Comments on: Socialist Monarchism?

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:13:42 +0000

“I do think it’s true enough that a socialist or distributist or redistributist monarchist could be a conservative, but not an American conservative.”

True — there are no American conservatives. America is a radical Enlightenment project.

By: Benjamin Bell

Benjamin Bell — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:21:23 +0000

I am sorry to say that I have missed a large majority of this debate due to exams and papers. However, it is certainly very fascinating considering the number of comments and opinions offered (the purpose of a blog). I am inclined to say that the original author of the blog on monarchism seems to be on to something in that his position seems sufficiently Straussian. My definition of Straussianism may not be the general definition because I am inclined to believe that his understanding of Nietzsche made him highly doubtful of the proper willfulness of democracy. I am not an advocate of the monarchy but i certainly find the position offered by Hobbes in Leviathan seems reasonable insofar as it gives the plebs their proper dues. I appreciate Dr. Lawler’s excellent analysis of the situation and would recommend he write a blog on the economic issues making their way through our “democratic process” but I know that’s already coming having got to personally hear his well thought-out answer. You sir perpetually amaze me by your ability to have well reasoned opinion on literally everything.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:22:36 +0000

I would argue the question would be better framed first, by avoiding any prefix such as “neo,” or “post,” or “new”, simply because we are, following Voegelin, analyzing the process of deculturation due to the loss of reason. And, as Voegelin notes, the Western culture (of reason) has provided the means to examine and begin the process of reclaimation and restoration.
Second, I’m concerned by your use of the phrase, “..welfare state’s liberated individual?” I do think those folks captured by the ‘welfare state’ are in a condition that is not ‘liberated’ but rather, in many ways, resembles the olde African chattel slavery sans the racial definition e.g. that the ground of any statist regime means some form of slavery for some of its people.
Third, I’d take issue with your comment that we are seeking to answer the query related to “…who we are..” Now, I’d agree that there are those folks seeking to answer that question but I think in terms of the actual inquiry we are more interested in solving the delemma of Western ‘deculturation.’ And, that is inherently a pneumatic inquiry that reflects the movement in the tension between myth and revelation, where the ultimate end of philosophia is the experience of man and the Divine.
The reason why I continue to insist on a “republican” restoration is because that form carries with it the obligation of the individual in community (and all that that implies), provides the freedom (a mimetic ‘freedom’ that follows the gift of the Divine) of the individual to participate in the search, to worship, to live in the love of God, and finally, the form of gov’t that provides the best opportunity to resist the perverse inclinations of the ‘libido dominandi’ by not interferring with the natural inclination to establish a national myth and the social ‘openness’ to publicly examine and critique the injuries inflicted “in the movement of speech” by the doctrinization (an element of deculturaton) of both philosophy and theology.
I’m pretty sure the Lady of Andulasia wrote extensively on this process of deculturation.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:32:55 +0000

Come on, Robert. Would a Tea-Party led “moral restoration grounded on distinctly American first principles” really bring us any closer to the truth about who we are as persons than the welfare state’s liberated individual? If we take O’Connor and Percy’s view (not Sandra Day, but she might do to) we might be tempted to say that keeping the welfare state and its failures around a little longer might divert us less from the truth than restoring the founders’ view. We postmodern conservatives want to know.

By: On the possibility of monarchy and aristocracy today | Conservative Heritage Times

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:48:44 +0000

[...] few thoughts on monarchy regarding the recent discussion, started by John Médaille’s two [...]

By: Understanding the Medaille vs. Stegall Front Porch Republic Monarchy Spat | Conservative Heritage Times

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:44:52 +0000

[...] Lawler at the First Things Postmodern Conservative blog has weighed in on the controversy. | | | | | [...]

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:29:04 +0000

As I have said elsewhere, I am not a monarchist, and I don’t think you can cram the square peg of monarchism into the round hole of America, but that said, I am troubled by the “eww… Medaille has uttered wrongthink” feel to some of the reaction. Medaille’s critique of modern democracy is spot on, and his proposed solution should be dealt with on its own terms. It’s as if we will tolerate only so much illiberalism and no more.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:15:35 +0000

Dr. Lawler, if that were the case I’d agree with you but I don’t think it is. I think we have a condition were the TPers seek a moral restoration grounded on distinctly American first principles.
It is amazing to me that these, by all accounts, humble folk seek this restoration in an age of deculturation that results from the loss of reason. For me, these TP people are singularly remarkable because they appear to understand that the process that has destroyed the “image” of God in society is distinctly secular and statist.
I do believe the TPers are America’s last chance.

By: John C. Médaille

John C. Médaille — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:44:32 +0000

The problem is, there aren’t any AMERICAN porches left, and if there were, they’d have been foreclosed by now. I think the greatest romanticism is the belief that there is some magic bullet (raise taxes, lower them, increase/decrease spending, whatever) that will save the current system. Obama’s a one-termer for sure; but President Palin (or whatever look-alike is next) will be a half-termer. And then…who knows. But we are at the stage where everything done to fix the system only makes it worse. There is no way to find jobs for the 15 million (an optimistic number) unemployed, much less the 200,000 new workers that come on stream each month. There is no way to pay our debts or win our wars under the current institutional arrangements. And then we will have to re-think some basic assumptions.

Romanticism is always followed by anger, and then by violence. And then by who knows what.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:43:24 +0000

For the moment, I’m somewhat repulsed by the TEA-PARTY fantasy that our present debt crisis will produce a rollback of the welfare state and a return to our past “constitutional greatness.” Having said that, I welcome a good deal of the populist libertarianism as a way of energizing citizens, although not so much as actually mode of governing. Still, I like the heat being brought to.