and she retweeted this editorial. I think it dovetails quite nicely with the subject of politics in daily life, as that man was so afraid of the hysteria in Britain about sex offenders that he let a child die.

Thanks for posting this, Mike. Chilling.

I know, world is wrong if you have any problem please tell me. Now do you understand?