Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Political ramble

I like Edmund Burke from what I know of him (and I'm not that learned), but "authoritarian" is not a dirty word. Burkean conservatism is made to order for English-speaking peoples. Russia and the Hispanic world are more traditional, naturally authoritarian. I'm flexible politically. I would welcome a Ron Paul (I stood literally in the rain to see him, twice), a Francisco Franco, a prince of Liechtenstein (there's traditionalist conservatism: have lots of little countries), or an Austrian emperor. I like legitimism: different politics for different peoples at different times. (Fences make good neighbors; separate countries are good.) The Nazis of course were actually "progressive," in their arrogance wanting to bulldoze non-German European traditions and maybe even German ones. A new order for a new, 20th-century man. Sound familiar? A lot like the Bolsheviks they fought in the streets. Or our neocons (what has passed for American conservatism since World War II), who are really Trotskyite radicals wanting to knock down tradition for "progress" worldwide; "nation-building" (let's invade Iraq and turn it into California, for their own good). Authoritarianism doesn't mean totalitarianism.

5 comments:

  1. I appreciate your input on politics and the need for them during different times. I completely agree that it is important that there are different politics for different times, the world is a changing place and the same politics aren't going to work for everyone. Do you think people are right when they want to look at a different type of politics in this country now? http://powderedwigsociety.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree about welcoming an Austrian emperor. The breakup of the Habsburg empire left a vacuum that led to the rise of Nazism and Bolshevism in Middle Europe.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  3. The funeral of a man who would have made a great Hapsburg emperor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXzvMF7Dx6g

    ReplyDelete
  4. " I like legitimism: different politics for different peoples at different times. Fences make good neighbors; separate countries are good."

    The story of the Tower of Babel desperately needs more emphasis nowadays. The widespread human yearning to transcend national boundaries and bring the entire world under unified sovereign rule is always a precursor to man's climbing to Heaven on his own power, which is really the same as forcibly dragging Heaven down to Earth- call it "Salvation by Empire". Whether the snake oil is Hellenism, the Pax Romana, Islam, The White Man's Burden, Communism, or Global Democracy, every egomaniac has a crackpot vision of a perpetually peaceful world under his own benevolent and infinitely wise rule.

    God, on the other hand, seems to have had excellent reasons for breaking the world into separate nations, and trying to reverse His work is folly and arrogance of the worst kind. Not for nothing did Christ say "My Kingdom is not of this world", and reject the Devil's offer of universal political dominion. True, Catholic eschatology has traditionally predicted a restored Roman Empire before the Second Coming, but that's something God will establish by his own means when He is good and ready, not something Christians are under a binding imperative to create (contra whacko Dispensationalists who think it's their personal job to bring about the End-Times).

    ReplyDelete
  5. John, I think you may very much like this article on Stefan Zweig and the quiet quality of life in the very civilized Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/neglected-genius-12505.html

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment