The
[u]nited States constitution of 1787 is usually praised by its advocates as the
most perfect political blueprint that has ever been drawn up. It is supposed to work this way: Given even mediocre inputs (e.g., men who are
vain, ambitious, greedy, etc.), the government institutions built from it will
process them and their strengths and weaknesses (by way of separation of
powers, checks and balances, etc.) and produce in the end justice and every
other political virtue that is needed to maintain a good and peaceful life for
the citizenry. It is like the perfect
perpetual-motion machine for the political sphere: After the initial amount of energy has been
applied (the first elections), it will go on running come what may, self-correcting
whatever imbalances it encounters, whether from inside or outside the system,
always keeping itself in proper order, in even form.
But
the promised good has rarely materialized.
More often than not, the federal government has been used as a tool by
the majority to force its will on the minority.
All the pretty talk about the finely crafted parts of the constitution
is meaningless (as the Anti-Federalists foresaw).
A
case in point has arisen lately in Louisiana,
where one man running for Congress campaigns with the slogan ‘Louisiana
values for a stronger America’. What business do Louisiana citizens have
forcing their way of life on those outside Louisiana (or even outside this
man’s congressional district), on those living in Maine, Arizona, Iowa, and
other places whose living conditions and needs are different than their own? Louisiana
values are for those in Louisiana,
not elsewhere. Likewise Georgia values, Oregon values, and all the rest.
This
shows the failure of one of the main constitutional dogmas, Madison’s theory of the extended republic (Federalist Papers, No. 10), which was
supposed to overcome factionalism and selfishness by jumbling a host of
different interests from many different States together. But instead of harmony, it has only led to
increased hostility among the many different peoples who are forced to remain
within the Union as they vie for control of the levers of power in Washington City.
If
the beliefs of the people living in the 50 States were sufficiently alike, a
popular government might have a chance of working. As it is, there are significant differences
within some of the States themselves regarding fundamental beliefs (New York City and upstate New York,
Chicago vs southern Illinois,
etc.), so no one should be surprised that the democratic system in Washington City is not working as advertised.
Democracies
and republics have a chance of working at a very local level where the culture
is the same throughout, where there are no great differences in beliefs and
interests, and the money powers cannot hide in the darkness of anonymity and
enslave the bulk of the voters through media manipulation, control of banking
and education, etc. Here, something like
a common will can be manifested in the government and a peaceful political life
can be known.
But
once one begins to look at larger, more populated, more diverse areas, then
other ideas must be considered. The best
by far is the hereditary king, who is aloof from the whole clownish and vicious
world of electoral politics. What a
relief would it be to have someone with the authority to scold the party
politicians when they go wrong, and save the people from their depredations?
Two
recent ensamples of the blessings of monarchy.
One from Australia:
Turn
back to 1975, Australia:
Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor (left-wing) government has control of the
House, and the Liberal Party (right-wing) controls the Senate. The Labor Party
are trying to settle on a funds appropriations bill, but are repeatedly blocked
by the Opposition.
Yes,
it’s the exact same scenario. Only its resolution is far better.
The
situation was hopeless. Neither party would budge. Meanwhile, the Australian
Government was essentially in shutdown. The Prime Minister was intending to
call a “half-Senate election”—a rather FDR-esque maneuver that would basically
tell the Australian people, “Vote for more Labor people or this is going to
drag on indefinitely.”
Enter
the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. The Governor-General is a viceroy who
assumes most of the Queen’s powers in her stead. He has roughly the same powers
as the Queen does in the UK,
and as much tenacity to refrain from using them unless perfectly necessary.
Only now Sir John saw the necessity.
