Posted on 03/18/2016 5:53:50 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
There is a line from John Adams of which conservatives, particularly those of a moralistic bent, are fond: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." The surrounding prose is quoted much less frequently, and it is stern stuff dealing with one of Adams’s great fears - one that is particularly relevant to this moment in our history.
John Adams hated democracy and he feared what was known in the language of the time as "passion." Adams's famous assessment: "I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either."
Democracy, he wrote, "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty." If you are wondering why that pedantic conservative friend of yours corrects you every time you describe our form of government as democracy - "It’s a republic!" he will insist - that is why. Your pedantic conservative friend probably is supporting Ted Cruz. The democratic passions that so terrified Adams have filled the sails of Donald Trump. Trumpkin democracy is the democracy that John Adams warned us about. At some point within the past few decades (it is difficult to identify the exact genesis) the rhetorical
At some point within the past few decades (it is difficult to identify the exact genesis) the rhetorical affectation of politicians' presuming to speak for "We the People" became fashionable. Three words from the preamble to the Constitution came to stand in for a particular point of view and a particular set of assumptions present in both of our major national political tendencies.
Molly Ivins, the shallow progressive polemicist, liked to thunder that "We the People don’t have a lobbyist!" She liked to call lobbyists "lobsters," too, a half-joke that she, at least, never tired of. Dr. Ben Carson likes to draft "We the People" into his service. Sean Hannity is very fond of the phrase, and so-called conservative talk radio currently relies heavily on the assumption that the phrase is intended to communicate: that there exists on one side of a line a group of people called "Americans" and on the other side a group called "the Establishment," and that "We the People" are getting screwed by "Them."
I write "so-called" conservative talk radio because the radio mob dropped conservatism with something like military parade-ground precision the moment it looked like the ratings - and hence the juice - were on the other side.
Donald Trump, talked up endlessly by the likes of Hannity and Laura Ingraham, apologized for by Rush Limbaugh, and indulged far too deeply for far too long by far too many others, rejects conservatism. He rejects free trade. He rejects property rights. He rejects the rule of law. He rejects limited government. He advocates a presidency a thousand times more imperial than the one that sprung Athena-like from the brow of Barack Obama and his lawyers. He meditates merrily upon the uses of political violence and riots, and dreams of shutting down newspapers critical of him. He isn't a conservative of any stripe, and it is an outright lie to present him as anything other than what he is.
What he is is the embodiment of the democratic passions that kept John Adams up at night. Trumpkin democracy is the democracy that John Adams warned us about.
A proper republic under the rule of law is, as Adams wrote, "deaf as an adder to the clamors of the populace." It is that which "no passion can disturb" and "void of desire and fear, lust and anger," being, as it is, "mens sine affectu." The Trump movement is light on the mens, being almost entirely affectu. Our law is a law of property, commerce, trade, and individual rights. The democratic passion - which informs the campaign of Bernie Sanders as much as it does that of Donald Trump - rejects those things. It would see unpopular points of view quashed, First Amendment be damned, a project already well under way among Democrats seeking to criminalize dissenting views on global warming.
The democratic passion demands the expropriation of Apple and Goldman Sachs, projects Trump considers with some glee. It demands a central-planning regime in place of the free flow of goods and capital, not because that's good economics - it isn't - but because such a regime would constitute an act of economic and political violence against Them. These ideas are on the rise in many places, notably among adherents of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front Nationale in France and the Golden Dawn in beleaguered Greece, which latter group, despite reports of its demise, remains very much with us.
In our time as in Adams's time, the worst of human nature is a threat amplified in the United States by the openness of our society and the liberality of our institutions. Adams again:
While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.
But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.
As difficult as it is to imagine Donald Trump taking the presidential oath of office, it is much more difficult to imagine him taking it seriously, or indeed to imagine that there exists anything that is to him a "sacred obligation".
The federal character of the United States, and the fractured nature of the federal government - its three coequal branches and its further subdivided bicameral legislature - are designed to frustrate "We the People" when the people fall into dangerous and violent error of the sort with which they are now flirting. Yes, there are people in power maneuvering to frustrate the will of "We the People" on a dozen different things, ranging from economic and national-defense policy to the specific matter of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. That is prudence and patriotism, and the constitutional architecture of these United States is designed to prevent democratic passion from prevailing. Have your talk-radio temper tantrum. Have your riots. Our form of government, even in its current distorted state, was designed to handle and absorb your passions. You may dream of a dictator, but you will not have one.
- Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.
Whenever I see democracy described as a mob, I always think of the French Revolution.
The one that had envy slaughtering people for being rich - if there was no actual crime to pin on them - and destroying their possessions - works of art, fine craftsmanship because the mob had no use for or didn’t appreciate those possessions or even because the “gib me dats” of the day just wanted everyone to have nothing. (Sound familiar?)
And finally and predictably this revolution for “freedom” ended in the installation of a dictator. Study it. It’s all available - for now anyway.
I like John Adams, a lot.
For one thing, he was important in getting George Washington appointed commander of the Continental Army, in 1775.
But Adams was defeated for reelection in 1801 by a somewhat more populist politician, Thomas Jefferson.
No need to rehearse that election, except to say that Jefferson was Trump to Adams' Cruz.
But it does seem to me that another Adams, his son John Quincy, at first defeated, but then was also defeated by the populist "Trump" of his day, Andrew Jackson.
So, we can say that when populism opposes constitutionalism, populism often wins.
Then, somehow, the Republic survives, so maybe we'll survive Trump too.
But not Hillary, God help us, not Hillary.
The fact is that the two approaches perfectly complement each other. Trump appeals to patriots and all who love traditional American values--which absolutely include reverence for the Constitution. Cruz appeals to those who want a candidate better able to actually explain the Constitutional mandates--which are absolutely compatible with (indeed perfectly reflect) traditional American values.
While I now support Donald Trump, I certainly want to heal the unfortunate chasm between two camps, whose difference is really only a slightly different focus; both camps essential to an American future.
Well said.
Of course, Kevin Williamson and his National Review comrades are little more than bitter partisans when it concerns Trump, so it’s not like they care if their reasoning is honest. They are counting on the mud they are throwing to stick and that’s all they care about.
Of course you view it as pathetic trash. The Donald wasn't around for the Founders to worship, so naturally, to you they are full of sh*t.
He may be a ‘populist’ but it is only because BOTH PARTIES have lied to us for decades and we are sick of it.
It is not a derogatory term to be a ‘populist’ - at least no worse than being ‘ESTABLISHMENT’ -i.e. letting the same people keep doing the same things.
It is the ‘establisment’ that want us to look down on him as a ‘populist’
Articles from the National Review (i.e. the GOPe mouthpiece) have the same amount of truth in them as Pravda circa 1978.
“and uses the passions of the mob (Trump, for example), it collapses and democracy becomes misrule”
Oh, so Freepers who support Trump are a mob; mindless, savage sans culottes rampaging through the streets looking for queens to behead. Very flattering.
I’ll bet your opinion of most of those Freepers was much higher until Trump, the essential deus ex machina, swung in from the wings to offer salvation from the irredeemably depraved and corrupt American political class.
You say such mean things about us now, but the problem is that you just don’t get it.
“As Adams said, “avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness...”
Yes, that describes Trump’s supporters to a T. Thanks again. And we know those things motivate Trump: avarice because he won’t rest until he makes a million bucks; ambition because he is clearly motivated to become a well-known public figure; we know he is vengeful because of the endless parade of his victims who have come forward to denounce him; and licentiousness clearly motivates him because he cannot possibly obtain the favors of members of the contrary gender until he attains high elective office.
I have my own reasons for reserving a degree of skepticism regarding Trump’s actual intentions should he be elected, but some people are just making stuff up.
In the final analysis, Trump is the only one who even *might* put the good of the country first. None of the loathsome political serpents in the race would even place it as high as fourth.
...vs Bathhouse Barry, whom vowed to fundamentally change the U.S.
Or the ‘elect US and we’ll balance the budget, STOP executive amnesty, DE-FUND PP, SECURE our Southern border...’
So, do I believe those that were supported/elected to do one thing but did another, or a successful (biz) man, who’s actually PRODUCED, whom said he’s take a wrecking ball to the whole stinking lot of ‘em??
Damn, that’s some tough choice. /s
I had to look it up:
“...’mens sine affectu.’ [mind without passion] The Trump movement is light on the mens, being almost entirely affectu.”
Start with "avarice", as it pertains to Ted Cruz. It is defined as "extreme greed for wealth or material gain."
SYNONYMS: Greediness (He makes a good salary. Wifey makes ~$750K/year. It's still not enough. So he cheats his church out of tithes.)
Rapacity (Excessively grasping [the nomination when it isn't the will of the people])
Pleonexia (strictly defined as "the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others", i.e, Trump's rightfully earned #1 standing in votes; (2) "ruthless self-seeking and an ARROGANT assumption that others and things exist for one's own benefit".) Just listen to him and watch him.
money-grubbing ("send five dollars, send ten dollars...")
"Avarice" used in a sentence, "The job had become less about integrity and more about avarice". (This verbatim from a Google definition search. It's like they were writing it specifically about him.)
Thank you!
Mountebanks, even the pathetic ones, however, deserve to be unhorsed!
Does anyone with even the most elemental knowledge of American values in 1787 (when the Constitution was drafted) believe that the Founders would have any truck at all with those claiming to be defending American Conservatism against Trump.
There might even be a tar & feathering or two, but it would not be directed against Donald or any of us supporting him!
Note, I am not advocating applying hot tar and feathers to any of the dear souls; just making an observation.
Is this the same author who put out the screed about poor whites who have to just die?
So the new meme is out, progressive populist, thanks Levin you made genius! Barking mad insanity is quite a sight to behold.
Kevin Williamson is a shrill shell of himself anymore. The aerobic reach around the nevertrump folks are doing to fellate each other is getting more anxious and hyperbolic.
Amusing I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.