Democracy: Reflections on the 2012 JRC Meeting
Democracy could “work” if it was a democracy of and for and by the right people, but that model is fit only for the Post-Raptorial Republic of Angels. In a non-Utopian world it cannot work because “We the People” is a corrupt mélange of mostly coarse individuals pretending to be Gods. Democracy has duly ruined the remnant of what used to be Christendom. The final stage of the process is proceeding apace: having divorced reason from faith, the West is rapidly sinking into moral, cultural and demographic self-destruction. The Citizen’s self-validating reason guarantees that there are no checks and no balances.
It is not just that monarchy, under a good Christian king, is the best possible form of government—which it is—but that democracy is always a lie, its exact opposite. It is almost as bad, in fact, as monarchy under a bad pagan king. The fruits are the test. The fruits of Hellenic and Roman antiquity, of Byzantium before Manzikert, or those of the West in 12th century, were glorious. The fruits of our “liberal democracy” are poisonous. Its birth in 1789-1793 is the darkest chapter in the history of civilization. The tragedy of 1914 and the end of Christian monarchy in Russia in 1917 were a prelude to the end of all good things everywhere: a sure sign of the withdrawal of Grace from a condemned world. The only bright spot is that millions of Americans and Europeans—let’s call them demoskeptics—are beginning to grasp that the system is evil and dysfunctional, even if they do not understand the roots of its corruption. For helping that sobering process, if for no other reason, Obama’s reelection is not all bad.
The learned scribes are failing them, however. Even those authors commonly described as conservatives fail to grasp the essence of the problem. Roger Scruton thus finds the essence of the West in what he calls the “personal state,” which he approvingly describes as characterized by constitution, rule of law, and rotation of office-holders: “Its decisions are collectively arrived at by a process that may not be wholly democratic, but which nevertheless includes every citizen and provides the means whereby each citizen can adopt the outcome as his own.”
This is rubbish. The personal state—the “society of individuals”—is the bane of the West, the poison at its core. It has many secondary manifestations—multiculturalism, one-worldism, inclusivism, antidiscriminationism—that demand “engagement” abroad and the gates wide-open to immigration at home. It reflects the collective loss of nerve, faith, and identity of a diseased society. This “society of individuals” holds that certain enlightened abstractions—democracy, human rights, free markets, etc.—can and should be spread across the world, and are capable of transforming it in a way that will, for example, transform Muslims into global consumers and tolerant neighbors. It believes that Man is inherently virtuous and capable of betterment. This is a Western heresy that has grown out of the Renaissance. Its fruit is “democracy” of our time.
Demoskeptics should not despair and remain on the sidelines of political life, however. Much can be done—even if only for a time and in only a single nation. The focus needs to move away from systems of government (the fixation of the Right) and from social “structures” (the Left’s obsession), to the plain matter of political rule, of power. All regimes depend upon some degree of popular support, all regimes ultimately end up with some people ruling other people, and the rule of some people over other people is not made more just or legitimate by the mere fact that the rulers outnumber the ruled. Politics is unavoidably personal, and demoskeptics are naturally inclined to accept that justice exists outside the political arrangement. Pace St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, xxiv, 3:
For by the law of the same Being as calls men into existence are kings also appointed, adapted for those men who are at the time placed under their government. Some of these are given for the correction and the benefit of their subjects, and for the preservation of justice; but others, for the purposes of fear and punishment and rebuke; others, as [the people] deserve it, are for deception, disgrace, and pride; while the just judgment of God, as I have observed already passes equally upon all.
In a similar vein, Fr. Seraphim Rose warns in Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age that the denial of Truth, the dictum that all truth is relative, is not only the basic philosophy of our time but also the dominant political ideology:
A government must rule by the Grace of God or by the will of the people, it must believe in authority or in the Revolution; on these issues compromise is possible only in semblance, and only for a time. The Revolution, like the disbelief which has always accompanied it, cannot be stopped halfway; it is a force that, once awakened, will not rest until it ends in a totalitarian Kingdom of this world … A politics that rejects Christian Truth must acknowledge ‘the people’ as sovereign and understand authority as proceeding from below upwards, in a formally ‘egalitarian’ society. It is clear that one is the perfect inversion of the other; for they are opposed in their conceptions both of the source and of the end of government … Nihilist rule—whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy—is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness.
From a believer’s perspective, Christian monarchy is seen not merely as a political institution but a sacramental one. Once upon a time Christian monarchs were anointed, thus becoming like priests of Israel. What their powers should be, or what to do about bad or inept kings, could be discussed; but all along monarchy reflected a society’s recognition that, as Christ said to Pilate, all authority comes from God.
The notion of democracy is founded upon the lie that government is not ultimately personal, that there is no Person to whom “We the People” must answer, and that therefore “We the People” can do whatever they please. That is its appeal to those who refuse to be bound by any external standards of truth and justice, not to mention the lumpen-proletarian multitudes who just love living off other people’s labor.
Democracy is not only unworkable, it is evil. The idea of "popular" government is but the rejection of the sacred in national life in favor of the blasphemous superstition that authority derives from below—in this case, from much farther down below than we imagine.