Outside
Parliament House in Canberra,
a press conference was called. Sir John’s secretary, Sir David Smith, appeared
with a proclamation from the Governor-General. After describing the powers
vested in the Viceroy:
Whereas
by section 57 of the Constitution it is provided that if the House of
Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to
pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives
will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of
Representatives, in the same of the next session, again passes the proposed law
with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by
the Senate and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with
amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the
Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives
simultaneously…
In
short, when Australian politicians fail to perform their duties as legislators
for the public good, the Governor-General has the right, even the duty, to step
in. And step in in a very big way.
And
so, the Governor-General’s own secretary, grinning nervously amidst jeers and
boos, announced:
…
Therefore, I Sir John Robert Kerr, the Governor-General of Australia, do
by this my Proclamation dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Given under my Hand and the Great Seal of Australia on 11 November 1975,
Completed
with a sharp, majestic:
God
Save the Queen!
Malcolm
Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition, was appointed interim Prime Minister; an
election was held; Fraser’s Liberal Party (right-wing) carried the day. The
66-to-61 majority enjoyed by the Labor Party became a 91-to-36 lead by the
Liberal Party in a matter of eight months.
What
exactly did the Governor-General do? He didn’t dictate terms to the Prime
Minister. He didn’t impose his own preferences on the Australian people. He
simply stepped in, told everyone to go home, called a new election, and let the
Australian people make their choice mid-crisis. Where would we be now if the
same had occurred during the Affordable Healthcare Act in 2010, or the Debt
Crisis of 2013, or the Libya
debacle, or the TSA scandal? Can we be under any illusion that monarchy is
hostile to freedom, transparency, and democracy?
Source: Michael Davis, http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/03/im-monarchist.html,
opened 4 Nov. 2016
And
the other from Thailand:
Finally, there came the issue of the transition to
democracy. Thailand
had actually had almost no experience with democracy, despite claims to the
contrary, prior to the 1990’s. The end of royal absolutism brought to power a
new class of political elites but they were not true democratic representatives
of the public will and they were soon replaced by military leaders who had held
power ever since. That changed with the military coup of 1991 in which General
Suchinda Kraprayoon seized power, making himself dictator. However, this time,
there was considerable public opposition and violence broke out as army units
fought to suppress anti-government demonstrations. The chaos spread throughout Bangkok and fears began
to rise that an all-out civil war was eminent.
Once again, the King saw that the situation was
critical and warranted his intervention. He summoned General Suchinda and the
leader of the democracy movement (a retired general) Chamlong Srimuang to the Royal Palace
on May 20, 1992. The event was televised and the Thai public watched as these
two generals, the two most powerful non-royals in the country, crawled on their
knees and bowed down to the revered King. He urged them to resolve their
differences peacefully, for the good of the country, nothing that sounds very
radical. However, this was a hugely significant event. The dictator of the
country had been seen humbling himself on national television, side by side
with the leader of the dissidents and while the King did not openly take a side
in the issue, by urging them to resolve their differences peacefully, this was
a clear indication that he did not wish to see the army used to shoot down
dissidents in the streets and that some accommodation would have to be reached.
Without military force, that accommodation could only come by way of the
democratic process. However, it also meant that the pro-democracy side would
have to stop their riots and start talking policy and making their case to the
Thai people.
Not long after, General Suchinda resigned and after
a short time a general election was held and a democratic government came to
power in Thailand.
Again, a civil war had been averted and the transition from military rule to
parliamentary democracy had taken place without a major, nationwide upheaval,
thanks to the intervention of the King.
. . .
Source: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/10/king-bhumibol-adulyadej-great-of.html,
opened 4 Nov. 2016
A
king (or queen) is very helpful in promoting unity and peace in a country. So too a shared history. But nothing is more helpful in this regard
than a common religious faith shared by all the folk of the land, especially
the Orthodox Christian faith with its focus on repentance, humility,
selflessness, and love. Through it,
every difficulty can be overcome.
Fr
Michael Gillis has a good talk on Christian unity here:
And
the history of Russia
provides other illustrations:
November
4 is a festive day in Russia.
This feast day is both new and old. For the churchly part of our society, it is
the commemoration of the Kazan Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, a tradition
that goes back nearly four centuries. For those who honor the country’s
history, it will not come as news that as far back as 1649 the feast day of the
Kazan Icon of the Mother of God (October 22 on the Old Calendar, or November 4
on the New) was declared a public holiday by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
Still life by Tatiana McWethy
This
tradition was interrupted during the long years of aggressive state atheism,
being revived only in 2005 [as National Unity Day]. Time does not stand still,
and new emphases and meanings have been added to this feast day. But its
essential meaning has remained the same: this is a day of national unity in
opposition to all that destroys and plunders our land, undermining the peaceful
and constructive life of the people.
Consequently,
this is a feast day of unity for all those who see themselves as people of our
Russian Fatherland, who serve Russia, who construct their soul and world around
it, and who remember the Motherland – wherever they may happen to be. This is a
feast day for those who seek to protect age-old values and absolute moral
standards, for those who will not allow the degradation of the nation as a
result of liberal and tolerant lies.
This
is not a day of mechanical unity for everyone who happens to live here. The
roots of this feast day lie in spiritual and moral choices. The Russian people’s
repentance and appeal to holy things have more than once permitted
breakthroughs in history, the overcoming of unimaginable perils and disasters,
and the revival of the country when it was perishing. Therefore, November 4
does more than simply replace the former holiday; it is not just a “calendar
victory” over the communist “Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution”
[formerly held on November 7] and the later pseudo-holiday, the “Day of
Reconciliation and Agreement” between the irreconcilable and the incompatible.
Historians
often call the Time of Troubles in the seventeenth century the first “civil
war” in the history of Russia.
Avraamy Palitsyn, an eyewitness to the events of the Time of Troubles, writes:
“In the general whirling of heads, everyone wanted to be above his station:
servants wanted to be masters, the rabble wanted to be gentry, the gentry
wanted to be nobles… The Fatherland and Church perished: the temples of the
True God were ruined… cattle and hounds lived in the altars; … dice was played
on the icons; … harlots danced in clerical robes. Monks and priests were burned
by fire…” This is an expression of the national spirit of the time, which
allowed the occupation to take place. We are not far from such a condition
today. Only their repentance, ascetic struggle, and the reconsideration of
their choices and ways permitted them to put an end to the inner madness and
the waves of foreign invaders.
A
careful look at the current state of the Fatherland – at geopolitical threats,
the advancement of the information war, the dying generations – makes one thing
certain: the time has arrived for the people’s repentance, without which there
can not only be no revival of the people, nation, and country – but without
which they cannot even survive.
November
4 is a day of historical accountability for the people and for each one of us.
On this day in 1612, after fervent prayer before the Kazan Icon of the
Theotokos, civilian troops stormed Kitay-gorod [in central Moscow], forcing the Poles to flee. Of
course, a certain number of invaders and traitors continued to resist, but the
turning point had been reached and the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The
liberators entered Kitay-gorod with the Kazan Icon and then vowed to build a
church in honor of the icon in memorial.
From
the experience of military victories, the perception of the Mother of God as
the primary Intercessor and Protectress of the Russian land took root in the
Orthodox consciousness of the Russian people.
One
more thing: on this day we should remember the invaluable role of the Russian
Orthodox Church in the formation of national unity, in the gathering of
civilian armies, and in the building of the moral motivation necessary for
liberation from foreign invaders and domestic miscreants, traitors, and
wreakers of havoc, of whom there were many during the Time of Troubles and
likewise many today.
. . .
Source:
Igumen John Ermakov, http://www.pravmir.com/the-kazan-icon-and-national-unity-day/,
opened 4 Nov. 2016
It
is time that worship of Enlightenment idols like the u. S. constitution came to an end,
for the sake of harmony and much else that is good, like the spread of
Christianity. Would that Southerners
would be among the first to repent.
--
Holy
Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the
South!
Anathema
to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment