LAURENCE BUTLER writes in response to the post “In Defense of Monarchy”:

From time to time I’ve come across self-proclaimed monarchists. They usually pride themselves on iconoclastic opinions that they bring up way more often than necessary. I’ve regarded this with amused tolerance. Besides, it’s nice to encounter people who are striving to think outside of the normal confines of academia, and likewise to find people who find something disturbing with our modern society and its moral morass. However, the complexities are often ignored. Even in the Middle Ages, the Germanic Roman Emperor/king was always elected, both before and after Christian influence. The elections didn’t stop once the Germans became Christian, even as bishops came to have more influence in such elections. Similarly, it was the priests and bishops who instigated the uprising against King John I and provided the canonic legal foundations for the Magna Carta.

That being said, I don’t see how we can actually take the pro-monarchy arguments seriously anymore–especially when we’re looking at the United States. Christian monarchies worked, to an extent, in much smaller, culturally homogenous European localities, where the need for structured defense and quick-acting federative power outweighed any wants for greater political autonomy. 

I found Bonald’s argument to be pretty sloppy. Not only does he ignore the democratic foundations (which, like many things at the time, were logical continuations of Greek and Roman political developments) in the Middle Ages, he seems to disregard the prevalence of Christian morals in America’s founding. While the liberation and ‘social justice’ theologies of today can easily contort Christian morals, that does not mean that Christianity and democracy are incompatible. I don’t know why Bonald sees the “happy centuries” (a gross oversimplification) as ending after the days of widespread democracy. There were many Christian tyrants before Christian democracy, and there were many Christian tyrants within Christian democracies. The problem is that, without virtuous citizens, no political system can stay uncorrupted. Democracy can only flourish when a majority of voters possess a sound moral compass. Monarchy trusts that one person is following a well-formed moral compass. While one might argue that the odds are better that one person remains virtuous over many, it’s also true that power corrupts one person sooner than it corrupts many. Since a democratic system also diffuses those bad decisions within a larger, more active political community, it has better built-in damage controls than a monarchy.

It seems like monarchy is regarded as this sort of panacea for amoral modern government. But how would this king become king? Can we put our trust in bloodlines and conquest to determine our rulers? Historically, the strengths of monarchy were not enough to resist the strengths democracy. I do not see any proof that the weaknesses of monarchy are less than the weaknesses of democracy either. I can acknowledge that democracy has its serious problems (derived more so from our society than causing them, and I don’t have an alternative to recommend. However, I do not see even the most highly idealized monarchies as viable or desirable solutions either.

                                           — Comments —

Art writes:

Lawrence Butler argues that Monarchy does not fit us because America is too diverse. I do not think that argument is a good one because Medieval Germany was just as diverse. Of course, it is true that today Germans are split between several countries and posses no common government, perhaps indicating a Monarch was not suitable for them. But I think that is a tenuous argument. I don’t really think monarchy has much potential  today, but neither does a virtuous democracy. We may very well be ruled by a king the next time we have a morally good society.

Mr. Butler writes:

In fact, I barely mentioned American diversity as a reason why monarchy could not work. I mentioned that America is much larger than any of the European monarchical microcosms, and it is also more heterogenous. I don’t think anyone can deny these factors, which at the very least warrant an additional investigation if we’re going to really entertain the idea of an American monarchy. Between the two, I think the geography is more problematic than America being “too diverse” (to use the words you put in my mouth). But imagine taking Italy and Germany and Spain and England and France and trying to hold them all together under one singular ruler. That’s basically the size and diversity we’re dealing with here in the U.S. You might argue that we have a common language now, whereas these countries do not. However, Latin was then the indisputable language of the ruling class, and many of those old European monarchs were related anyway. As we know, they could find any and every reason to not get along, both before and after the infusion of democratic principles. Whether or not they all had a divine mandate didn’t really matter.

It’s curious Art chose Medieval Germany as a counter example. More than any other kingdom/empire at the time, the Germanic Empire was fraught with turbulence and civil discord, when not outright civil war. Not coincidentally, it was much larger and, as he mentioned, more diverse than other European monarchies. In response to Awrt’s last point, it is certainly possible we’ll be ruled by a king when next we have a virtuous society. But kings and politicians are both products of their time and place. I don’t see how we could get a virtuous king before we have a virtuous society to produce him (nor a virtuous democracy before a virtuous society enacts it), unless we’re conquered by virtuous people. In the mean time, we’re too busy being conquered by un-virtuous people.

There are all kinds of other governmental systems in between monarchy and democracy. I don’t know that any one system fosters virtue better than any other, but it does seem like they could all work fairly well given virtuous citizens. It seems to me like the great accomplishments of the American nation happened not as productions of its government, but as concerted efforts of its people when they still shared common values. These values have become corrupted or compromised, but part of what makes the historical American great is his willingness to freely sacrifice for his causes. Meaning, he elects his own courses of action. This doesn’t mean Americans haven’t had a hood pulled over them from time to time, or that their elected officials don’t try to manipulate the bleeding heart of America. I mean American virtue and greatness is still a product of American volunteering, Americans electing to do something when they think it is right. The government only corrupts so far as it thinks it can get away with it. It still answers to the American public and the publics moral code. It used to be their common Christian faith that determined what was right or wrong. Unfortunately, Christian virtues such as tolerance have been abused, and virtues such as temperance have been ignored.

Mr. Butler adds:

I’d like to add one more thing I left off in my response to Art’s disagreement:

As I mentioned earlier, the German actually elected their King (through a council of nobles), and also elected their governors and dukes when they were not quickly appointed by the newly elected king. The German monarchy was pretty dysfunctional and I do not think it is a very good proof of a viable diverse and large monarchy. In fact, their hybrid system of elected kings points more toward democratic needs than anything.

James P. writes:

Lawrence Butler argues that monarchies worked best in “smaller, culturally homogenous European localities.” It should be noted that the European monarchies that lasted the longest and were the most successful included multi-cultural empires such as the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire that governed not merely vastly diverse groups of white Europeans but also Africans, Egyptians, and Semites. The Christian Monarchies that governed the British, Spanish, Russian, and French Empires also successfully governed large numbers of diverse whites as well as non-European and non-white subjects on several continents. The Austrian Empire in its various forms lasted, and was a major European power, for nearly a thousand years (in that sense, it “worked”) despite being a case study in the difficulties of managing an extremely diverse group of subjects. 

Butler states that the German Emperors were elected. Well, yes, but so what? If the hereditary governors of seven states chose a President for Life for the United States, few American citizens would recognize this as “democracy” and most would resist it as unconscionable dictatorship. 

Finally, he contends that power corrupts one person sooner than it corrupts many. That may be true, but the flip side of that is that it is easier to get rid of one corrupt king and replace him with a virtuous one than it is to get rid of a corrupt people and replace it with a virtuous one. What we see today, quite clearly, is that when the many are corrupt, they tend to stay corrupt, and a corrupt people is highly unlikely to elect a virtuous ruler who can and will reform them.

James P. adds:

Jesse Powell writes, 

“Democracy has many advantages, the most important I would say is its peaceful means of conflict resolution.”

Taken from a broad perspective, the history of democracy does not fully support this view, neither in Britain nor in the United States. One might note in particular that the United States fought a bloody civil war to expand the franchise to include blacks. This war which was the means through which one faction in the democracy (the North) annihilated the political power of another (the South) — as well as the physical existence of a good many Southerners. The reason that the United States has tolerated an excessive level of black violence for the past 40+ years can be traced to democracy — the white liberal elite employs the black underclass as a weapon against the white middle and lower classes. The white elites buy black votes and in exchange promote blacks as paragons of virtue and funnel state benefits to them.  Suppressing black violence would require enthroning the values and attitudes of the white middle and lower classes, as well as electing conservatives willing to enforce the law rigorously, all of which is total anathema to the liberals.  In sum, the political triumph of liberalism in this country has been anything but bloodless, not least because it required destroying the social and cultural fabric in order to destroy and demoralize the white middle and lower classes, which are the essential political base for conservatism.
 
He continues, 

“More to the point I do believe the most important problems facing American society today can be solved through the democratic process.” 

I totally disagree. The most important problems facing America today — government overspending, mass immigration, cultural decay, and non-white violence against whites — are caused by the democratic process and cannot be solved by it.  What is government overspending but democracy in action — politicians stealing money to bribe people to vote for them? What is immigration but an effort to replace white conservatives with more malleable and inherently more liberal non-white voters? What is cultural decay but a liberal effort to destroy the social (and thus political) cohesion of the hated white bourgeois voters, thus reducing them to another set of obedient slaves dependent on government largesse for which they will vote liberal polticians into power without fail?  What is non-white violence against whites but a liberal effort to demoralize and intimidate the hated white bourgeois voters? These problems cannot be solved by democracy because the liberal elites know full well that they have contrived an effective formula for electoral success, and because the people whom liberal politicians bribe for votes enjoy getting something for nothing.  In short, neither the politicians nor the great mass of people who elect them have any interest in changing the system to solve critical problems.

Laura writes:

James P. is right: the most important problems today are unlikely to be solved through the democratic process. However, if women called for an end to the women’s franchise, they could be. I realize this is very unlikely. However, it is not simple democracy that is the cause of the problems James P.  mentions but the universal franchise.

Bonald writes:

I don’t think we should disregard the electoral aspect of German monarchy in such a derisive fashion—it’s much more involved than James is admitting. But I’m content to only address Jawmes’ own admission: many Americans would regard the Medieval Germanic electoral system as an “unconscionable dictatorship.” Well, how on earth would they find a dynastic monarchy to be any more palatable? At least there was some small amount of determination in the German system, there’d be even less if that was taken away.

Regarding James’ last point, it sounds like we’re actually on the same page. Of course, virtuous people can get rid of a corrupt king, but can a virtuous king get rid of a corrupt people? It’s true that corrupt people are unlikely to elect a virtuous ruler. They’re also unlikely to produce a virtuous king. The inverse is that a virtuous people can elect their representatives, and that group of representatives will stay uncorrupted longer than the one virtuous king who has all of the power. As I mentioned earlier, I believe democracy has more damage control built into it. It has a higher capacity to be somewhat compromised and yet functional than a monarchy. This virtue also makes it harder to weed out the corruption entirely, but I think I’ll still take my chances with democracy.

 I’ll let Mr. Powell respond to Mr. P’s arguments against him, but I am curious what system Mr. P. would advocate, since he is so disillusioned with democracy. How would it come about and how does Mr. P. envision it working? That was an interesting exposition about American class struggles. Why does James think that a king would not use black crime to keep his middle-class and lower-class subjects preoccupied?

In short, what virtues can we find in a king that are exclusive to a king? What securities against corruption can we find in a king that we cannot find in a representative government?

Mr. Butler adds:

I have to disagree with Bonald that the risk of divinizing a people’s will (not that democracy goes that far) exceeds the risk of divinizing a singular authoritative monarch. I haven’t heard anyone argue that, because Man has free will, any choices he makes are therefore good and divine. However, the fact than man can make decisions is rightly held in high regard. Men have the capacity for self-determination, and this is abrogated by a Monarchy. At times, this more authoritarian government was necessary and even effective. As the size and diversity of nations increased, men had to make more and more choices—choices that should not be left up to any one mortal man. I have an appreciation for the old European monarchies, and that does not come at the expense of realizing their limitations. The people’s will at least has built-in checks. A Monarch’s will becomes tyrannical as soon as it goes against his people. Which one of these systems has much in way of political recourse?  

I agree that, today, public opinion is often shaped by media manipulation. But who manipulates the media? Furthermore, what shaped public opinion before mass media? Did those people not have opinions? It’s an overstatement to say we have a rule of journalists. At the very least, they’re busy competing with each other. At the worst, that just means we again have a non-elected power controlling our lives with impunity. This oligarchy is closer to a monarchy than it is towards a democracy. 

No one here has said monarchy is bad. It is untenable in the United States. This is an important distinction, especially given the anti-monarchy (anti-Catholic) bias that liberal academia circulates. I would encourage Bonald in his defense of the historical, Christian monarchy, which need not come at the expense of practical approaches towards modern American political reform.

Laura writes:

I agree that Bonald’s defense of monarchy is very important to counter historical arrogance and blind worship of democracy. A popular majority can be as tyrannical as any despot.

Greg Jinkerson writes:

The doctrine of the separation of church and state is an important and vital one for an authentic Christian culture, but under the recent influence of radical democratic egalitarianism, this essential doctrine has been perverted irreparably and is now chirped out constantly by Marxists as a way of defending statism. But it was precisely the prevention of statism which the original doctrine had in view. God Himself has ordained the existence of civil governments, and the role of those governments is simply the restraint of evil where the influence of family and church have already failed. In the Christian tradition, the role of the civil government has always been absolutely subsidiary to the role of the church of Jesus Christ. This idea is anathema to liberals of every stripe, and is hardly even countenanced by most self-proclaimed Christians, but the fact remains that it is the case Biblically. The point of insisting upon the separation of church and state was never, as we are told by Marxists, to protect the sweet doves in the government from the nasty intrusions of the clergy. On the contrary, the point of keeping the church separate from the state was always to protect the prerogatives of the church, prerogatives which are steadfastly eroded when state power is permitted to outgrow its divine limitations. And of course, as TS Eliot has noted so adroitly in his “Idea of a Christian Society,” we no longer inhabit a Christian society. The dominant religion is state worship, and so it is now both plausible and convenient for statists to extol the doctrine of the separation of church and state, when in reality what they are extolling is the separation of God from government. It is not theocracy which the liberal abominates, for a good liberal is always an at least unwitting champion of the great god government. Only the worship of the Christian God of the Bible offends the liberal. In fact, we are beginning to see signs that liberals are even willing to consider dar-al-Islam, with its pseudo-religious overtones, if that would mean Christless one-world government.

Laura writes:

The radical, extremist interpretation of church and state is a far greater problem today, as Kalb writes in his book and as we all know. However, if one thinks of liberalism as a secular religion, which in fact it is because it offers a comprehensive view of life and morality, then we live in a theocracy. There is no barrier between church and state. We are ruled by the high priests of this religion, and the fact that they are elected does not change this merging of church and state. 

John E. writes:

Thank you for hosting this interesting discussion of Bonald’s views on monarchy, and for introducing me to Bonald’s blog through yours in the first place, perhaps over a year ago now. Largely leaving aside the subject itself, Bonald has written an inspiring defense of “lost” causes, in response to some of the criticisms of his views on monarchy, most especially the one that says that a return to monarchy is not practically feasible, so it should be abandoned.

I think his defense also speaks to the veiled admonitions one often encounters when holding to a principled moral argument against the more “practical-driven” arguments. These admonitions are often delivered by MRM-types against defenders of tradition, and they speak something like “You are dealing with the way things should be, but I am dealing with the way things actually are.” What the heck does this mean anyway? I think it means “You traditionalists prefer to deal in abstract concepts of universal morality and ethics, but I find abstractions tiresome and reject them because they try my patience and make me suffer.” However, this is a recipe for the ephemeral, which I, for one, find wholly unattractive. Some things are worth suffering over.

I’ve enjoyed reading Bonald’s thoughts on monarchy, and declare myself not yet knowledgeable enough to voice an opinion on this subject, but I immediately recognize and agree with him on the importance of the struggle to seek and defend what is true, whether it be one’s disposition toward monarchy or democracy, or something else, even if the immediate impracticality of it may cause some discomfort, or even pain.

Jesse Powell writes:

When I referred to democracy’s advantage of providing a peaceful means to resolve conflicts what I was referring to is that democracy has a built in means to change government policy through peaceful means; namely, lobbying and elections. In a democracy those who are discontented and rebellious have a clear method given to them to achieve their political ends that does not require violence. [Laura writes: No, they don’t if they are outnumbered.] This is a great advancement in human political organization that should not be discarded lightly. I would even say that peaceful means for resolving political conflict is one of the great achievements of Western Civilization. 

Now, James P. refers to a long list of faults in America’s current political situation; I may disagree with some of his specific criticisms but I do not dispute that democracy has many problems and failings and vulnerabilities. Still no system of governance will be without problems; the advantages of democracy are still advantages even though at times democracy to will fail. 

In regards to whether America’s most serious problems today can be solved through the democratic process; I think they can. I believe this because I see America’s most serious problems as being rooted in the American culture, not in the American political system. If the culture became virtuous the government would not stand in the way of rebuilding the society. In a democracy the culture rules, the government is simply used as a tool by the culture to serve its ends.

Laura writes:

And if the majority is not virtuous, then what?