Entries(RSS)
I just don't see Seraphim Rose's point here:
"Nihilist rule—whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy—is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness."
So apparently an earthly institution like government...is concerned with earthly matters? Why is this so troubling?
When was the last time you criticised a man milking a cow for being concerned with an earthly matter like milking a cow? When was the last time anyone complained at the workplace that the workplace is just a place for earthly matters? Of course, those are earthly activities, so of course, they will be earthly in their objectives.
After all, Dr. Trifkovic, when you assess different candidates for Presidents and Prime Ministers across the world, I am sure you are not looking at how much of saints or philosophers or meditative introspectors they are. When they are in office, their job is not going to be to meditate on the afterlife, since they are obviously not working as priests or church ministers.
Prateek,
I am trying to swear off the internet as I am convinced it is a distraction for an old man of my age but I have often wanted to ask you two questions.
1) What is the significance of that picture aside your blogging name appearing to be some Nordic king ?
2) Dante, in the Paradiso (x.134-6), says that a particluar individual found "death slow in coming," and some have concluded that this indicates death by suicide. Is suicide solely an earthly matter for a man of your persuasion or does it have significance beyond the individual corpse? Thank you for your repsonse.
"The tragedy of 1914 and the end of Christian monarchy in Russia in 1917 were a prelude to the end of all good things everywhere: a sure sign of the withdrawal of Grace from a condemned world."
That seems to settle the matter then. Not a lot more needed to be said, did it? OK, I suppose a call to repent might be in order. But, what I want to know is why Mr. Trifkovic devotes his energies complaining about God's will? If, as this post seems to indicate, God's just judgement, "..passes equally upon all". Why all the fuss? Here it is made plain again.
"For by the law of the same Being as calls men into existence are kings also appointed, adapted for those men who are at the time placed under their government. Some of these are given for the correction and the benefit of their subjects, and for the preservation of justice; but others, for the purposes of fear and punishment and rebuke; others, as [the people] deserve it, are for deception, disgrace, and pride; while the just judgment of God, as I have observed already passes equally upon all."
As I understand the author's words, God picks our rulers and if they happen to be for purposes of rebuke, punishment, deception, disgrace and pride, it is God's will. Since the bulk of Mr. Trifkovic's article is devoted to complaining about the evils of our earthly rulers, which he describes as democratic, isn't that rebuking God for his just judgement on a sinful world? I guess I'm just wondering why Mr. Trifkovic seems to feel qualified or empowered to advise God on his pick of earthly rulers? Or is it Mr. Trifkovic's view that God only appoints kings and doesn't involve Himself in 'democratic' rulers? I do not know. Anyway, a man so obviously immersed in Christianity and so concerned about the sad state of earthly affairs can be excused for his intemperate remarks. Who can blame him for taking out his whip and whirling it around a bit? I certainly cannot judge him. That's God's job and Job and many others are/were content to leave it in His hands.
Dr. Trifkovic - very well stated. It was great to see you, Dr. Fleming, and the rest of the Rockford team at the JRC meeting. It seemed few had good things to say about democracy, and, as you'd written, for valid reasons.
Thank you, Dr. Trifkovic: A wonderful article.
Mr. Sanjay, your confusion is easily dispelled: Yes, the secular ruler is in charge of temporal matters, while the Church is in charge of spiritual matters. For a society to be both just and good, however, the ultimate end of its members must be kept in mind in all of the society's arrangements. Man's ultimate end is not in this world, but the next, and that society is truly good which protects precisely those structures and that way of life which enable man to live according to Faith and to Virtue, and find his eternal salvation. The secular ruler then, must be guided by the Divine and ecclesiastical precepts, in order to govern in the way best suited for the true good of his subjects (or fellow citizens, in the case of a republic). The right order of temporal matters is possible only when they are subordinated to man's ultimate end.
W.C. Taqqiya, the contradiction you see is only apparent not real. God certainly uses evil rulers to punish the sins of His chosen ones, but this does not mean that to lament a corrupt world is to complain against the judgment of God. Evil and corruption are, indeed, lamentable, and one can say, "Glory to Thee, O Lord, for punishing me for my sins through this unjust ruler," while praying simultaneously, "I've learned my lesson! Now deliver me from the unjust ruler!" Christians are not fatalists, and the good news is that the triumph of evil is never inevitable or final. With repentance and the grace of God, all things are possible.
Mr. Reavis, that is just a drawing of Robin Hood from a cartoon, disguised as one of Prince John's evil monks. Google's Gravatar had placed my rather unattractive face on the user photo area (as a default for not uploading any picture), so I had to find something to replace it.
As for your question based on a quote from Dante, I find myself ill-equipped to answer it. I guess suicide is a matter of life and death, and probably deserves that high-minded thought about life before anyone commits to it.
Fr. Steven, let me think about what you have explained to me. I guess this thought comes to mind: It tends to be the case that most governments across the world are expected to tackle problems of poverty or problems related to it. If any ruler were to tell the poor, "Do not worry. Your ultimate end is not in this world but the one after," in response to their pleas about their daily problems, he would not get a nice response. Perhaps in the big picture, he might be right. But in the eyes of his subjects, he might be considered to have failed as a governor.
Dr. T., there's something that I've been fretting over for quite some time. I do not believe that democracy as it is defined in terms of universal suffrage (or even universal free male suffrage) is a good form of government or is capable of producing competent statesmen who ever last very long, and I agree that a solid monarchy balanced by an entrenched aristocracy and a judicially enforced constitution (which is just a euphemism for organic national custom) wields power far more capably.
The problem is this: in order to wield power, one must first HOLD power. And regrettably, ever since the invention of the mass press and by extension public opinion it has become nearly impossible to hold power without appealing to the ill-informed whims of the general public. "The people" cannot understand why good long-term policies have bad effects and insist on immediate remedies, and so yes, they should not be the decision makers. But how can we prevent the mob from exerting undue pressure when news travels so fast and, especially, when the needs of the industrial economy crowd them as never before in history into large urban centers, where they can be riled up and riot?
Yes, as you concede, "[a]ll regimes depend upon some degree of popular support, all regimes ultimately end up with some people ruling other people, and the rule of some people over other people is not made more just or legitimate by the mere fact that the rulers outnumber the ruled." But when news travels so fast, how can we avoid creating a regime that will not be held accountable to the whimsical idiocy of a people who does not understand how tides ebb and flow as the ship approaches the harbor in the long run? I fear that we have passed the point where some evil opportunistic demagogue will always take advantage of the inevitable troughs to rise up to tell the people, "You deserve better; you deserve ME! Vote for me!"
I do not despair, but sometimes I have a hard time understanding why I should not despair. Because, given the circumstances, how can we break out of the clutches of this horrible chimera?
The other point to make in response to W.C. Taqqiya is that his counterargument postulates a scenario that is arguably even more blatantly contradictory:
If we are not allowed to call into question the merits of democracy because a democratic system is God's will, we should logically not be allowed to vote, either, or to perform any action which would tend to change a political system.
Mr. Nicholas,
It is the old false dichotomy created by man's inability to tolerate the ambiguity which comes from being a created being and a fallen one at that. Theologically or dogmatically that plays itself out between the free-will Arminians and Calvinism predestination.
Neither faction in their radicalized idiom can tolerant the ambiguity which is one of the many paradoxes of the Christian faith that God as Creator is indeed sovereign but that man also has moral agency. Reductionism replaces faith with these people, reduction to abstract terms such as "free will" versus "predestination."
A deceased friend of mine was a fireman. A mutual friend of ours, many years back, kept a firearm in her car because she had to drive through some rough neighborhoods as a health nurse. Her young grandson, about three, got up from a nap while the rest of the family was napping, went to the car, found the gun in the glove compartment, and accidentally killed himself. My fireman friend said that since that incident involving the death of the child, he no longer kept a gun in his car, applying as an addendum a Calvinist justification that if it was his time to go then the gun would not protect him. I then asked him why he was a fireman rescuing people, animals and property from fires. With that logic, he should mere remain at home and await his demise.
What does resonate in Dr. Trifkovic's article is the following quote from that article:
"The tragedy of 1914 and the end of Christian monarchy in Russia in 1917 were a prelude to the end of all good things everywhere: a sure sign of the withdrawal of Grace from a condemned world."
In this statement, we see St. Paul's warning from Romans, Chapter 1. There come times when man so rejects the creator - confusing the creation with the Creator, in our case, our fallen selves, seen not for what they are estranged, alienated and shriveled selves in need of redemption and restoration, but at would-be Promethean selves - that our Lord withdraws His hand and allows evil to run its course, unhindered by His stabilizing hand.
"that there is no Person to whom “We the People” must answer, and that therefore “We the People” can do whatever they please. That is its appeal to those who refuse to be bound by any external standards of truth and justice.."
Leon Trotsky in his diary states : "My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Yekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov I asked in passing, "Oh yes and where is the Tsar?" "It's all over," he answered. "He has been shot." "And where is his family?" "And the family with him." "All of them?" I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. "All of them," replied Yakov Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply. "And who made the decision?" I asked. "We decided it here."
We tend to overlap our personal angst over the larger picture in our mind's eye, which plugs our ears thus we can't listen so well [to the divine]. Here, there's only the right-sized context which preserves organic custom. If we run from that, as we have, farther and farther into unreality we run into the larger problems departure from the [divinely] human context conjures. Unfortunately because the problems at that unreal scale are chimeras so will the attempted answers be as well. However that is the situation; so those makeshift or stopgap 'answers' will best serve themselves "as if" answers, if and only if with an eye toward moving back into appropriate context in reality, rather than into the abyss. Pulling a King from the deck or yet 'believing' global hegemony through financial, military or media machination in behalf of one disconnected and angst ridden group, or another, is 'the' answer even if referencing so-called spiritual 'texts'. Needless to say subsequently out of any sane context in the present situation, simply pours gasoline on the fire and the genie out of the bottle or chimera gets larger. The issue isn't holding power but having the power to move back into appropriate context be it with the assistance of 'kings' or not. Those with the most temporal power presently are prudent to so move since the pendulum today in wanting said slow return even though now in the other direction will have them going with the flow instead of conjuring a hell for themselves and others on Earth in dreaming the impossible, Here. There's no utopias. Personally, and thus I could be right or wrong, what I receive in listening to the [divine] is that that's not what here is for. Rather Here is For (i.e., in favor of) growing-up into [the divine]. That's what the pendulum is about partly, so no one is to be considered 'wrong' for anything in the past but rather to move slowly along instead now (the accepted time) in the pendulum's direction. That's the happier way without having to 'persue' it. Choose happiness which is the [divinely] human way it's better, whether believing there's a divine influence or not. But be careful what you believe and don't divorce it from reason, because in fact we're always (no choice in that matter) believing something, whether we call it that or not. Here's an appropriate metaphor, go with the flow (of the pendulum) because if boats against the current, you're borne back not into the past, but into the present. Personal angst, deal with it personally, not projected out onto a planet, or into any, old interpretation of spiritual 'texts', either taken literally or as a fig leaf for cover. If you still wish to do that, don't be stupid, ride the pendulum in the direction it's going. Locale. Sorry, that's just my 'take' on it all.
I believe in considering the best forms of government, we must take into accountthe character of a people. Not all peoples are suited to the same form of government. Our present debacle results from the fact that the American character has changed--or rather that the better version of American character is in abeyance.
I believe in considering the best forms of government, we must take into accountthe character of a people. Not all peoples are suited to the same form of government. Our present debacle results from the fact that the American character has changed--or rather that the better version of American character is in abeyance.
Maistre said the same thing when he discussed the lack of legislative prerogatives in early 19th-century Russia.
I think we might question, however, whether man in his fallen nature is ever of such a character that anything resembling "democracy" is ever fitting? Some have argued that no government can alter the fundamental character of a people, and on one level that seems to be true, but governments must have SOME salutary and/or inspirational effect or all decent men should be anarchists...
Clyde Wilson writes: " the better version of American character is in abeyance."
Yes and the dispute seems to be over why that is so. Most folks think it is a social issue ( a human problem subject to some better form of government or governing strategy, more freedoms, more wealth, restore our constitution, too much concentrated power, power too diverse and multi-cultural, etc.,) fewer, but still a significant number, believe it is a biological/genetic issue in which the best and brightest refuse or are precluded from leading.
A very tiny minority, like me, believe it is a loss of our theology and respect for our creator and could take hundreds of years to recover and great torment in the mean time.
As a Christian, I understand what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This means that believers from every race, tribe and nation are indeed equal before His throne, equally loved and cherished as His beloved children in Christ. This is the sort of equality I can fully embrace!
But why am I forced into this false dichotomy between the radical egalitariansim that maintains equality of all races with their accompanying cultures, histories, and traditions, and the supposedly Nazi-white supremacist, I-hate-everybody-but-us position? If I love the founding culture, laws, religion, and traditions of my people over those from, say, Germany, Pakistan, or Mexico, why does that suddenly make me guilty of every manner of evil? And how is it that someone from those and many other countries who come here, especially since '65, and suddenly proclaim themselves "American" in the same manner that I, whose ancestors helped to fight for and settle this country in the beginning, the same way I am? When I wake up and see that this kind of democracy has created a "country" I no longer recognize, should I really be surprised?
I know the answers to these questions, at least in part, but I agree with you, Mr. Reavis, that this problem's cure could take a good deal of time and much pain to finally get to.
" If I love the founding culture, laws, religion, and traditions of my people over those from, say, Germany, Pakistan, or Mexico, why does that suddenly make me guilty of every manner of evil? "
Well, I don't think you need to worry about any of that now. The Church of England laity narrowly defeated their Bishop and clergy's recommendation for women as successor to the Apostles. I am speaking of Traditions not traditions. Simply because I still use an outhouse instead of an indoor toilet does not make me a traditionalists except perhaps in some protesting sense of the word. Tradition is truth ignored at ones peril ---individually and collectively. Such as what The Church of England has done for centuries.
It has been pointed out many times, here and elsewhere, that democracy only works in small groups, perhaps twenty to thirty people, and certainly not many more than that. I was a total failure in Athens, a polity much smaller than any major modern city one can think of. No only that, but like everything else in our modern age, such as government itself, media, entertainment, education, production, warfare, and murder, it has been applied on a mass scale, thus distorting it into something wildly more perverse than ever before.
That points to one aspect of the issue we need to consider: proportion. Donald Livingston has had much to say about the proper scale of polities, and this issue seems to me to be prior to the question of what form a government or social arrangement should take, because if we have settled on the notion that our arrangement will be between only twenty or thirty people, then we can have our democracy if we wish, but if it's going to be much more than that, we need something else.
In addition, once a polity grows to a certain size, so that it threatens to become anarchic because of it's own sheer mass, and if it doesn't divide into completely separate polities, then the ghost of old Diocletian must ride to the rescue, and bring subsidiarity into the picture. This is true regardless of the system of government. Notice also that it was a monarch with absolute authority, and not Athenian democrats, who invented and bequeathed to us the cure for political bigness and over-centralisation. What does that say about the virtues of 'democracy'?
The American system, as has also been pointed out many times by many people, was never intended to be a 'democracy' at all. It was supposed to be a federative republic of republics with democratic elections of representatives elected by a limited number of qualified freeholders. The 'democratic' part of this equation was only a process, a limited function which did not define the system itself. The story of how a mere process of choosing public officials, a process which turned out to have been of dubious utility, was perverted to 'Democracy', a fetish, which defines the system, or at least is supposed to define it, and a veil behind which is concealed a plutocratic oligarchy, is something worth considering, and hopefully the upshot of the 2012 JRC meeting and this article will be that more people with sober minds might be turned to investigating that question.
Some terrible things can happen to people subject to the rule of any religion (Christianity included) and kings. For instance, look what happened to the Aztecs and Incas at the hands of Christian Conquistadors. Elizabeth I is usually considered one of the most benevolent monarchs of England up to that time, but she had Catholics (or anyone advocating a religion different from the one dictated by the Church of England) burned at the stake or drawn and quartered. That a monarchy or a theocracy could be considered a desirable means of regulating a nation's citizens and its neighbors is not born out by examples in history. Both are subject to the whims, greed, or eccentricities of whoever is in charge at the moment.
Happiness and contentment of citizens depends on their being able to count on certain liberties withouf fear of punishment and with the expectation that they can work to improve their lives without being robbed (or worse) by their neighbors and their rulers.
A constitutional republic which guarantees certain liberties for the citizens and provides a peaceful transition of officers of government (who are also subject to the governments laws) is the best society.
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone---the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." ---Justice Louis Brandeis
Mr. Wilson: "The American system, as has also been pointed out many times by many people, was never intended to be a 'democracy' at all. It was supposed to be a federative republic of republics with democratic elections of representatives elected by a limited number of qualified freeholders. The 'democratic' part of this equation was only a process, a limited function which did not define the system itself."
Was is it Dr. Wilson who pointed out that to our founders, democracy was a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself?
Messrs Smith And WIlson,
As always, I found both of your comments full of wisdom and truth. I have only one qualification to make in regards to my own comments and that is when I said, " Tradition is truth ignored at ones peril ---individually and collectively. Such as what The Church of England has done for centuries" I should have also added "and what the Catholic Church in America has been doing for the last 75 years. I have been reading a little book, " Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer, endorsed by Patriarch Bartholomew and did not intend to divide our Holy Tradition into sects but simply to assert there is such a Tradition which has been the means of salvation for many in every age since the crucifixion.
Mr. Nicholas, I wrote my comment with the knowledge that Mr. Trifkovic's article was a recap or commentary about a conference I, regrettably, did not attend. I was therefore careful to avoid adding to or subtracting from what was written by Mr. Trifkovic or used by him as authority. In addition, I also made allowance for the likelihood that Mr. Trifkovic was primarily communicating his thoughts to an audience of fellow conference attendees. Which means he was likely to make certain unstated assumptions a writer might not ordinarily indulge. In other words, I knew that I needed to be careful not to jump to conclusions. I used only what was in front of me and a bit of logic. So, when you write of me that, "..his counterargument postulates a scenario that is arguably even more blatantly contradictory.", I would like to correct you. Basically, I was asking a rather simple question based on the same contradictions both you, Prateek and firsteven have acknowledged seeing. Asking a question is not the same as making a counterargument. Thank you. Now, when it comes to the counterargument, we were provided with an excellent one in firsteven's comment. I happen to agree with it.
Here it is again. "Christians are not fatalists, and the good news is that the triumph of evil is never inevitable or final. With repentance and the grace of God, all things are possible." Very well stated by firsteven and barely hinted at in Mr. Trifkovic's post. But, I wasn't at the conference.
While restatements and corrections made on Mr. Trifkovic's behalf by others are nice, it would be great if Mr. Trifkovic would expound on what his vision of a Christian monarchy would resemble and in what "single" nation he thinks it can or should or might happen. Or post a link? It's not every day we see someone advocate a return to monarchy and I would love to see it attempted. In particular, what is the qualitative difference, in theory, between a republic governed by citizens claiming to be endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and responsibilities and a monarch anointed by a priest?
Finally, Mr. Trifkovic's use of the term, "the right people" is the same term I hear from self described communists when I ask them why they think their version of communism will work when all others have failed. They always say they will use the "right people". When I ask them where they will find these "right people" I always get a blank stare, a stammer and then anger. They think they are the right people of course, but are too smart to admit it. Assuming he can find an honorable, truly benevolent Christian monarch, and if Mr. Trifkovic is hoping to people his Christian kingdom with the "right people", where will he find them? Or is the monarch himself good enough to make things right? Thanks for your kind patience.
Mr. Allen Wilson, well said, as usual.
Mr. Reavis: "The Church of England laity narrowly defeated their Bishop and clergy's recommendation for women as successor to the Apostles. I am speaking of Traditions not traditions."
Ah yes, the age-old war on reality! I should know better by now, but I never seem to get over just how foolish we continue to be in our fallen-ness: we can just make up "reality" as we go along! Ain't "progress" grand?
Thanks yet again, Mr. Reavis!
"but I never seem to get over just how foolish we continue to be in our fallen-ness:"
Yes, I knew a wise man who said Hamlet was really the first popular modernist:
"What a piece of work is a man, How noble in
Reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving
how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god, the beauty of the
world, the paragon of animals. and yet to me, what is
this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no,
nor Woman neither;...."
Or as the Yankee put it in the popular film : "Well, if he's an angel, all right then... But he damn well must be a killer angel."
One thing is for certain. The biggest problem in understanding another mans faith, or weakness, or contempt for goodness and truth is the failure to understand our own. Some of my friends think we need more public figures defending the faith. I am always more astonished and pleased--- even inspired---- by those annonymous and private figures who actually try to live their faith. We have plenty of apostate Catholics in public life "doing good" who are an offense against God and a public nusiance to his holy church ----- and making a darned good living at it !
"Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
Mr. Smith,
Your words:
"Was is it Dr. Wilson who pointed out that to our founders, democracy was a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself?"
Dr. Wilson can correct me if my mind has misfiled this information, but I believe that one of the Southern Agrarians/Vanderbilt Fugitives, possibly Allen Tate, said that Modernity is among other things the confusing of the means with the ends.
Hmmm, it must be that Dr. Wilson made reference to it, then, in one of his articles/essays.
Thanks!
@W. C. Taqiyya: There are good princes and there are bad princes, and even in the good we find error, and even in the bad we find a small glimmer of hope. Such is human nature and so it shall be until the end of time.
The difference is that modern republics and modern democracies for the most part trace their existence to movements whose self-justification was deeply anti-Christian and anti-nature, and they continue to perpetuate bad policies on these same dubious philosophical justifications.
Also, you have entirely misread Dr. T's reference to the "right people," by which he meant not the "right people" for a king to rule over but the "right people" for a democracy, and the criticism you apply to Communism vis-à-vis this phrase is exactly the one Dr. T levies against democracy.
Lastly, as for the form a Christian monarchy should take, I'll leave that to Dr. T, but I think that to start with we need rather to understand where we were when we had one and where we went wrong along the way. We're not even close to the point where we can speculate what a new system ought to look like.
By the way, might not be a big deal, but "Nicholas" happens to be my Christian name and "Moses" my family name. The placing of the family name first and in all caps is a bad Gaulish habit I'm too lazy to correct at the moment...
Darn if I remember anything about this, something that is more and more common these days.
Professor Wilson,
"Darn if I remember anything about this, something that is more and more common these days."
This sounds like my situation regarding Chicago. I see today's "Chicagoans" driving around, studiously following their gps devices on the dashboard, and rediscovering neighborhoods I played in with their parents and grandparents decades ago. I could easily say to them that I've forgotten more about the city than they know. That would sound great – except for that word forgotten. This encourages me to keep my sense of superiority (mostly) under wraps.
Mr. Moses,
Here I have been addressing you "all wrong" these years of posting her, a faux pas which is nigh on to a "hind paw" in Southern climes. I will amend my ways now that I know the facts of the matter.
When I post on Chronicles, I sense the presence of "a great cloud of witnesses," among them Dr. Fleming, not a benign cloud, but ones ready to intervene at the first lax moment of intellectual discipline. I will, however, venture to postulate that whether a king, a set of consuls, a senate or a trivium of priest make up the polity of a given social order, they are legitimate in the context of that social order if that social order has acquired, internalized and lives out a common set of traditions, customs and habits which constitute the rule of law within that particular social order and which make up and point to the common good of the social order and if the rules come out of the people and embody and govern by those principles. The tyrant is a king, a set of consuls, a trivium of priests or a democratic majority which sets itself against the prevailing social order out of a raw lust for power or with the ideological intent of overthrowing the social order. They do not rule to the common good but against it.
A very quick and incomplete reply to the dilemma you pose in this hypothetical: "'Do not worry. Your ultimate end is not in this world but the one after,' in response to their pleas about their daily problems,...'" It is not just that today's rulers focus their peoples' attention on the here and now, but rather that the whole thrust of their programs and of the larger culture is to ridicule or at least minimize any concern for right behavior that has a chance of leading to salvation, i.e., the "next world". "It's the economy stupid" is one of the more trenchant and poisonous demonstrations of this thrust, but they are everywhere, in "a woman's right to choose" (this life over the next); "we make our own reality" (as opposed to God's natural order having anything to do with it.) etc., etc.
The above post was to reply to Mr. Sanjay.
Thanks for the response, Mr. Jacobi.
I know certain Pereniallists (believers in universal religion or something) who also say things along the lines of "Talking about other issues like the economy? How will that help us after we die?"
Now, I wouldn't know US politics as well as you do, but wasn't Rick Santorum one of the people who put social issues on the forefront and the economy on the sidelines? Supposedly, that did not help him against more material-minded or practical-minded candidates such as Romney. Even among the relatively religious Republican base, people are interested in politics for worldly matters and do not see it as the source of their salvation in the afterlife.
There's also the matter that despite religion having had some significant role in the lives of Americans in decades past, it just happens that not so religious people have been made Presidents in the US. Eisenhower, for example. In rare cases, we even have Lincoln who ridiculed faith openly, and that did not hinder him coming to office. The demand for salvation through politics has always seemed to be very thin.
"As a Christian, I understand what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This means that believers from every race, tribe and nation are indeed equal before His throne, equally loved and cherished as His beloved children in Christ. This is the sort of equality I can fully embrace!" (end quote of Mr. Smith's)
It doesn't mean anything in the daily round; it merely speaks to the divine counter-point or underpinning of the world, (i.e., that which made the world possible), and could be what else there is afterward. The West is bifurcated via the holy texts of Judaism, Christianity and now tangentially Islam in their influence culturally, imbalancing both believers and so-called non-believers in one direction (the counter-point/divine) or in the other direction (meta-materialism) 'as if" they must believe in/subscribe to one OR the other. Given that influence and subsequent reality this speaks also to Mr. Sanjay's point that in the political realm the imbalance toward believing in meta-materialism is the norm. Both the imbalance toward the divine or otherworldly; or the imbalance toward meta-materialism, are grotesque. By 'meta-materialism' I mean even more than materialism, i.e., the belief as well in it as a god or the way to fulfillment.
These three religions although containing some fine characteristics are essentially adolescent. Parts of them have gotten us into a lot of trouble today because of their influence culturally on both the religious and 'secular' mindsets. If our fathers and forefathers were essentially adolescent in their belief systems (perhaps appropriate in their day?) reality nonetheless catches up and it doesn't give us the same pass in our having to grow up. It's never comfortable or a lot of fun being on the cusp of anything, sort of like the Chinese curse: 'May you live in interesting times.'
Nonetheless we can only build upon the traditional past rather than either trashing or circumventing it, since that's who we are, or we return to square one. And that's the worst choice of all. I would have to agree with Mr. Reavis, I'm not sure our Roman Catholic Church has necessarily parsed these realities very well. But the times are bizarre or more so than usual, and so here we all are in facing them.
To be perfectly frank just as democracy only works among twenty or thirty people as Mr. Allen Wilson reminded us in his astute comment. So too does the above quote from Galatians, in text attributed to the historic Saul of Tarsus become St. Paul, only work among a similar number of exceptional adult souls if somehow they also had had the same upbringing in the same locale and thus also sharing identical organic customs. Or had no bodies and were already of the purely divine assuming that possibility. Even in communal orders of monks or nuns dedicated to serving the metaphysical construct and reality of Jesus-Christ (unless coed), the differences between men and women are acknowledged in the reality of the daily round. All of this is ignored in teaching today 'as if' no one existed at all. Everything only has meaning within its particular context.
Mr. Sanjay,
I fear I was not clear. I am not advocating falling into the trap that Mr. Reavis ably summarized above: "Most folks think it is a social issue ( a human problem subject to some better form of government or governing strategy, more freedoms, more wealth, restore our constitution, too much concentrated power, power too diverse and multi-cultural, etc.,) fewer, but still a significant number, believe it is a biological/genetic issue in which the best and brightest refuse or are precluded from leading."
And I certainly am not a "pereniallist", nor do I believe in "something". I believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, who died that I might live forever.
I am, rather, following Father Steven, when he says: "For a society to be both just and good, however, the ultimate end of its members must be kept in mind in all of the society's arrangements. Man's ultimate end is not in this world, but the next, and that society is truly good which protects precisely those structures and that way of life which enable man to live according to Faith and to Virtue, and find his eternal salvation."
It is not that Rick Santorum's (dubious and opportunistic) shift of a few minor points in his campaign rhetoric availed him not, or that "Even among the relatively religious Republican base, people are interested in politics for worldly matters and do not see it as the source of their salvation in the afterlife." We are talking about the requirement for the whole polity to aid or at least not obstruct its people in their need to live rightly and in their quest for salvation. That voters have been reduced to these purely material concerns – indeed, that the role of "voter" is all that is available to them – is a sign of society's moral collapse, not of any immutable law of politics.
Mr. Yurick,
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Recently, I encountered a "Christian" group singing a song with Galatians 3:28 as part of the lyrics. Missing from those lyrics was "there is neither slave nor free." One must therefore conclude that they fully understood the textual meaning of the neither's and the nor's in Christ, but because of the prevailing Zeitgeist could not bring themselves to apply it to "slave nor free." They edited Scripture to accommodate the spirit of the age.
@ Mr. Moses: Thank you for your kind reply and the correction. Yes, I did employ the term "right people" a bit differently than did Mr. Trifkovic. However, the point I was suggesting, I think, is the same point Mr. Trifkovic made in the first part of his essay. Only more so. To recap:
"Democracy could “work” if it was a democracy of and for and by the right people, but that model is fit only for the Post-Raptorial Republic of Angels. In a non-Utopian world it cannot work because “We the People” is a corrupt mélange of mostly coarse individuals pretending to be Gods."
So yes, we all three of us seem to agree. Sort of. Mr. Trifkovic dismisses the idea of the "right people" as being Utopian. But, only in the context of a "democracy". I restated the futility of that concept in the more familiar, to me, context of communism. I did that not because I misread Mr. Trifkovic, but because I wanted to remind the reader. The reminder was my way of gently restating the futility of hoping for any Utopian earthly paradise. By which I mean monarchs, republics, democracies, the totalitarian systems at the fringes, hippie communes and even Christian monarchs. Yes, even Christian monarchs. You see, I'm reminded of the tower of babel whenever I hear about earthly paradise, in whatever context it might be presented. Even and maybe especially when it is offered as "Christian", as it is here.
And, it's not futility or fatalism or passivity that motivates me. Job was not a passive fatalist. He was humble and he was obedient and he was faithful. He believed in God and trusted Him. Through thick and thin, bad and worse, he continued to collect wives, children and livestock.
I may as well admit, these are the points I was getting at all along. Not to suggest that Mr. Trifkovic lacks faith or humility, I do not question his faith at all. I will however suggest that his essay conveys more than just a hint of the Utopian and Utopia isn't going to happen. It might be a good thing if I also admit that I enjoy and agree with much and maybe most of Mr. Trifkovic's articles. This article unfortunately contains, maybe unintentionally, an incorrect theme. Getting back to Utopia, we see below:
"It is not just that monarchy, under a good Christian king, is the best possible form of government—which it is—but that democracy is always a lie, its exact opposite. It is almost as bad, in fact, as monarchy under a bad pagan king. The fruits are the test. The fruits of Hellenic and Roman antiquity, of Byzantium before Manzikert, or those of the West in 12th century, were glorious."
And later we have this:
"Democracy is not only unworkable, it is evil. The idea of "popular" government is but the rejection of the sacred in national life in favor of the blasphemous superstition that authority derives from below—in this case, from much farther down below than we imagine."
Without dwelling on the 'seeming' contradictions in his praise for decidedly pagan Greek and Roman antiquity, his condemnation of pagan monarchs and his use of the unstated "fruits" of those cultures as evidence for the "best", Christian king, form of government, I will mention that Mr. Trifkovic's "glorious" is suggestive of at least a semi-Utopian reality. Which, particularly if we agree that such a thing is not possible and that advocating for such a thing is sinful hubris, is unhelpful at best. Which, when supported with vague references to the 12th century, lacks substance. Which, does not mean I advocate for "democracy" or any other particular political system. Rather, I oppose Utopian theories, however prettily they are dressed. That it is presented in a sea of hyperbole, I won't take the time and space to discuss.
For those who may suspect me of misreading or unfairly maligning or maliciously making things up, I offer this. Mr. Trifkovic alleges that a good Christian king is the "best" form of government and that democracy is it's "exact" opposite followed by his declaration that democracy is evil and comes, "from below". Would it be unreasonable to assume that "from below" is a reference to hell? And would it be unreasonable to conclude that hell's "exact" opposite is heaven? OK then, not very Utopian that bit, not much.
Finally, the door to the garden of Eden is closed. Not even the most cleverly crafted key, the most benevolent monarch or the most fervent prayers of a million pious souls will reopen it. When it is suggested otherwise, as it is here, even if limited to a "single" nation, it must be contradicted. That I even need to mention this to so many Christians is very embarrassing. Further, when the message is redefined by well meaning friends or excused as misunderstood, it helps not at all. Thank you.
Sorry, I clicked on the wrong reply button for my last rant.
" Neither current events nor history show that the majority rule, or ever did rule."
- Jefferson Davis (1808-1889)
Totalitarianism, defined as the existential rule of Gnostic activists, is the end form of progressive civilization.
---Voegelin
The central truth in Dr.T's article is: "The notion of democracy is founded upon the lie that government is not ultimately personal, that there is no Person to whom “We the People” must answer,..."
This is directly in line with the insights of Luigi Marco Bassani and Carlo Lottieri in: The Problem of Security: Historicity of the State and “European Realism”, where, in attacking the notion that the state has always existed, they say "This timeless notion attached to the State is also a peculiar aspect of the secularization of theological concepts, in this case eternal life."
Raising "We the People" to the level of the Second Person of the triune God, the One who is the way and the truth and the life, in one stroke removes them from the path to salvation and places the profane state in God's place.
Mr. Jacobi,
Indeed, the "state" has replaced not only our earthly fathers who used to determine such important issues as marriage, training and profession, but it also attempts to replace our heavenly Father. The abstract state, animated by bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, bureaucrats and ideologues, has become the "father" of the abstract Jacobin "fraternité," who without the state would be fatherless brothers.
Yes, and since the father state and mother people are no longer legitimately connected, as from common culture, descendents, etc., that makes the members of that fraternite bunch of....
Mr Smith, I believe it did come from Dr Wilson, but it's been so long now I can't remember either.
Prateek,
I know certain Pereniallists (believers in universal religion or something) who also say ...
" talking about other issues like the economy....? How will that help us after we die?"
"people are interested in politics for worldly matters and do not see it as the source of their salvation in the afterlife.."
Prateek,
Are you speaking of old perreniallists like Euclid, founder of geometry, or the more decadent ones like the old Theosopshists or some of the Huxley family with Aldous and all that ? The Gnosticism described by Voegelin and q was secularism in its manifested forms of Communism and Nazism.