The Outstater
‘No Kings’: A Prologue to Farce
We can avoid the cataclysm anytime we choose to, by returning to reality, to reason, to ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.’” — Notre Dame’s Robert Reilly in “America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding”
I AM DISHEARTENED that 5,000 of my neighbors in one of the most staid places on earth thought it a good idea to wander out on a cold, wet June Saturday to proclaim . . . well, to proclaim their opposition to kings in the year 2025. It was a dismaying testimony to the state of civic education, one that bodes ill for our efforts to actually forego a return to tyranny.
It can be argued that this weekend we — our schools, our mass media, our political parties — failed James Madison’s test for democracy: “A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.”
At best the “No Kings” protest was farce. At worst, it set up straw men to be knocked down by real life tyrants, the kind hiding behind autopens. (It is ironic that as “No Kings” unfolded, Iranians, whose king was dethroned only a generation ago, were on their roofs cheering a foreign power bombing their democratically elected tyrants.)
Yet, it all serves as a peg to hang some pertinent history, beginning with the fact the founders of this nation were not against kings per se, just kings who violated individual liberties hard-fought for three centuries or more. The distinction is critical if we are to properly acknowledge the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the document that explains us.
In youth, the best of an American generation begins by thinking of the words of the Declaration as well-meaning suggestions for another time. Later, some become aware that the words hold ageless wisdom and are not suggestions but rather, as the Declaration itself says, self-evident truths. It is well into adulthood, however, before the few – too few — realize that they must apply those truths anew for the sake of their own children.
Far more authentic and noble ideals than the rank posturing we witnessed this weekend have risen in the hearts of men throughout history, in men of all races and nationalities. But with precious few exceptions, of which we are blessedly one, they were crushed by a ruling elite, kings being only one example, elites driven by base greed or envy. The resulting cultures devalue freedom of speech, religion and most critically property.
So that is the first thing that makes our Declaration special — it survived. More than that, it survived to be put in action as the inspiration for an exceptional republic built on the rule of law and not of men. We owe that not to flowing language but to valiant men and brilliant military tactics, applauded grandly at this weekend’s military parade in Washington, D.C. Study the pivotal battles of Saratoga and Cowpens. The Colonial Army, on American ground, man for man, was better and smarter than the opposing army. It will have to be so again.
Second, the words touched men’s hearts — and continue to do so centuries later. The scientist Paul Colinvaux, author of “The Fates of Nations,” searched for a clinical description that perfectly captured the hopes of humankind, one that included the political dimensions that all men wish for in their country but also were general enough to allow for variety in individual and cultural tastes:
“I suggest that a gathering of American revolutionaries wrote down such a definition more than two hundred years ago. Scientifically, their words can be rewritten to say that the human niche is bounded by a set of inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Again, monarchy is not the only form of government that has abused those rights.
That fortuitous gathering in 1776 led a revolutionary movement in a country of both immense challenge and immense opportunity. To help meet the challenges, those gathered had in their libraries the great economic and philosophical works of their time or, for that matter, of all time.
Note that we call them “revolutionaries” and not “rebels.” They were not rebelling against anything, certainly not the foundational principles of England. On the contrary, the colonists wanted their situation to revolve back to where it was before George III upended it with his tyrannical hand.
Britain’s Dan Hannan, former member of the European Parliament, notes that the goals of the Declaration rested on the principles of England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688. It generally continued the natural rights long observed by the British crown. The signers, subjects of the same crown until ink touched paper in the old Philadelphia State House, had sought only equality as British citizens.
And while we are cutting fine historical points, the colonists didn’t start the war. The decision of the Royal Governor of Virginia to try and disarm them by removing a public store of gunpowder and weapons was the last straw for the patriot militia. That affront to their liberty (what prompted the Second Amendment to our Constitution) made clear the intentions of the crown. A year and a half later the Declaration was signed.
Several of our essayists argue compellingly that there is a divine element to this history. And even a sociologist, the Austrian Helmut Schoeck, agrees that the founders were guided by primarily Christian tenets. He documents in particular that the Christian understanding of envy as a sin and not something to be institutionalized has proven a boon to all societies that have embraced it — including our own until recently (BLM, Antifa, the modern Democrat Party).
Also on the secular side, the British historian Arnold Toynbee would call the signers of the Declaration a “creative minority,” the most successful in history. By that he means those few individuals who meet the challenges of their age selflessly by inspiring rather than compelling their countrymen to follow an innovative lead. Tom Bethell, author of “The Noblest Triumph,” would add that it was not incidental that the great number of these founders were landowners and understood what role private property plays in both prosperity and liberty.
Let’s pause for a moment to consider how rare is that Antifa and a growing number of others would toss away. Our founders introduced solutions not by violence but by moral example and reasoned discussion, solutions from which the mass of their fellow citizens would benefit but otherwise would be incapable of discovering or affecting on their own.
Where else does this happen — did this happen? Most societies, democracies or not, are governed by a dominant minority, again, one that rules by force and in its own interests. And that is true of the hundreds of civilizations Toynbee examined in his iconic “A Study of History.” Such societies, he famously warned, “die from suicide, not from murder,” beginning with an inability to define their own citizenship or borders.
But they are the default, we the exception – or so I fervently hoped as I watched the ignorant gather in mass this weekend. Heavy on my heart was James Madison’s warning that democracy will yield to tyranny without a knowledgable citizenry. — tcl
Comments...