Theodore Harvey writes:

The discussion on monarchy at your blog is interesting, but also frustrating because the comments by Bonald’s critics reflect the erroneous assumption (which I get weary of encountering in virtually every such online discussion) that if someone who happens to be an American says he a monarchist, he means that he believes (1) that the entirety of the USA as we know it, with its present borders and population, should become a Monarchy; (2) that this without any other major changes would somehow solve all our problems; and/or (3) that every country in the world ought to be a monarchy. This is emphatically NOT what I or most of the other American monarchists I know believe; as far as I’m concerned those who criticize monarchists on this basis are jousting with straw men. Is the United States the only country that matters? Are Americans not allowed to have strong opinions about other countries, particularly European countries if they are concerned about Western Civilization in general? While I (or rather, a hypothetical 18th-century version of me) would have been a Tory/Loyalist at the time of the American Revolution, I accept that the USA was founded as a republic and is likely to remain one (in the broad sense of “republic” being simply any regime that is not a monarchy).

For the record, I do not seriously advocate a monarchy for the United States. My monarchism focuses on those countries that DO have a substantial tradition of monarchy, and where monarchy is integral to their traditional, pre-Revolutionary culture, countries such as France, Austria, Portugal, and Russia. While I do believe that in the abstract Monarchy is the best form of government (with strictly codified hereditary succession being my preference), it does not follow from that premise that every single country should necessarily become a monarchy. It is absurd to dismiss monarchism on the grounds that there is no way of determining who the king would be when the fact is that there are plenty of countries, which in most cases were under monarchical rule as recently as a century ago, for which there ARE one or two obvious claimants, heirs of the dynasties that once reigned there. (I maintain a hypothetical but factually based list at my website of precisely who the monarchs would be if all the monarchies I would most like to see restored were restored.) So to be a monarchist is not to insist that monarchy per se is sufficient for solving modern problems, but rather that in those countries whose pre-20th-century histories and cultures are inseparably linked with monarchy, restoration (or preservation) is a necessary ingredient in any kind of recovery. As one of the participants in your discussion did indicate, it is also to defend the historical record of monarchies and to maintain that in modern history (since 1789) the replacement of kings with presidents has had uniformly disastrous results and should be reversed wherever possible. I do not expect Americans to be monarchists when considering their own country’s domestic affairs, but with regard to Europe (and much of the rest of the world) I do oppose any approach to conservatism or right-wing politics that dismisses Europe’s ancient dynasties as irrelevant and consigns kings and queens to the past. To be a monarchist is not to live in a fantasy land of a hypothetical American monarchy, but rather to accept the reality that the worldwide trend of abolishing monarchies has been a disaster for humanity, with virtually every monarchy overthrown replaced by a much worse regime. To me, France cannot be France without the Bourbons, Portugal cannot be Portugal without the Braganzas, Austria cannot be Austria without the Habsburgs, Bavaria cannot be Bavaria without the Wittelsbachs, and Russia cannot be Russia without the Romanovs. In modern Europe, with the exceptions of Switzerland and San Marino, republicanism is intrinsically linked to the evils of the French Revolution (particularly the brutal and mindless rejection of the non-republican past) and in my opinion cannot and should not be redeemed. My monarchism consists of support for real, specific dynasties of real, specific countries, and I wish more online discussions about monarchy would acknowledge that. For more about monarchism and my approach to it, please visit my blog and website (links below), particularly the articles on my Opinion page. Thank you for your time and congratulations on a consistently thought-provoking blog.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing.

This discussion focused on the possibility of monarchy in the United States in reaction to comments made by Bonald. I remarked that democracy was the most organic form of government for America and he responded. (I also spoke about the virtues of democracy in general.)

You write:

So to be a monarchist is not to insist that monarchy per se is sufficient for solving modern problems, but rather that in those countries whose pre-20th-century histories and cultures are inseparably linked with monarchy, restoration (or preservation) is a necessary ingredient in any kind of recovery… I do not expect Americans to be monarchists when considering their own country’s domestic affairs, but with regard to Europe (and much of the rest of the world) I do oppose any approach to conservatism or right-wing politics that dismisses Europe’s ancient dynasties as irrelevant and consigns kings and queens to the past.

I think everyone participating in this discussion would agree with that. 

Consultus writes:

As a Classical Republican, I cannot be enthusiastic about monarchy. However, given the moral decay of the U.S., I cannot say that a genuine monarchy would be the worst outcome. For liberty to last in a republic, the people have to adhere to self-discipline, self-sufficiency, and all the rigorous virtues that make possible a small government. In the absence of such virtues, republics and democracies tend to slide into chaos. After chaos, inevitably, tyranny follows. It is more likely that such a tyranny would resemble Germany in the late 1930s more than, say, Augustan Rome. At least a genuine monarch would work to preserve or restore refinement and the old forms of society. Still, I’m not willing to give up on our republic just yet.

Interesting data point: The classical republics of antiquity employed a restricted franchise.

Jesse Powell writes:

Laura, you ask, “What if the majority is not virtuous?” In order for a democracy to solve a society-wide problem rooted in the culture, as I believe the nature of the current problem is, it is clear that a process of expansion or recruitment has to exist so that the beginning small number of virtuous or “enlightened” people multiply or spread their influence throughout the society. The tiny minority has to become the majority or at least has to become a dedicated and substantial minority. If there is no process of growth in the number of people committed to virtue then whatever crusade or brighter future we are talking about is already lost. I am optimistic that the process of growth is indeed something that is attainable and is even more so something that is already underway. The truth is that virtue is more powerful than sin and a good healthy idea outcompetes a bad self-destructive idea. Good and evil are not equal to each other; that perhaps is the most fundamental of truths. Liberalism, what I would call feminism, has not outcompeted conservatism, or patriarchy, in the battle of ideas. What has happened is that the physical environment shifted in a way that led to bad ideas that produce short term benefits at long term costs to flourish. From the point of view of “the battle of ideas” on its own merits conservatism (patriarchy) has always out competed liberalism (feminism) and always will.

James P. writes:

Laura wrote:

“However, it is not simple democracy that is the cause of the problems James P. mentions but the universal franchise.” 

Of course. However, the inevitable trend of democracy is to expand the franchise. If we somehow managed to restrict the franchise as the result of some dire emergency, as soon as things got back to “normal” there would be immediate calls to expand it again, and all the incentives to expand it would once again operate. 

Apologies for the lengthy post here, by the way.

Mr. Butler writes:

“I have to disagree that the longest lasting monarchies were the cosmopolitan empires of the Romans (West and East) or the later (post-Medieval) Christian Empires. Of course, the Roman empires were only monarchies for a relatively short period of time—in fact less time than any of the Christian monarchies we see later in Europe.” 

The Roman Empire was a de facto monarchy from Julius Caesar through Romulus Augustus, 44BC to 476AD, or 520 years. The Byzantine Empire was a monarchy from 395 to 1453, or 1,058 years. That’s what you call “relatively short”? I call that extremely long. We shall be lucky if the USA lasts 250 years, let alone 500 or 1,000. To be sure, neither the Roman nor the Byzantine monarchies were a single dynasty with an uninterrupted bloodline, but few if any of the later Christian monarchies in Europe were ruled by a single dynasty either. 

“The British Empire was also hardly a monarchy. Sure, they kept the monarch as a figurehead, but the predominant ruling power was with Parliament.” 

That was true in the final century of empire but emphatically not true in the early stages. The British monarch had real power even in the 1780s; indeed, Article II of the U.S. Constitution is modeled on the powers that the British monarch had at that time. During this period, as I said, the monarchy ruled over a wide variety of politically, racially, and ethnically diverse subjects. 

“The Austrian Empire did not last past 1918, so in order for it to have lasted 1,000 years it would’ve begun in 918 a.d.? I mean, the Hapsburgs were in power from maybe the late 1200s through the 1700s—hardly 1,000 years.” 

The Holy Roman Empire lasted from 962 to 1806, and its direct successor (the Austrian Empire) lasted until 1918, for a total of 952 years. 

“More importantly though, all of James P’s examples (Rome through Russia) refer to empires that ruled their diverse and far-flung subjects through military might and subjugation. Again, I think the Christian monarchies of the middle ages are still the best examples of actual monarchies with some staying power. They had the most stability and the least amount of military coercion to keep power. If that’s the only way these monarchies could control their subjects, and is thus the sort of force that an American monarchy would have to utilize…I’d take American democracy any day.” 

