AT The Orthosphere, Proph makes the case against consensual politics. Democracy, he writes, is a “misrepresentation … of the nature and structure of reality”:

Existence is not reducible to a mass of equal and sovereign wills who must agree to coordinate their movements through space in order to avoid collision. Rightness and moral law are not determined by voting or even by choice; goodness is not convertible with consent; and authority, being rooted in God, transcends individual wills. Life under a consensual political system tends to inculcate its society with the delusion that “freedom” is the highest good, with the predictable consequence that the order of being, in all its determinism, comes to be regarded as oppressive and unjust. Thus, you wind up with people demanding taxpayer-subsidized elective sex change operations — how else can we be free of the tyranny of reality?

So prosperity misrepresents man’s spiritual condition, driving him to believe (falsely) that he is self-sustaining and self-actualizing; and democracy compounds the misrepresentation by driving him to believe (also falsely) that he is by nature free, that duty is an unjust imposition, authority something to be rebelled against, and reality itself something negotiable. A bad situation, indeed, and one in dire need of correction.

 —Comments —

David S. writes:

“[G]oodness is not convertible with consent; and authority, being rooted in God, transcends individual wills.”

Well, whether or not you believe in God, we can all agree that He will never be directly in charge of any country. God can’t be president, or king, or dictator. So the question isn’t: where do good and authority come from. The question is: which humans, imperfect as all of them are, should be in charge of making the decisions?

I think, and I believe most Protestants at least agree, that putting someone perceived to be “in touch” with God, someone who studies God, is not even close to the idea of having God Himself in charge of the country; it’s not even the next best thing.

Nor is a king or queen who claims divine authority, and certainly not a dictator who says that God told them to do something.

So, what does that leave us with?

Laura writes:

Proph didn’t speak of putting God directly in charge. His point in the quote you mention is that goodness is not defined by popular will or the will of a king. A monarchy that recognizes divine authority also recognizes the  limitations of human authority. Deference to the good, he argued, is more likely within the institution of monarchy and its embodiment of hierarchy.

A people can be as despotic as a king. The belief that kings are perfectible or that every king is good does not work as the underlying rationale for monarchy.

The issue of monarchy vs. democracy was discussed in a number of previous posts, including the posts here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Pilgrim’s Pride writes:

Tocqueville observed New England’s theocracy was unique in history. While in obvious decline by 1831, in no small part as required by the many compromises required of the new United States Constitution, Tocqueville noted the difference between this American Christianity and the European was that the Americans, meaning the New Englanders, actually believed it – and saw the Church as a means of improving their lot instead of a source of oppression or benign neglect. The South … did not. But that is subject for another time.

Little understood is the gargantuan investment made in the citizenry of New England. At first, immigrants were tightly screened, vetted and apprenticed (Fischer, “Albion’s Seed”). Failure to meet high and explicit standards meant a one-way ticket out of town. Sneaking back in would gain you a date with the gallows!

Yankee obsession with universal education is legendary. It was intended to bring up their people to know the Bible (they were Reformed – sola scriptura) and thereby God’s will as best as possible. They also learned the entire community would enforce God’s will, the origin of the unfortunate pejorative, “Puritanical.”

Be that as it may, it worked. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and many millions of immigrants tasted of New England’s unprecedented bounty and comity. A trip through the countryside reveals that, in many respects, New England still benefits from the piety and sheer courage of its founding fathers at Plymouth Rock.

Please follow and like us: