Someone once said that the
American political system is most curious. We elect a king every
four years, and after four years in office that king has to run for
re-election. And if he loses, he has to depart without protest and
turn his throne over to someone else.
Curious indeed. But think
about it – back in 1776, was there a country anywhere on earth that
wasn't ruled by a king, emperor, or tyrant of some sort? (I can't
think of a single example, but I'll have to check on Switzerland.)
So this idea of a monarchy was pretty much universal and pretty much
accepted. Even if a monarch was deposed, or even killed, he was soon
replaced by another monarch (England being a very temporary
exception). So this notion of an ordinary citizen being elected –
by the citizenry, no less! -- to the highest office in the land was
strange, exotic, and unfamiliar. Of course it was an ideal, held by
the humanists and Enlightenment figures who crafted the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution, but it was nonetheless rare for
all that. It was, if you will, aspirational – we hope it works, it
ought to work, but there are no guarantees (as they freely admitted
at the time – let's give them credit for that much). But in a
sense they were going against something deeper and more ancient than
philosophy. One might say that, despite all the idealism various
philosophers can come up with, the “ghost in the machine” is
human nature, which is much older than ideas.
A famous line of poetry
from Robert Frost is: “Something
there is that doesn't love a wall.” We
might almost say, “something there is that doesn't love kings”.
But on a deeper level, don't we still have reservations about the
alternative to kings – that thing we call “democracy”? It's
still, in some ways, new, scary, strange, and unsettling. Imagine
people – ordinary people – being entitled to choose their ruler?
“Ain't fittin'” to quote Mammy in “Gone With the Wind”. And
why is this? Human nature being what it is, we naturally tend toward
hierarchies, pecking orders, the ruler and the ruled; there is a
certain security in knowing that someone's in charge, and that they
were put there by... what? Divine right? Some unearthly power? Or
simply because they were the biggest SOB in the valley, as the saying
goes. In any case, it's the way we think that things were meant to
be, and the way they ought to be. And I'm not talking about
superficial politics, movements, or propaganda, but the way we are –
the way our brains operate. (Anthropologists are fond of studying
hierarchies in “primitive” tribes or “native” populations.
How often do they find anything that can even remotely be described
as a democracy – a council of tribal elders maybe, but the entire
tribe having a voice? I would say that's as rare as... well... as
democracy as an ideal (vs. the way it is currently defined by its
advocates, which means having the “right” people in charge, and
everyone else can... well, you know).)
One
might say that democracy is an idea, a concept – an abstraction –
apparently unattainable, ephemeral, and ambiguous in meaning, and
this is why is means such radically different things to different
people and groups. People project their own impulses, loves, hates,
hopes, and dreams onto this entity called “democracy” in that
hope that it will solve all of their problems. Kings (rulers), on
the other hand, are solid and tangible. One says “king” with a
fairly good idea (based on history if nothing else) of what kings do;
the word has a clear meaning. But in these times it's unfashionable
to come right out and say that one is in favor of kings, or rulers,
or tyrants. So we have instead the spectacle of opposing sides both
clamoring to “save democracy”, which really means to get, and
keep, the government out of the hands of those other people (even if
means corrupting the election process).
And
when it comes to protestors of the BLM sort, or Antifa, or No
Kings... I have observed elsewhere that an anarchist is only a
totalitarian in disguise. And this has held true going back at least
as far as the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Our
present-day home-grown revolutionaries want to “smash the state”
(especially the Trump version), but they have plans – all sorts of
plans – for what's supposed to replace it, and it won't have much
to do with human rights, I guarantee. (What it will have everything
to do with is them being in power.) One only has to see what happens
when a far-left candidate wins an election for mayor or governor.
The long knives come out in a New York minute (so to speak). But
that's OK, since it's all about democracy, don'tcha know. If you
wrap yourself in a flag labeled “democracy” you can pretty much
get away with anything as long as the right people are willing to
cooperate. (Among many ironies, that which is supposed to be
majority rule turns out, more often than not, to be minority rule.
Some even refer, on a regular basis, to our “ruling elite”, as
opposed to elected officials who are assumed – and rightly so in
most cases – to be mere tools of the unelected (and often
anonymous) ruling elite. And then you have “shadow government”
at all levels – think of intelligence agencies – who wield far
more actual power than anyone who's out in the open.)
And
even if democracy is an unknown ideal, there is a great variety of
systems that are called
democracies,
mostly in order to disguise their real purpose, which is to tyrannize
a populace while claiming their popular approval. Think
of the fate of so-called democracies over the centuries. Many
communist dictatorships were/are called “people's republics” or
the “democratic people's republic of...” whatever. France killed
its king in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and wound
up with an emperor. The “banana republics” alternate on a regular
basis between “democracy” and military dictatorship. And on the
home front, there is an ongoing debate as to whether we are a
democracy or a republic, the problem being that representatives are
elected by popular vote, which is actually a hybrid system. The
citizenry do not get to vote, in a direct sense, on anything of
consequence – only for other citizens who will, hopefully,
represent their interests, but who wind up being all too human, i.e.
corruptible, at times. (And the bigger government becomes, the
greater are the incentives for compromise, deception, and outright
corruption. Think about – oh, let's say a defense contractor that
can bag a multi-billion dollar contract simply by donating a measly
$100,000 to some politician's campaign fund. Talk about ROI!)
Now
let's think for a moment about our own home-grown kings, or men who
would be king. George Washington was actually offered a kingship,
but turned it down. So far so good. But his election and
inauguration were marked by celebrations, parades, fireworks,
rituals, commemorative songs and artwork, and so on, all of which
kind of makes one think of the sorts of things kings enjoy. (He was
also given a palace – OK, a mansion – to live in.) So no, the
taste for kings – for rulers – had not abated a bit simply
because of the Revolutionary War and our victory over England. There
was nothing wrong, it seems, with trading a king across the ocean for
one right here at home.
Then
we have the equally curious phenomenon of “presidential powers”.
The president is supposed to execute and enforce laws passed by the
legislature, right? (I wasn't sleeping all the way through
eighth grade.) And yet, when it comes to war – armed conflict
between the US and other countries – the president, as commander in
chief, seems to have dictatorial powers.
Ah,
but wait! – you might say. Only Congress has the power to declare
war. Right? Very true. So... when's the last time Congress
actually declared war? The answer is... 1942. So... what were all
of these other wars we've fought since then? Well... some were what
were euphemistically called “police actions”, some were based on
United Nations Security Council Resolutions, some on “Joint
Resolutions” or just “Resolutions”. This is the triumph of
euphemism. If our troops are dying, and our resources are being
squandered, it's a war, no matter what you call it.
But
wait! Doesn't Congress have “the power of the purse”? Well...
technically yes. But, #1, they can always be intimidated into
releasing more funding for pretty much any war the president decides
to engage in, especially if a negative vote would put their
re-election chances in danger. And if not that, then we have what
are called fungible resources. The president can divert funds from
pretty much any government program into another, including the
military. And besides, our national economy has been on a wartime
footing since World War II. There was never a “peace dividend” –
that's a myth. We have been prepared for war for over 80 years now.
The troops have been in place, the weapons and ammunition were
always on hand (and updated on a regular basis), the logistics were
ready... all that was required was the green light from the White
House. (The last war that took us any amount of time to “gear up”
for was World War II. Lesson learned! Always be ready, because a
war might start tomorrow.) (This is what the Pentagon calls
“readiness”.)
Think
about Trump's first term. He became a lame duck on his first day in
office, thanks to the opposition (by Congress – including
Republicans – and the Deep State), and “lawfare”, impeachments,
hostile courts on every level (prior to his Supreme Court
appointments), hostility and resistance from our “allies” as well
as our “enemies”, and so on. The only thing he had any semblance
of flexibility on was the military.
But
he learned. During his second term (to date) he has been much more
agile and aggressive in dealing with the courts, the Deep State
(think DOGE), and Congress – and the “never Trumpers” in the
Republican Party don't seem to have the clout they had the first time
around. And he has also come to the realization that he can,
basically, do anything he wants militarily, and no one can stop him.
Wage (not declare) war on Iran? Nothing to it. So we have this
completely baffling, and even bizarre, spectacle of a president who
is constantly at war with the courts on the home front, but who can
take out a very large country overseas single handedly, despite all
the breast-beating, hand-wringing, hair-tearing, garment-rending, and
protests by the opposition, Congress, the courts, the media, and
late-night talk show hosts. He can be thwarted on the domestic
front by a pipsqueak mayor or governor, or a judge looking for their
15 minutes of fame, but that's OK, because he can destroy a nation of
90-odd million people. Now tell me this makes sense on any level,
and if there's any precedent for it in world history. And yet that
is the system we have – or the system that what we started with in
1776 has evolved (devolved might be a better word) into.
And
tell me also if there's anyone who really likes it this way, in their
heart of hearts. If you say “no kings” then you're basically
advocating total democracy, which is the rarest system on earth
(assuming it's ever even been tried). If you're saying “no kings
except the ones who do things that we like”, then you're advocating
for part-time kings, or conditional kings, which are complete
contradictions. What that amounts to is nothing more than mob rule.
Another
bit of collective narcissism is the notion of being “on the right
side of history” (implication: those other people are on the wrong
side). Well... it kind of depends on what one defines as “history”.
If you look at world history going as far back as any records exist,
you have to conclude that, once again, pure democracy either never
existed anywhere, or if it did it was little noted nor long
remembered (thanks to Mr. Lincoln for that phrase). Iron-fisted rule
was, well, the rule. So if one really wants to be on the winning
side of history overall, one has to be all in for rulers – kings,
in other words. But if one wants to be a “presentist”, or a
futurist, or a dreamer of some sort, then current events and trends
all have to be seen as pointing in the same direction – toward
freedom, liberation, self-fulfillment, etc. – in other words, to
Utopia. So to be “on the right side of history” you can simply
ignore actual history and become delusional like the rest of the cool
kids.
Plus
– how will we ever know whether a given person, group, or movement
is “on the right side of history” until they become... “history”?
And who defines what “the right side” is? Just whoever won?
(That's power in raw form. Nietzsche would approve.) And even so,
many victories are far from permanent, and historical revisionism is
going on all the time, sometimes based on newly-discovered documents
but more often on political correctness.
The
battlefields of history are littered with the corpses of people,
groups, and movements that considered themselves cutting edge –
vanguards – pioneers. The national socialists in Germany had
delusions of grandeur, for sure – “the master race”, “the
thousand-year reich”, etc. Well... it lasted all of 12 years.
They thought they were on the right side of history, and many people
agreed with them (in the U.S. and England, for example). The
Bolsheviks thought they were on the right side of history –
the “new Soviet man” and so on. And in that case, there are
plenty of people around who think the Bolsheviks really were
on the right side of history (you can find plenty of them in
university political science departments). I suppose that communism
had to somehow “evolve”, and continues to do so; it's certainly
alive and well in their heads, and in the heads of large numbers of
people filling our city streets with protests and marches.
All
of this toying with semantics reminds me of that odd expression
“reality-based foreign policy”, as if our foreign policy up to
that point was based on something other than reality – which it
may, in fact, have been. It would seem that
a reality-based sense of history
would indicate that we don't have to be pessimistic, but should not
be Utopian in our thinking either. What's wrong with taking care of
one problem at a time? “Sufficient unto the day are the troubles
thereof” (Matthew 6:34)
But
again, human nature is such that we want, crave, and seem to need a
strong man (or woman) – someone who, when in charge, takes charge –
with no apologies, lame excuses, or bogus appeals to “the will of
the people”. After all, who are the “great men” of history,
the heroes? The peacemakers? The ones who govern by committee? The
ones who are obsessed with opinion polls? The ones who have to go
begging to some legislature for everything? The ones who let
themselves get beaten up by courts and judges?
The
answer, obviously, is no. And the amazing thing is that even the
greatest tyrants in history are still being celebrated somewhere, by
someone – Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao... and who are
considered our “greatest” presidents? In almost all the cases,
they are “war presidents” – Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, etc.
– who exercised dictatorial powers on the war front, but whose
powers also tended to bleed into the society in general (consider
censorship as a prime example, not to mention the military draft and
other niceties like internment camps).
So,
is there a “bottom line” to all of this? It's obvious that most
if not all of these No Kings protesters, “rights” advocates, and
anarchists are hypocrites, whether they know it or not. The crave a
“strong man” as much as anyone else does, only that said strong
man has to be in their image and conform to their expectations.
(I've said it before – they should study history and see what
happened to the Old Bolsheviks, and many of the French
revolutionaries, and those who dared to speak up against Mao. Be
careful what you wish for. Revolutions may be energized by
idealists, but they are eventually taken over by cynics.)
But,
even given all of that, is our system chronically, if not fatally,
flawed? Will be always be a sort of freak of nature – a republic
pretending to be a democracy which wages war at will on anyone,
anywhere on the planet (usually to “spread democracy”!)? It
seems that these contradictions should long since have been fatal,
and yet here we are 250 years after it all started. (The cynic (or
realist) might say that democracy is an idea whose time hasn't yet
come, and in fact never will.)
It
almost seems as if the “American character”, however one defines
it, has proven itself to be durable enough to survive these
contradictions. At least so far. But it also seems that the tide of
opposition is rising, and it's not just about getting rid of Donald
Trump, although his presidency – his very presence – seems to be
acting as an accelerant. If he were to somehow vanish tomorrow, the
opposition would still be there. The rhetoric might have to be
adjusted a bit, but the ideas would persist, as would the degree of
energy behind them. And, as always happens throughout history, it's
not so much a matter of numbers as of belief, energy, determination,
and – more often than not – ruthlessness.