It is a great mistake to view these past empires as mere military dictatorships or as prototypes of 20^th century totalitarianism. They had neither the desire nor the ability to dominate their subject’s lives as did the Soviet Union or its satellites. They did not control their subjects through crude military coercion. Yes, rebellions were suppressed by force, but every form of government suppresses rebellions by force, including ours. The economic and technological power of these empires simply could not support a military and state bureaucracy capable of great intrusion into the daily life of the people. For example, the Roman Empire ruled 60 million people in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East with an army of 300,000 and perhaps 30,000 civilian bureaucrats, or one government employee per 182 people. In contrast, in the U.S. today there are some 17.5 million civilian government employees (state, local, and federal) plus 1.5 million people in the armed forces. Given a population of 310 million, there is one government employee per 17 people. The government of the “free, democratic” United States is thus ten times the size, and has ten times the power to interfere in your daily life, as did the “military dictatorship” of the Roman Empire! And that’s just on the basis of sheer numbers – obviously, technology enhances the power of a U.S. government bureaucrat to monitor and punish citizens, and meddle in their social and economic lives, relative to Roman bureaucrats.

I still don’t understand the advantages you think medieval Christian monarchies had relative to ancient empires (and here we are disregarding that the Byzantine monarchs were Christian for the full span of their 1,058 year rule). What does “staying power” mean? The ancient empires had tremendous staying power; they lasted much longer, and they were more stable economically and politically, than medieval kingdoms. Medieval kings used just as much “military coercion” to sustain their rule as did Roman or Byzantine Emperors – just look at home many revolts the average medieval king had to suppress. 

“I don’t think we should disregard the electoral aspect of German monarchy in such a derisive fashion—it’s much more involved than James is admitting. But I’m content to only address James’ own admission: many Americans would regard the Medieval Germanic electoral system as an ‘unconscionable dictatorship.’ Well, how on earth would they find a dynastic monarchy to be any more palatable? At least there was some small amount of determination in the German system, there’d be even less if that was taken away.”

Personally I don’t feel I have any more real choice in who becomes President than I would if he were a hereditary monarch or were chosen by a small oligarchy, and therefore this issue is to some extent moot. 

We could not get from democracy to monarchy without profound change, and many people would find the new regime unpalatable. However, we also could not get from our current corrupt, dysfunctional democracy to some hypothetical future virtuous, functional democracy without profound change, and many people would also find this change highly unpalatable. If we could somehow push “reset” and restore the size and power of the U.S. government to what it was in 1960 or 1932, I guarantee you that many, many people (the beneficiaries of the current status quo) would find this change unconscionable and would fight it strenuously. The OWS crowd is a mere trivial fraction of the legions that would turn out to fight a serious repeal of the welfare state. In short, no matter what end state you wish to achieve – back to “virtuous” democracy or even further back to monarchy – you will have a big fight on your hands. 

“Regarding James’ last point, it sounds like we’re actually on the same page. Of course, virtuous people can get rid of a corrupt king, but can a virtuous king get rid of a corrupt people? It’s true that corrupt people are unlikely to elect a virtuous ruler. They’re also unlikely to produce a virtuous king.” 

Kings are not produced by the people, and thus the level of corruption in the people does not correspond to the quality of the king. The main advantage of a king relative to an elected ruler is that the king does not have an incentive to corrupt the people in order to ensure electoral success. The population of a monarchy may over time become corrupt, but at least the ruler is not actively driving them in that direction. 

“The inverse is that a virtuous people can elect their representatives, and that group of representatives will stay uncorrupted longer than the one virtuous king who has all of the power.”

I think the evidence supports exactly the opposite view. Elected representatives become corrupt much more quickly than monarchs precisely because elected representatives have to appeal to the people on a regular basis. Elected representatives have a strong incentive to corrupt a virtuous people, whereas kings do not. 

“I believe democracy has more damage control built into it. It has a higher capacity to be somewhat compromised and yet functional than a monarchy. This virtue also makes it harder to weed out the corruption entirely, but I think I’ll still take my chances with democracy.” 

I disagree, and think history does not support this view at all. Again, the United States is not even 230 years old, and thus the claim that it has a high capacity to be “compromised but functional” is unproven to say the least. Consider also that American democracy in its current form did not really exist until 1933, and the amount of damage has steadily increased since then. Given the accelerating pace of corruption in past decades, and the total failure of any effort to reform the system, how you can say we have a high capacity for damage control is beyond me. Exactly what damage has ever been repaired? We may also note that Europe is rapidly heading off a cliff, and democracy there is not even 70 years old. 

“I’ll let Mr. Powell respond to Mr. P’s arguments against him, but I am curious what system Mr. P. would advocate, since he is so disillusioned with democracy. How would it come about and how does Mr. P. envision it working? That was an interesting exposition about American class struggles. Why does James think that a king would not use black crime to keep his middle-class and lower-class subjects preoccupied?” 

I will leave the first questions for another time, but with respect to the final question, the king does not need to appeal to any of his classes for votes, and thus has no need to facilitate their struggles. The king generally has a strong incentive to preserve order and enforce the law, which is what we want. 

“In short, what virtues can we find in a king that are exclusive to a king? What securities against corruption can we find in a king that we cannot find in a representative government?” 

The virtue of a king is that he does not need to be elected, and does not need to corrupt the people in order to buy their votes. Elected representatives have strong incentives to corrupt the people. I think we can see very clearly today that there is no security against this type of corruption, which is inherent in representative government.

Jesse Powell writes: 

“When I referred to democracy’s advantage of providing a peaceful means to resolve conflicts what I was referring to is that democracy has a built in means to change government policy through peaceful means; namely, lobbying and elections. In a democracy those who are discontented and rebellious have a clear method given to them to achieve their political ends that does not require violence. This is a great advancement in human political organization that should not be discarded lightly.” 

Rebellions and civil wars before 1945 were generally infrequent, short, and low in casualties. Rebellions and civil wars after 1945 have been frequent, long in duration, and high in casualties. What changed in 1945? Before 1945, most of the world lived under imperial (i.e., non-democratic) rule of one sort or another. After 1945, American democracy was triumphant, and America stood determined to export democracy to the benighted subjects of the colonial empires. Democracy did not provide a peaceful means for political change; rather, democracy caused a great, prolonged outburst of global violence. Nor did political violence recede much throughout Africa, Asia, or Latin America after the colonial regimes were overthrown. Once the external enemies were vanquished, the people of these countries turned on each other. Thus, the idea that democracy is a clear method to provide for non-violent dispute resolution fails in the face of decades of empirical evidence to the contrary. At the very least one must be cautious in claiming that democracy provides a great advancement in human political organization anywhere else than in wealthy countries with European inhabitants. 

“In regards to whether America’s most serious problems today can be solved through the democratic process; I think they can. I believe this because I see America’s most serious problems as being rooted in the American culture, not in the American political system. If the culture became virtuous the government would not stand in the way of rebuilding the society. In a democracy the culture rules, the government is simply used as a tool by the culture to serve its ends.” 

Jesse apparently does not see that the culture is not independent of the political system in a democracy and can never be. The problems in the culture did not arise spontaneously; they are the product of Leftist political forces seeking to shape the culture for Leftist political ends. The most important reason the culture will not become virtuous is that powerful political interests wish to corrupt it and keep it corrupt. 

Consider the situation from the perspective of a Leftist in the 1950s. The United States had an extremely large population of white middle class people who had relatively little dependence on the state. These people were inherently conservative, and naturally voted for conservative representatives. To us, these people and their culture were virtuous, but to Leftists of that time (and today) they were a major obstacle that had to be overcome. What then would a Leftist do to alter this situation to his political advantage? If the problem is a large number of conservative voters, the solution is to create an even larger number of liberal voters. There are a number of ways to do this. The first method is to import liberals from elsewhere via non-white immigration. The second method is to destroy the culture; this destroys the political appeal of conservatism and increases the appeal of liberalism. To increase the number of people dependent on the state, who are by definition liberals, you must destroy Christianity and the family, and to do so you must control the schools and the media. Lo and behold, once the culture was destroyed after 1965, there were ever more Leftist voters, and these voters elected ever more Leftist politicians. Hooray for democracy! 

The Left’s political war on the conservative middle class (described very well in Chapter 2 of Robert Chandler’s Shadow World) has obviously been highly successful. Our culture is not going to “become virtuous” again by accident any more than it became corrupt by accident. The political obstacles to a restoration of cultural virtue are massive, and include first and foremost large numbers of people who depend on state largesse as well as the politicians they elect to hand them that largesse. As liberals control the government, they are most certainly going to oppose energetically the rebuilding of a virtuous non-liberal society.

Please follow and like us: