Love in the Ruins–More Final Thoughts
I was leaving for Ft. Worth early Wednesday morning and, although I did not turn on the radio, watch television, or buy a newspaper, "the news was out all over town" and impossible to evade, even though I have avoided the media ever since. Yesterday, my wife asked me to listen for the weather on our local NPR channel. I asked her to bet how long it would take for Obama to come up on Morning Edition. As it turned out, white antipathy to the nonwhite president was the topic under discussion. Try it yourself. I defy anyone to listen to or watch the news for five minutes without hearing the sacred name invoked. (This morning, Obama was deferred for several minutes by a story on Orthodox Jews.)
In the airports I expected to see jubilation, something like the scene in a Marx Brothers movie where the children all follow Harpo singing and exulting down the garden path. It all seemed quite normal, though when I went to Ft. Worth i met an old friend, an African-American Episcopalian, who told me over drinks that everyone must defer to him now. He was joking--as a Christian he could not possibly vote for the man who wants his daughter to have the right to kill his grandchild, as he has said explicitly. But, I fear, the joke may be reality for many people. "Bottom rail on top now."
The big election news in Texas came from Baylor, a Baptist university where some students burned Obama posters on election night. Baylor's president said he would not tolerate such racism. So, there it is: Any criticism of Obama for any reason is racism. Many Americans may be thinking, better be hanged for a sheep than for a goat.
The reaction in Europe is mostly a sigh of relief, though I did receive from a French friend in Paris the following palindrome devised by an academic colleague: Non amabo . That is about the best comment I have heard. On the off chance that we have a Latinless reader, non amabo means I shall not love and read backwards, Obama non, means Obama no. I think we should sell t-shirts and bumper stickers and yard signs. Who will be first to subscribe?
Meanwhile, the "conservatives" are showing their true colors. McCain's big mistake was appealing to pro-life sentiments and trying to refight the culture war. In fact, just the opposite is probably true. Exit polling indicated that as many as 20% of self-described conservative voters did not vote for McCain. If you add to that number, all the conservatives who, like me, simply did not bother to vote, McCain might have been elected if he were perceived as more conservative. Why did McCain lose? He lost because Republicans were stupid enough to pick him in the primaries. Both the primaries and the election constitute all the proof we need that the electoral process in the US guarantees the election of the worst possible men.
I should be happy over Obama's victory because, as predicted, the Dow has soared, and I have recovered all the money George Bush stole from my retirement account.
In his History of Florence , Machiavelli comments on the excitement that attended the election of Nicolo Soderini as Gonfaloniere di Giustizia during the regime of Piero the Gouty, son of Cosimo and father of Lorenzo de' Medici: "By this and many examples of the same nature, it is evident how inconvenient it is to enter upon the magistracy or government with more than ordinary acclamation; for not being able to perform as is expected (and for the most part more is required). The People abate of their esteem and come by degrees to despise you.
I would bet that the first defectors will be the white middle class and blue collar workers who turned in despair to the messaiah's promise of salvation; next may come the disillusioned African-Americans and peaceniks, when they realize he cannot or will not keep his promises. Last or perhaps never the stupid white professionals whose hatred of our country, religion, culture, people, and life itself brought us to this degradation.
But what did we expect? Americans have been running after gurus for nearly a century. We have always been told that Father Abraham was a national savior who could not be bound by the constitution. Voters of my parents' generation made FDR a virtual dictator for life--thank goodness their medicine was so primitive in the 1940's. Then came JFK and Camelot, and, after 20 years in the wilderness, conservatives found their own messaiah in Ronald Reagan. As long as Americans keep searching for leaders, they are condemned to be followers--all the way over the cliff.
Then what is to be done in these dark times? I was asked this question during a round table discussion in Texas. I gave my usual answer, which is, nothing and everything, that is nothing in the way of political action until we can be sure of pragmatic results and everything we must do to lead good leaves during any time. I used the example of early Christians who did not run around protesting infanticide or denouncing the Empire--a position, by the way, that distinguished them form Stoic hotheads, who virtually demanded to be executed by Vespasian. A young father responded by saying there was no public education, in those days, to destroy the minds and souls of children. I asked him if there was a state law in Texas requiring Christian parents to send their kids to public schools. His question illustrates a common tendency among even the best sort of people today: They want to continue to imagine that the system can be fixed, which would relieve them of the terrible burden of living life every day as if we were serious in our professions.
Yes, there is an opportunity for political reorganization among conservatives who may have learned a few lessons from the past 25 years. Lesson one is to stick to your own people and, generically speaking, your own religion. Making common cause with atheist-materialists, Nietzscheans, Muslims, and other non-Christians is futile and self-destructive. Lesson number two is to plan for hte long-term. When Goldwater went down in flames in 1964, it took four presidential terms for conservatives to be able to field a presidential candidate in the GOP. It was thanks to people like Bill Rusher, working for 20 years, that Ronald Reagan--for whatever that was worth-got elected. Conservative activists today want the world and they want it now. Since the 1960's we have all been infantile in demanding instant gratification. The result of precipitous action, of following the motto "something must be done" would be something like Sarah Palin under the control of the neoconservatives. Murray Rothbard, a doomed political activist, used to say that liberals were always looking for a problem so they could say, "we can't stand idly by." To which Murray would, in his inimitable manner--somewhere between a shriek and a cackle--cry out, "Why can't we."
Let me conclude with the words of an obscure poet in a verse satire on photography:
Nothing remains to hold against the rage:
our soldiers do not fight nor bishops pray.
Painting and music? Another lame excuse
for living badly, staying out of touch.
Not even Jeffers' mountains look that good,
their wilderness is tamed by taxes, roads.
Then what is left, good health and half your wits--
the code of athletes and couples without kids,
who have two incomes and no fear of death?
Recite this pledge: I will forget myself,
forget the broken hearts and Ph.D.'s who've taught
the young to hate the world, the flesh, and God;
I'll plant flowers, love my wife as she grows gray,
and make some Baptist teach me how to pray;
give up on cameras and on everything
that I shall someday grieve to leave behind.
I will ignore the symptoms of my disease,
and--spouting green the Spring--go paint the trees
not as they seem but as they first were made
and await the second coming of the Word.
Entries(RSS)
In the meantime, Mr. Fleming, won't the munitions manufacturers, bankers and short-term Wall Street investors, abortionists, illegal aliens, embryonic stem cell researchers, the NEA, and homosexuals gain in an Obama presidency before disillusion sets in, if it ever does. Won't the continuing decline continue? My brother gave me an assinine reason why he voted for Obama: he wants to see the value of his home restored to its pre-meltdown value. We may be a pragmatic people, but we are certainly not moral.
Yes, but he cannot deliver for a period of four years. Let us leap forward and take a backward look. At what point will Republicans begin impeachment proceedings? Some time after they regain control of the House, which could be in two years. Obama has to be praying to his gods for good luck, because that is all that can save him.
An addendum:
Meanwhile, the "conservatives" are showing their true colors. McCain's big mistake, they say, was appealing to pro-life sentiments and trying to refight the culture war. In fact, just the opposite is probably true. Exit polling indicated that as many as 20% of self-described conservative voters did not vote for McCain. If you add to that number, all the conservatives who, like me, simply did not bother to vote, McCain might have been elected if he were perceived as more conservative. Why did McCain lose? He lost because Republicans were stupid enough to pick him in the primaries. Both the primaries and the election constitute all the proof we need that the electoral process in the US guarantees the election of the worst possible men.
I am not at all hopeful that Obama will be impeached. He may well be too cunning.
Many "conservatives" with whom I have spoken favor his call to sacrifice and national service. It would seem that this form of "patriotism" resonates with no few on the right. It will play to the military as national service funnels many into the armed forces. It will also make it easier to wage war, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Pakistan and even Iran. I believe that Obama will make good use of Bush's Afrikakorps across the Dark Continent. Most importantly, national service will be a potent propaganda construct in which aliens and alienated youth are marshalled for the "cause."
He will, I believe, push through the "fairness doctrine," which will over time remove much of the "other" voice from radio. This would weaken or elimate conservatives and Christians from public discourse through the medium of radio.
Obama will push through hate-crime lesgislation which, depending on how it is written and on how it is enforced, might even chill discussion on this forum.
Obama will indirectly attack the "2nd amendment" by increasing the tax on guns and ammunition, by making it difficult for persons under 18 to even possess and use a firearm, by extending the "psychological profile" within which one would be barred from owning or possessing a firearm, by bringing gun shows under direct federal regulation, and by creating a federal framework in which lawyers and municipalities such as New York can sue gun manufacturers.
I predict that these and similar measures will be pushed through very quickly. I hope that I am wrong.
J. Meng--
My brother gave me an assinine reason why he voted for Obama: he wants to see the value of his home restored to its pre-meltdown value. We may be a pragmatic people, but we are certainly not moral.
Clueless about reality and stupidly optimistic as well... most everyone thinks that the economy, housing prices, the stock market etc., must get better because it's "cyclical."
@3
Like the Sage said, we're about to get it good and hard...
#2 My most esteemed leader, if the Republicans ever develop the nerve and the intelligence to impeach Obama, I will eat my entire complete collection of Chronicles---without ketchup. Such a thing is not possible. It would not be respectable.
I fear I did not make my point about impeachment very well. I do not believe the Republicans really thought they could evict Clinton, but they arranged the impeachment farce as a political tool to help in the next election. Although they might not have the nerve--indeed, probably do not--to give the same treatment to the second founder of the nation, they would do something dramatically obstructionist, if they regained control of the House and if they thought it would do them some good. They would do it, even if they thought Obama was a great President facing a crisis that might destroy the country. But, as you say, your Senator Graham and his colleagues lack a vital organ necessary in politics, and I am not referring to the brain. Too bad about Flattop Bob--one of the few races that was interesting. In the end, the dogs of theGOP always return to their vomit.
The Want of Peace
by Wendell Berry
All goes back to the earth,
and so I do not desire
pride of excess or power,
but the contentments made
by men who have had little:
the fisherman’s silence
receiving the river’s grace,
the gardener’s musing on rows.
I lack the peace of simple things.
I am never wholly in place.
I find no peace or grace.
We sell the world to buy fire,
our way lighted by burning men,
and that has bent my mind
and made me think of darkness
and wish for the dumb life of roots.
A colleague of mine remarked that CNN's coverage of worldwide Obama victory celebrations was reminiscent of the final scene in one of the Star Wars movies (Empire Strikes Back, I believe) where jubilation is seen across the empire/universe when the Death Star is destroyed. Make your own allegorical Death Star parallels, but I'm comparing the Ewoks to the crowd in Chicago.
We could have elected a ticket of Cicero as President, and Edmund Burke as VP, and the extent of my celebrations would have been to drink a cold beer and go to bed. Come to think of it, that's how I did react to Obama's election. The point is, what kind of madness possesses people to be this fanatical about the election of any man to public office?
It is Obama who has already shown his true colors. Their name is Rahm Emmanuel.
"As long as Americans keep searching for leaders, they are condemned to be followers–all the way over the cliff."
I'm not sure I'm with you on this one Fleming.Hierarchy, and therefore leadership, is natural.Every form of Rightist opposition to Revolution is in agreement with this.
Themistocles was a leader.So was Fabius Maximus.As were Pope Gregory the Great and Charlemagne.The list is quite extensive.Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis led the South,did they not?
Men are unequal, therefore it is necessary,not to mention inevitable,that some men lead and others follow.
Somewhere in Vegetius' DE RE MILITARI he mentions that insubordination was usually caused by an inability to adhere to discipline.Soldiers confidant of their abilities do not mutiny.There is therefore a certain nobility in being a good follower.
The problem then would seem to be that upon one side we have ignoble leaders,and upon the other side unworthy followers.
If any of this is correct, then I dont see the quest for leaders as being a bad thing per se,rather it is the quality-or lack thereof-in the leaders sought after,as well as the nature of those who do the seeking, that are the loci of the problem.
Permit me to explain my point a little better. Every society has and needs leaders, whether warchiefs or traditional aristocrats or kings. A LEADER, in the modern sense, is something else. Themistocles, Miltiades, Pericles, Cimon, et al, as well as their Roman counterparts, were leaders in war and peace, because they displayed certain qualities of intelligence, resolve, courage, etc. They were followed to the extent they were respected but they were quite quickly dumped, and not always by a fickle mob--much as the Romans dumped Scipio Africanus. The modern LEADER, by contrast, is a charismatic figure (in the literal sense that he has a semi-divine aura) who is to be followed because he is who he is, and not necessarily because he has any demonstrable virtues. Fascist and Nazi theory is full of theoretical statements on the importance of the leader or dictator. Stalin and Tito and Mao were also leaders in this sense. So was FDR.
There is obviously a fine line, at some points, between a traditional leader and a modern LEADER. The Duce expected to be worshipped as a LEADER, but Italians being Italians treated him at best as a leader who could be dispensed with if he became inconvenient. Pope Gregory the Great was a great man in his own right and the holder of the most important office then existing in Italy, but there is no pomposity or strut--quite the contrary--in his discourses and letters. The same can be said for Davis, Lee, and the other worth men on your list. Lincoln was a mere leader in his lifetime, but after his death he was treated more like a LEADER, that is, something of a hero in the Greek sense, a man who has achieved semi-divine status. Good Roman emperors like Augustus and Vespasian despised the degrading elevation of a mere man (such as they were) to divine status, while Caligula, Nero, and Domitian demanded it. People do tend to love their leaders to the point of irrationality, and up to a point that is a good quality, involving both loyalty and affection, but the adorers of JFK, Reagan, and Obama have gone, in many cases, over the line in attributing supernatural good luck, wisdom, etc. to their heroes. I noticed something quite similar when I was interviewing people in the Lega Nord. According to them, Bossi was guided by a genius more than human.
Free men do and should grant their assent, respect, and loyalty to the good leaders who are in a position to command armies, rule the Church, or pilot the ship of state, but they do not prostrate themselves before a mortal god, which is what the Obaminists are doing. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this point. I am far from being a populist.
It seems to me that if there was ever an opportunity for traditional conservatives to take back the Republican party (because a new party could only split the right-of-center vote, leaving the Marxists in power forever), this is it.
How often does one hear, in the news now, that the Republicans are "bankrupt of ideas," and such?
Beautiful. Now is the time to *give* them ideas, to fill that supposed vacuum -- with the principles of traditional conservatism.
After all, traditional conservatives were against the Iraq war. And when one examines what has driven people away from the Republicans, it is the Neocon policies, not the traditional-conservative policies.
In fact, the victory over gay marriage, contrasted with the failure for the Oval Office, suggests exactly that situation -- tradition can win, neocon cannot.
The public doesn't even know that traditional conservatism exists. Now is the time to step into the light, to present traditional conservatism as a vital alternative to fossilized neoconservaism, which has been so thoroughly repudiated.
First, traditional conservatism must win the Right, and there has never been a better time than now.
I'm not sure what message to take from the ballot initiatives. Didn't the anti-abortion initiatives fail in relatively conservative South Dakota and Colorado. I think the people are getting what they want.
@15
Ah, but prop 8 in CA passed by a comfortable margin, as well as a similar measure in FL. All is not lost - yet.
And I thought Dr. Fleming's essay would be about Dr. Thomas More and the lapsometer.
Derek Leaberry reminds me that I never finished my screed, and it was the conclusion that suggested the title. Of course, it could also be an allusion to Browning. I once told Walker Percy, by the way, that his portrayal of ethno-ideological conflict was a better political prophecy than most. He admitted,sheepishly, that he had forgotten having written all that.
Next time there's an election, only vote for bald men with glasses.
Re. leaders vs LEADERs -- various lists attempting to enumerate 'properties of leaders' have always been susceptible to fairly obvious empirical objection, and indeed are certainly doomed to incompletion, for the straightforward philosophical reason that natures are not atoms.
The chief philosophical difficulty facing any 'theory of leadership', by which one might rigorously distinguish a leader from a LEADER, is that the 'heroization' criterion is relational, and the philosophy of relations is extraordinarily difficult. (Here again I think Scotus is better than Aquinas, though later Iberian Thomists are better than most of the Scotistic tradition. All specifically modern takes are either sentimental or inconsistent, or both; this includes anything from incoherent theories of individuation (like 'bundle of properties', a sort of Hegelianism revisited) to vaguely imagined quasi-Trinitarianism, favorite of some Lutheran and Catholic theology. Scholastic philosophical discussions of relations were heavily informed by Incarnational and Trinitarian theology, but abstractly rather than imaginatively.)
As a result the best way to get a probabilistic picture of leadership would strongly empirical, without claims to exhaustivity of induction, and hence syllogistic validity. Some of the best work in legal anthropology over the past half-century began with extraordinarily well-researched studies of Native American tribes (starting with the Cheyenne), who maintained both high levels of respect for law, and also a highly functional notion of leadership (i.e., leaders are just those who lead).
Classicists locate what TJF has couched as the leader-LEADER contrast in the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles in the Iliad -- though the situation is complicated by the fact that both have claims on both functional and charismatic leadership. Studies in early Greek legal and political systems, concentrating on Homer, Hesiod, and a few inscriptions, paint a picture of early archaic leadership quite similar to contemporary tribal societies'; comparative anthropology has occasionally been combined with ethology to produce crude models, applicable more or less in proportion to the relative centralization of different species' nervous systems, according to which, for sometimes complex sociobiological reasons, the leader is just 'the one that everyone follows'. For genetic reasons, as far as evolutionary biology can tell us at the moment, no universally true answer can be much more articulated than that. (I do think this will eventually change, but only after a great deal of rather foundational work in the what one might glibly call 'the philosophy of genes'.)
But LEADERs want properties more than mammalian. The Nazi philosophy of leadership -- which owed a great deal to the iconography of the German Holy Roman Empire -- lay great emphasis on the specific difference between human and non-human animals, read through Cartesian-Kantian dualism and the 'glottocentric' (and often racist) linguistic snobbery of the nineteenth century. (I've always thought that Kantorowicz needed to pay more attention to (non-human) animals.)
We haven't escaped these errors in thought; we'll just have to hope that we won't make the same mistakes in action.
The language of 'potentia ordinata' has crept into especially American political rhetoric an awful lot lately. I still don't have an adequate notion of authority, but anyone with the slightest appreciation of craft/skill/tekhne can't fail to see that finite beings' rule is never absolute. The failure of crafts, the total dominance of 'scientific' (really, 'atomistic'), non-local mass-production, surrounds 'civilized' people with tekhne-denying objects -- and hence affirmation of the universal imaginata; perhaps we needn't be capital-A Agrarians to oppose this, but insofar as we suppose that human 'science' can rule everything, and hence that some 'scientific' human can rule everything, we can't effectively oppose unlimited rule as such.
The "progressives'" worst fear seems to be the phantom of counter-revolution -- at least that's the impression I get from visiting a website that features Maoist propaganda posters of the 1960s.
Start with the slogan "Spare Change?"
http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger
is the site. It's worth a look for old time's sake, because we have forgotten a lot in 40 years. And the It Can't Happen Here mentality has in fact happened. Check out BO's socialist art.
Conservatives' big mistake was to nominate McCain in the first place. Guy almost became a Dem after his failed 2000 campaign, supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion and gun control flip flopper, and loves his wars. Guy never exhibited a true conservative bone in his body, but the media tagged him as such and the morons(my favorite word) fell for it. The most embarrassing aspect of it all is how evangelical Christians have continually fell for this scam of voting for the lesser of two evils. It is like the love lorn sorority girl who throws herself at any guy that shows interest in her only to end up being used for a one night stand. The girl never really wises up and ends up a pathetic tramp. This analogy also applies to all of those liberal Christians and their liberation theology for Obama will make them look dumb as well. Like Dr. Fleming says, he can't give the people all that he has promised them.
I thank you Dr. Fleming for your worthy and insightful response.I enjoy these exchanges and I hope you do too.
Permit me to clarify a few items as well.Firstly,let me reassure you that I am in no way arguing in favor of the kind of leadership offered by JFK,Reagan or Obama.Far from it.Secondly,in referencing Pope Gregory the Great I was actually thinking of Pope St. Gregory VII( though Innocent III would have been a better example ).I got my Gregories mixed-up.Gregory the Great was a humble Benedictine monk,and as such, not a very good example of what I was driving at.
Your distinction between LEADERS and leaders was helpful,but another similar question arises.
You say that,"The modern LEADER, by contrast, is a charismatic figure (in the literal sense that he has a semi-divine aura) who is to be followed because he is who he is, and not necessarily because he has any demonstrable virtues." Perhaps,but I would argue that like the virtues of leadership,charisma is also natural and consequently a valid expression of human inequality.
You're the Greek scholar around here not me,but if I'm not mistaken charisma,chrism,chrisma in Italian,christening and the like, signify anointing with oil.This anointment symbolizes the specialness of the anointed,which in turn indicates a qualitative differentiation.All of which is well within the bounds of certain strands of Counter-Revolutionary thought.And so back we come to the notion of hierarchy and inequality among men.
Purple bordered togas,Senatorial rings,lictors carrying fasces in procession are all charismatic elements.As is a Roman general in triumphal procession,cheeks daubed with vermilion,crowned with laurels and clad in a red cape.Fine white horses pulling his chariot towards the Capitoline,amidst acclamations and trumpet blasts,the Via Sacra strewn with rose petals,there to deposit the spoils of victory in the temple of Jupiter,the god who the victorius general incarnates in his triumphal parade.As are a thousand other things;stately edifices,incense,rich vestments,ermine,gold crowns,Cardinal's hats,bugles, trumpets,drums,jewels,honor guards etc..
Pomp and circumstance is as much apart of legitimate authority as of its opposite.In fact,the more legitimate the authority in question is,the greater and nobler the pomp.
" Lincoln was a mere leader in his lifetime, but after his death he was treated more like a LEADER, that is, something of a hero in the Greek sense, a man who has achieved semi-divine status. Good Roman emperors like Augustus and Vespasian despised the degrading elevation of a mere man (such as they were) to divine status, while Caligula, Nero, and Domitian demanded it." Fair enough,but when the emperor reached the height of his divine status with Diocletian,who assumed the title DOMINUS,and who's ministers had to prostate themselves before,things that Caligula or Nero could hardly of dreamed of,the empire was in much more capable hands.Diocletian was a man of steel.A tough soldier who's reforms paved the way for Constantine.
Now, here is what I am driving at.There is a legitimate desire in men,and more especially women,to partake of some or all of this.Its strength,and consequently its validity,can be gaged by how frequently charismatic leaders arise after periods of dormancy.FDR,JFK,Reagan and now Obama are each separated by only short intervals.When a strong desire,like the desire for red meat, or sugar, or sex,is not satisfied it instantly turns to poor substitutes.
If you have trouble getting a wholesome home-cooked meal you are more likely to order the number four meal at your local McDonalds.And if you dont feed your dog he will start rummaging through your garbage.
As with the distinction between leaders and LEADERS then,we must distinguish between charisma and CHARISMA.A noble and dignified bearing,fine clothes or a handsome face are excellent means,though of course not the only nor the most important, of separating the governors from the governed.And that is precisely what the governed want.That is what the Jimmy Carters and John McCains of the world will never understand.
@15
I don't know anything about the propositions in Colorado and South Dakota, but Prop. 4 nearly passed here in California (with 47.7% in favor). It probably would have passed had it not been for the exceptionally misleading advertisement that the murder mills had running on every TV station at all hours.
TJF@13: Your discussion here is excellent. I had not considered this matter in this way. Please think about expanding your thoughts 'on leadership - classical v. modern' into a longer, formal essay.
Maxwell@16: As a Californian (not my fault; folks came out before I was born), I of course voted to save marriage (Yes on 8), but the final tally was not "comfortable" at all: 52.2% - 47.8%. Only a bare majority of the nation's most populous state voted to save marriage! That is down from around 62% the last time voters visited the issue (this is from memory). The trend is clear, and disturbing.
JE@20: Your impenetrable prose reminds me of a postmodernist. Contemplate Wittgenstein's dictum: "Whatever can be said, can be said clearly."
TJF@2:
Perhaps you are being facetious, but I doubt the GOP will reclaim the House in two years, or four, though 'our' - yes, until a Pat Buchanan / Ron Paul type creates a viable conservative third party, I remain a reluctant Republican - chances of doing so are certainly greater under Obama than they would have been under the truly odious McCain (which is why I rooted for Obama, despite voting for Ron Paul as a write-in). Indeed, a "third Bush term" under McCain would have sealed the Congressional GOP's doom (ie, permanent minority status at least until the 2030s, if not forever). With an all-Democrat government, and likely overreaching, we will have at least a few opportunities to get a bit out from under the rubble in '10 and '12.
That said, I think Othello, I mean Obama might prove to be a far more successful president than you imply (not 'successful' according to traditionalist criteria of restoring the republic, but politically and especially electorally). Here is a scenario.
1. O pushes to expand the Democratic, and future non-white, majority, by 'reaching out' in 'bipartisan' fashion to his recent opponent, encouraging him to lead the Senate charge to enact 'comprehensive immigration reform', including 'earned legalization'. This will 'not be amnesty', however, as there will be a five year 'path to citizenship', which will include payment of back taxes (ha!), mandatory civics testing (haha!) of 'American citizenship principles' (historical 'growth of democracy', 'equality and dignity', civil rights, America's mixed economy), perhaps even a little 'national service' thrown in as a sop to 'conservatives'.
Latinos will rejoice in their savior; blacks, who will be harmed, will nevertheless NOT sour on their 'brotha' in the Oval Office (though a few might grumble for a day); union leaderships, the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the mass media, academia, libertarians, neocons, theocons, will sing hosannas ... Only Middle Americans will lose out big, and be bitter about it. But most of them are 'racists' who vote GOP anyway, and I'm quite sure their reaction will be past come Nov 2012, which will arrive, I'm certain, before the first 'undocumented worker' has been naturalized.
2. O follows his innate pacifist instincts, as well as sense of his leftist base, and really does wind down the Iraq debacle within a year or so. That would be both politically popular (esp with Democrats and swing voters, not to mention the 'foreign community', whose Left-biased presses would shower him with praise, some of which would wash back through our own press to these shores), and fiscally helpful, given the trillion dollar deficit the betrayer Bush is leaving.
Moreover, I suspect that O really does not have a foreign policy orientation. He may flex America's muscles by bombing a terrorist training camp or two, thereby neutralizing right-interventionist hostility; he may also order some highly publicized but low cost / low risk left-interventions in places like Darfur, to keep the NEW REPUBLIC and celebrity types happy. He will probably greatly expand American 'first-responder' aid in the event of overseas natural disasters, to project American 'soft-power', and build goodwill towards himself. But if he should otherwise commit the US to very little of substance, while using his race as a global status symbol to 'facilitate' lots of 'dialogue' with both the flaccid Europeans and Canadians, as well as the developing world, he could at the very least eliminate foreign policy as either a literal liability for the US, or a political one for himself.
3. That inherited deficit could also be a powerful weapon in O's hands, it constituting the excuse he could use to 'face down' the over-eager Democrats in Congress come budget time. At one stroke, he can weasel out of some of his campaign's more extravagant spending promises, while posing to moderates, esp among big money donors, as fiscally prudent. Moreover, contrary to stupid supply-side dogma (Mises was not a supply-sider, and Murray Rothbard had boundless contempt for them), moderately raising taxes on the affluent to cover existing deficits, or better, to pay down some debt, would actually help the overall economy, even if taxation is immoral, and the progressive variety more so (O's one mistake was to promise to raise taxes at too low of a level; instead of restoring Clinton-era rates on households making $250k, he should not do anything to rates on income below $500k, while really jacking them through the roof on income above a million).
I could add a great deal more (eg, do a big global warming bill, but don't have it take effect until after 2012; lean on Bernanke to stop increasing liquidity, and get the recession over with before the end of 2010; give the sexual degenerates everything, but fight your own party when it tries to impose a host of new, economy-killing financial regulations). But the point should be clear. If Obama can restrain the more extreme anti-free market elements in Congress, while giving the Left all it wants in foreign policy, taxation, and especially race and sex issues, he will achieve his personal (reelection) and political (moving America to the Left) objectives. And the Congressional Democrats will likely keep their majorities for some time.
Oh, I forgot: O could also support steep reductions in our (admittedly bloated) defense budgets, with the resultant savings likewise being used for deficit reduction (or new spending). My overall point is that the Democrats could do many things to reward their base (union card checks is another, though that could really rile Big Business), especially on cultural, social, and moral matters, but also on foreign policy, taxation, and the environment, none of which would, at least in the near-term, necessarily harm the economy or even slow its recovery.
Absent a real security threat, the economy is what voters primarily care about. And the GOP, we now know, can promote economic destruction just like the Democrats.
A few points. I do indeed enjoy discussing points raised by Sempronius. A chrism is an annointing,, from a Greek verb meaning smear with oil, hence Christos, etc. Charisma comes from Charis (grace, joy), related to the verb chairein, to experience joy, pleasure, gratitude, hence the common Greek greeting today herete=salvete. Theologically, a charisma is a divine favor or grace, thus a charismatic man is one manifestly gifted with supernatural graces. Sam Francis used to say, perhaps by way of Descartes on the nature of God, that a charismatic man was the ground of his own being. Thus Dr. King did not have to do anything or justify his behavior. He simply existed.
Those who would like to pursue a bit the concepts of leadership in primitive societies might look at the bibliography in The Politics of Human Nature, especially the chapter "Order without Law." A few years ago, an interesting book by an Italian classicist (translated the hero and the tyrant) draws some interesting comparisons between the conventional attributes of the hero--he is above law and convention, beds many women, has great appetites--are also applied, both by the Greeks and moderns to great LEADERS, who take the law into their own hands. I believe he referenced Billl Clinton.
One key term is the notion of authority, as opposed to power. Authority, which has been defined as "the faculty of gaining assent," is a quality that can be based on superior physical and mental qualities or on descent or some other constitutional tradition (election) or on having the good fortune to be successful in a number of endeavors. The root of the word <augeo, increase, make to grow or flourish gives some hint, perhaps, of the dependence of the crops on the sacred king. If power comes from the barrel of a gun, authority has quite different sources. One way of approaching the LEADER would be to say that in acquiring power, he wishes to monopolize authority. There are many kinds of authority in a healthy society.
I am not at all sure about Agamemnon v. Achilles, since both are manifestly wrong and abuse the powers given to them. In the end--or just before the end--Achilles turns out to be a monster who can only be made human by being reminded of his father (his human side). I had to turn 50 before I began to understand the Iliad, though I always had a sneaking feeling that Agamemnon was not a petty villain.
This is not the best forum for debating the evolution of the principate into an empire ruled by divinities. Times demanded a tough solution, though I would venture to say that the centralization and reorganization of the empire brought about by Diocletian, in the long run, was as successful as his experiment in wage and price controls. Poor old Montenegrin peasant (from Dioclea--Duklja=Podgorica-=Titograd=Podgorica), he preferred to grow cabbages in retirement. I think he did what he had to do, and this includes the persecution he undertook, it would seem, with some reluctance. By the way, there is a Montenegrin legend that persists about the evil Car (Tsar) who ended up being hanged from a bridge. The Metropolitan of Montenegro, a few years back, got into hot water for making the comparison with Milo Djukanovic, the gangster president.
In speaking of a possible GOP revival, I was being partly facetious and partly sketching out one possible scenario. It all depends on Amabo's luck.
For the curious who can read Italian, here is the book I mentioned above. Carmine Catenacci . Il tiranno e l’eroe: Per un’archeologia del potere nella Grecia antica. Milano: Mondadori, 1996. And I should clarify the Montenegrin joke by saying that the Montenegrin separatists set up a bogus academic enterprise, the Dukljan Academy, to justify independence on the grounds that they were a separate race from the Serbs.
I defer completely to Dr. Fleming's erudition on the question of leadership and authority the ancient world. But I was reminded of how Hitler described the sources of political power in Mein Kampf. He said that political power had three roots: tradition, popularity, and actual control of the means of physical compulsion.
Political power rooted in tradition was what a ruler had if his house or lineage or dynasty had governed in a given place for a very long time. This gave him and his government a prescriptive right to rule.
Political power rooted in popularity was what a ruler had if he was genuinely liked by his people, and had their trust and confidence.
Political power rooted in physical compulsion is what a ruler had if he maintained a firm grip on his police force, his army, his intelligence services, and all other mechanisms for carrying out any orders.
Hitler said that if you were lucky enough to enjoy all three of these roots of power, your position was practically unassailable. But if even just one of them were lacking, your position was inherently unstable.
It should be noted, of course, that Hitler was a Machiavellian secularist, and he makes no mention whatsoever of any divine source of political authority.
Although unlettered, Hitler was a shrewd political observer. Nero famously said he did not wish to be loved but feared, but, then, Nero died in a palace coup. Roman imperial authority increasingly was bathed in a divine halo, and Constantine himself, even after his conversion, went farther down the road to the god-king than Diocletian had. Descriptions of his perfumed and oiled hair, gaudy dress, and liturgical court ceremonies strike a simple republican as gaudy at best and a little fruity. Yet Constantine's heirs, the Byzantine emperors, had considerable personal dignity. The religious aura of authority is handled in different ways. In republican Athens and Rome, the semi-sacred character of the king gave way to a divided and rotating substitute. The archon basileus discharged the religious functions of the polity, just as later the rex sacrificorum and pontifex maximus did at Rome. Religion and the commonwealth were close partners, and since there were no full-time priests (except perhaps the rex sacrificorum, who had little power) there could be no conflict. Back to the Gregorys, Gregory VII is a clear case of a brilliant and pious man who overreached himself. I believe it was St. Peter Damian, his friend and collaborator in church reform, who described him as a fool who brought ruin to himself and the Church. An interesting story we cannot take up here is the adoration he inspired in the Countess Matilda, sometimes called the Tuscan Joan of Arc.
We might wonder about Augustus' re-integration of religious and political offices, regularly cited by modern scholars as evidence of his totalitarianism. (The best criterion for 'absolute rule' may be 'control of religious practices', for reasons Cicero, perhaps Augustus, understood well. This doesn't really apply to Christianity, because secular powers control only religio in Cicero's 'binding' sense, and the Church isn't that; but it's interesting that church and state are separated differently in Christian (owing to impropriety) and non-Christian (owing to fear of totalitarianism) cases.) I'd be very interested in TJF's opinion on this (e.g., Ara Pacis) -- the modern scholars I've seen understand leadership very poorly, and religion too.
Wasn't St. Peter Damian one of the early absoluta/ordinata theorists? The secondary lit, if I remember it correctly, pushes this line (Francis Oakley), but I thought the distinction was (at least conceptually) made earlier. This is the distinction, originally regarding divine power (plays an important if non-decisive role in scholastic discussion of the problem of evil), that later rulers eventually co-opted, most notably by James I of England, to justify absolute monarchy -- the notion that the king, like God, has power to do anything according to his 'potential absoluta', i.e., 'power considered in itself'; but willingly submits himself to the law, like God to the laws of nature, according to his 'potentia ordinata'. (This is terribly oversimplified, but the royal scholars oversimplified also.)
TJF @29:
Confirmation is accomplished by anointing with holy oil. Orthodox Christians call it Holy Chrism and refer to the sacrament as Chrismation. Orthodox Christians receive the sacrament of Chrismation immediately after they are baptized. Catholics are confirmed at about age 14, I believe. Confirmation/Chrismation is a substitute for the "laying on of hands" to bestow the gifts of the Holy Spirit. (As Christianity grew, it was no longer feasible for the bishops to lay hands on each new Christian.)
The sacrament of Unction is also conveyed through anointing with oil. Catholics reserve this sacrament until the time of death, hence the name Extreme Unction. The Orthodox extend the sacrament of Holy Unction to the faithful on a frequent basis for spiritual and physical healing.
[This is recycled, but seems apposite to the original essay above.]
Here’s the ugly reality. The Authentic Right had a great standard bearer in Pat Buchanan in 1996 and 2000, and in Ron Paul in 2008. The people, OUR people, rejected them. Insofar as I am further to the Right than these distinguished gentlemen, it pains me to acknowledge this, but it’s true, isn’t it?
Worse, Ron Paul was not badly funded. Buchanan was well known in ‘96, even a celebrity. He’d been around the GOP for decades, worked in the White House, etc. But the idiots chose Dole, and later McCain. And those were the ‘conservatives’!
Let’s face it: America is basically leftist, as is the Anglosphere, as is Europe. The West is now left-liberal in its primary ideo-cultural orientation. The Left has never really lost since its violent birth in 1789. Sometimes it overreaches, as with vicious, inefficient communism, or the cultural excesses of the 60s, but the macro-trend is clear.
On one side of the ideological divide stands work, family, country, patriarchy, racial exclusivity, sexual normality, liberty, order, value, morality, religion, discipline, law, sovereignty, justice, culture, civility, rationality, tradition, life.
On the other side stands EQUALITY. Equality has won unconditionally.
The (authentic) American Right should forget about winning “the whole enchilada”, political majorities, the Presidency, and the like, and instead focus its very limited capital simply on promoting those issues most related to basic cultural, economic and physical survival for OUR (conservative/Middle American) people: 1) stopping all (non-white) immigration; 2) safeguarding gun rights; 3) protecting private property and capitalism; 4) executing or at least incarcerating violent criminals; and, a deceptively remote-seeming issue, 5) preserving American national sovereignty (from transnational absorption or erasure). These are the core issues (note I did not mention national defense: liberals want some military, probably enough actually to protect the nation from any unlikely invasions).
Yes, we care about many other things, but they are secondary. The liberals can ruin them without harming the physical needs of ordinary people. And we on the Right have so very, very little wealth, influence or power …
On chrism, I thank AvS for his discussion. My only point was etymological, but I am sure you have helped some readers.
I'll try to respond to Mr. Hayter later today by finally posting a brief conclusion to my column, one that will justify the title.
I agree with Mr. Hayter. It is not that Obama is now president. Nothing will change, in all likelihood, but the fact that a comfortable majority of Americans, in one of the highest turnouts in history, could elect such a man president is a sure sign that our country is dead. The "change" refers to our history and identity, and that will not need much work to affect, since Americans have lost any and all sense of history and identity, which, once they are forgotten, simply cease to exist.
@23: "Conservatives’ big mistake was to nominate McCain in the first place."
Conservatives did not nominate McCain. The crucial early primary wins that made McCain the favorite (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida) all showed McCain NOT winning a plurality of the Republican vote, much less the conservative vote. Rather, these states all have "open primaries" in which Democrats and "independents" can decide who the GOP nominee will be. This can be confirmed from the news stories of the exit polls from these primaries.
Job #1 for conservatives is to write their state GOP chairmen and demand closed primaries.
@38: "Conservatives did not nominate McCain."
Real conservatives, democrats and other leftists knew that McCain was DOA as soon as he won the nomination. (If someone ever writes a chronicle of Mac's ill-fated adventurer, they could call it "Dead Man Walking II).
Only McCain and the GOP appartchiki believed he had any more than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president.
Then what is to be done in these dark times? I was asked this question during a round table discussion in Texas. I gave my usual answer, which is, nothing and everything, that is nothing in the way of political action until we can be sure of pragmatic results and everything we must do to lead good leaves during any time. I used the example of early Christians who did not run around protesting infanticide or denouncing the Empire--a position, by the way, that distinguished them form Stoic hotheads, who virtually demanded to be executed by Vespasian. A young father responded by saying there was no public education, in those days, to destroy the minds and souls of children. I asked him if there was a state law in Texas requiring Christian parents to send their kids to public schools. His question illustrates a common tendency among even the best sort of people today: They want to continue to imagine that the system can be fixed, which would relieve them of the terrible burden of living life every day as if we were serious in our professions.
Yes, there is an opportunity for political reorganization among conservatives who may have learned a few lessons from the past 25 years. Lesson one is to stick to your own people and, generically speaking, your own religion. Making common cause with atheist-materialists, Nietzscheans, Muslims, and other non-Christians is futile and self-destructive. Lesson number two is to plan for hte long-term. When Goldwater went down in flames in 1964, it took four presidential terms for conservatives to be able to field a presidential candidate in the GOP. It was thanks to people like Bill Rusher, working for 20 years, that Ronald Reagan--for whatever that was worth-got elected. Conservative activists today want the world and they want it now. Since the 1960's we have all been infantile in demanding instant gratification. The result of precipitous action, of following the motto "something must be done" would be something like Sarah Palin under the control of the neoconservatives. Murray Rothbard, a doomed political activist, used to say that liberals were always looking for a problem so they could say, "we can't stand idly by." To which Murray would, in his inimitable manner--somewhere between a shriek and a cackle--cry out, "Why can't we."
Let me conclude with the words of an obscure poet in a verse satire on photography:
Nothing remains to hold against the rage:
our soldiers do not fight nor bishops pray.
Painting and music? Another lame excuse
for living badly, staying out of touch.
Not even Jeffers' mountains look that good,
their wilderness is tamed by taxes, roads.
Then what is left, good health and half your wits--
the code of athletes and couples without kids,
who have two incomes and no fear of death?
Recite this pledge: I will forget myself,
forget the broken hearts and Ph.D.'s who've taught
the young to hate the world, the flesh, and God;
I'll plant flowers, love my wife as she grows gray,
and make some Baptist teach me how to pray;
give up on cameras and on everything
that I shall someday grieve to leave behind.
I will ignore the symptoms of my disease,
and--spouting green the Spring--go paint the trees
not as they seem but as they first were made
and await the second coming of the Word.
Dr. Fleming has been threatening lately to become a poet. I've certainly never seen this poem in my Norton Anthology. In any case, this is sound advice. It seems clear to me that American politics is a circus and can't be taken seriously. If there is one good thing about the situation is that our only alternative to the insanity of modern life is to redirect our energy towards religion, family, and reading. Especially in regards to religion, when times are cozy it is easy to push those duties to the backburner. During times of absurdity and tragedy, however, my thoughts always run aground on John 6:68: "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
TJF @36:
My intent was to provide everyone some additional information on annointing with oil and chrism to supplement and expand on your discusion on the etymology. I assumed that I wasn't telling you anything you didn't already know. Thank you for your acknowledgment.
@40:
Regarding the choice between public and Christian schools: I fear that as time passes there is not much difference between them because most, if not all, of the teachers in public and private schools are products of state teachers' curriculae/certification programs and this affects both what is taught and how it is taught in private schools. My older daughter graduated from the University of Maryland with a degree and certificate in early childhood education. Many of her required courses were intended to impart feminist doctrine, multiculturalism, and similar indoctrination. She learned more about teaching and developed as a teacher before she went to college by serving first as a supervised volunteer for a couple years and then as a paid summer program counselor for a private elementary school. She taught younger children arts and crafts, reading, math, games (sports), and similar skills.
#23 Robert Bruce writes:
"Conservatives’ big mistake was to nominate McCain in the first place."
I think that McCain's victory in the primaries was largely due to our "open" primary system where in some critical states, Independents and Democrats are allowed to cast their votes for Republican candidates. That McCain was propelled to the nomination should serve as a good case for primary system reform.
re: Michelle at 44: but isn't choosing not to vote itself a "vote"? Choosing not to decide is still a choice/vote.