The Glorious Revolution and the Seeds of Two Ideologies

Picture this – James II, a Catholic monarch of a thoroughly Protestant England is forced to flee his kingdom for France, much in the manner his father Charles II had to at the outbreak of the English Civil War have a century earlier.

This is for all intents and purposes, a power struggle between a monarch subscribing to the idea of the Divine Right of Kings versus a Parliament seeking to expand its own power.

The Issue at Hand:  Religion.

Since the time of Henry VIII, Catholicism had been always held in suspicion by the power holders within the British Isles.  “Popery”was often associated with England’s most hated rivals – France and Spain.    Furthermore, since the Bourbon monarch Louis XIV ruled France in an Absolutist manner, where power was directly centered upon the king, many within England considered Catholicism to be associated with arbitrary rule.

Although not quite political parties in the modern sense, the Tories and Whigs who comprised parliament had two specific fears:

1. The Whigs believed that Catholic Absolutism would endanger Protestant Religion, Liberty, and Property.
2. The Tories had similar fears, but these were complicated by a respect for the traditional authority of the Crown.   However, they did seek a Unity of Church and State for the sake of Stability – which would ideally make the Monarch of England a member of the Church of England.

Look closely enough and one can see the seeds of Anglo-American Conservatism and Liberalism starting to form.

For his own part, James II did little to endear himself to either group.    James attempts to secure Catholic emancipation alienated his original supporters in the Tory party, which feared that his actions would lead to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church.

In a bid to create his own power base, James II held a policy of religious toleration, hoping to forge his own party out of the Catholics and Nonconformists (ie: Protestants who didn’t “conform” to the Church of England).  His Declaration of Indulgence, which would enshrine religious toleration across his kingdom, was seen as a direct stab at the heart of Anglican power.

What followed was perhaps some of the most heavy handed tactics for a peacetime monarch during his era.   It seemed that James II was single-handedly attempting to turn back the clock,  using his power as monarch to purge his opposition (usually Anglican Protestants) from within the government and military.   They were of course replaced with people he could trust (usually Catholics).

This was the proverbial last straw.  Tyranny and Arbitrary Rule seemed like a reality.

In November of 1688, William of Orange stadtholder of the Netherlands and husband to Mary Stuart (James’ daughter) crossed the North Sea with an army to England in an attempt to overthrow his father-in-law.   William was a Protestant hero who valiantly fought alongside other Protestant monarchs against Louis XIV during the War of the Grand Alliance.  As such, he was deemed a more preferable monarch to many factions within the British elite.   And so a conspiracy was formed in order to finance William’s “invasion.”

The rest as they say is history – James II fled to France where to this day his descendants hold a claim to the throne of Great Britain.  This event was commemorated as the Glorious Revolution, specifically because the amount of bloodshed during this transition of power was well below average.

Although William was obviously pleased by the outcome of events, he found that there was some…..interesting legislation waiting for his approval upon ascending the throne.

One such piece of legislation seemed obvious – the Act of Settlement of 1701 required the King of England to be a Protestant and could not marry a Catholic.   This particular law was only recently amended by the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013.

Another law was rather self serving, as the Triennial Act of 1694 required that Parliament would meet every year and have elections every 3 years.   Up until this time, only the King could have called Parliament to convene.

But of particular importance to history at large would be the Bill of Rights of 1689.   The Bill of Rights essentially limited the power of the king, but demanding things such as no taxation by royal prerogative, freedom of speech in Parliament, habeas corpus, and the denial of cruel and unusual punishment for crimes.

To our American readers, this may all seem rather familiar as the American Bill of Rights of 1789 was modeled on the English one.

But what these chain of events concluded was that power was ultimately held by Parliament in the British Isles.   And for the time being, the freedoms and stability held in common by both proto-Liberals and proto-Conservatives were safe.

 

 

 

On Liberalism, Classical or Otherwise

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views!

-William F. Buckley Jr

Ask a non-liberal what image comes to mind when asked to describe what an American liberal is, and you may get something like:

“Lazy Babykilling Anti-American atheistic Commie Pinko Pot smoking Tree Hugging Hipster of indeterminate sexuality”

However, a quick jaunt across the pond to our friends in Europe might reveal a different sort of caricature.  This is because what the word “liberal” has come to mean in the American and Canadian context as someone who supports the removal of government interference in the personal/social choices of life…..so long as no one else is being hurt by those choices.  Yet, this push toward maximal freedom is dampened in the realm of economic activity, where an American liberal has much more sympathy for government intervention to redress unjust advantages/disadvantages.

In this economic sense, the American liberal is closer to what Europeans might describe as social democrats, socialists, or the often used umbrella term for anyone inhabiting the Left – progressive.

So… what the heck is Liberalism then?

In its classical formulation, liberalism has a direct concern for the idea of freedom – in all aspects of an individual’s life.   Maximum freedom of speech, maximum freedom of action (which ties it to economic concerns), and maximum freedom of political participation.  Such freedom comes at the expense of government power and at what John Stuart Mill calls the “Tyranny of the Majority” – wherein the popular opinions of society can curtail an individual’s freedom.

We should also take note that the individual is placed as the primary unit of society, not the family as it was the case in traditional conservative thought.  Much of this comes from an acceptance of “social contract” theories from the 17th to early 19th centuries which hold to the idea that prior to the creation of society a “state of nature” existed.   Individuals, for one reason or another, end up reducing their overall freedom to join together to form a society.

 There is also an overwhelming concern with the field of economics, as ownership of property replaces martial virtue as the glue that holds a community together.   In a sense, it can be said that the economic self-interest of individuals can be harnessed in a manner that might collectively benefit society.

We should be careful to say that this isn’t an unabashed endorsement of capitalism as most classical liberal thinkers understood the shortcomings of capitalists. Rather it is an acknowledgement that the struggle for wealth and riches is the engine of civilizational development – regardless of how we may feel about it.

 One European friend of mine, who identifies as a liberal in the classical sense, made this quote from an unknown source that may succinctly get to the point:

A Liberal is really an Anarchist who had to make a compromise with reality.  Whereas as a Social Democrat is actually a Socialist…who also partook of a similar compromise.

In this respect, we can think of “classical liberal” in the Canadian and American environments as someone who aligns more closely with the views of a libertarian.

————————————————————————

But I have to wonder if everything I’ve said above is growing a little stale..a little outdated in the atmosphere of our social media dominated world.

On the one hand, our American liberals/Progressives are often accused by conservatives, moderates, and libertarians/classical liberals of enforcing an orthodoxy of sorts – a hierarchy of progressive values whose latest pictorial incarnation can be seen in the “Progressive Stack” utilized by some members of the Occupy Wall Street movement

For those not familiar with the use of the stack – apparently it is a method that purports to allow those belonging to marginalized groups a stronger opportunity to speak based on the identities the individual partakes in.

An example:  A homosexual (4) Caucasian male is lower on the stack than an Indian (1) transgendered (2) female (3).

Such experiments fold into the greater debate surrounding the culture of political correctness.   For the classical liberal, the inability to not speak one’s mind is a curtailment of personal freedom, and often puts them at odds with the progressive-liberal who sees this as a mean to promote justice in society.

—————————————————————————

Regarding Classical Liberals themselves, one has to wonder whether their commitment to limited government spirals off into being a purely anti-government or even anarchistic sensibility.

The clarion call for “government getting out of my life” is a popular one in American society, but when does it become too much?

After all, we can for instance say that the African nation of Somalia happens to have a rather weak centralized government….. which also means they cannot actually control what’s going on in two other sections of the country that nominally belongs to them:

On Conservatism

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

-John Stuart Mill, in Parliamentary debate with Conservative MP John Pakington circa 1886

Say the word “conservative” to an American audience and one is bound to raise a whole menagerie of associations and images.

From the Opposite side of the political spectrum, one may think of an overweight Caucasian male who hails from what those from the Northeastern Megalopolis and Southern California pejoratively call “Flyover country.”  The person will undoubtedly be characterized as unsophisticated, educationally-backward, mildly homophobic and racist, greedy, sexist,fat, and religious with a love of guns, football, and NASCAR.

And of course, he votes Republican.

As the quote from the classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, ironically a hero of modern conservatism, demonstrates – thinking of your opposition in the worst possible terms is a time honored tradition that humanity obeys whatever the age or era.

So what is Conservatism?    Where did it come from?  What are its origins?

If we take a few steps back from the perennial debate over value issues, what a person will find is a whole philosophical disposition, or to it plainly – a psychological attitude born of a strong human propensity to maintain things as they are.

One pundit likened it to the “feeling one gets when returning home from a long vacation in a far off land – a sense of comfort surrounded by what seems familiar.”

I like to think about it in terms that i’m sure everyone can relate to – namely the generational conflict a person has with his/her parents regarding tastes in music, food, clothing, art, and entertainment.  There is always a strong propensity to stay with the things and ideas that have worked for you.

In the arena of politics than, conservatism of a traditionalist bent can be summarized as: a skeptical outlook toward radical change.     This shouldn’t be interpreted as being against all change, that outlook is more reactionary than conservative.  Rather the conservative mindset understands that change will come, but greets these changes with a sense of caution and patience.   Prudence, not enthusiasm, remains the cardinal virtue.

Another central plank of the conservative attitude is a skepticism toward perfectionism, especially in terms of redesigning society.  

Whether we are speaking about Plato’s Republic, a 1,000 year German Fascist  Reich, an politicized Islamist Caliphate, or a Communist Worker’s paradise one thing remains common throughout all these blueprints for a better society – a sense of Utopianism wherein the supporters of those visions might bring about some sort of perfection in society that fits their taste.

Traditionalist conservatism rejects all those mirages.     All planned societies rest upon a set of first principles that cannot encompass the complexity and diversity found in the world.   This results in the use of coercion to enforce those principles upon a population that is found to be non-compliant.   Furthermore, the set of principles articulated at the beginning may not be able to withstand the force of social change brought on by chance or technological innovation.   After all, how can one predict and account for options that one didn’t even know existed?

————————————————————————-

A question does linger in my mind though when stepping back and trying to evaluate traditional conservatism:  When is someone being conservative and when is he or she being reactionary?

While individual conservative thinkers and leaders have shown a remarkable adeptness to change with the times, one has to wonder a little about the actions of their supporters.

There are moments when one feels that the intransigence one encounters when dealing with a conservative seems more linked to a fear of change rather than the protection of a tradition.

 

 

Ideology à la Carte

Whereupon a gentleman is incompetent, thereupon he should remain silent.  If names are not correct, language is without an object.  When language is without an object, no affair can be effected.  When no affair can be effected, rites and music wither.  When rites and music wither, punishments and penalties miss their target.  When punishment and penalties miss their target, the people do not know where they stand.    Therefore, whatever a gentleman conceives of, he must be able to say, and whatever he says he must be able to do.

-Confucius, The Analects Book XIII, Chapter 3, Verse 4-7

A few months ago, during a terrible bout of illness, I was on my way to Bellevue Hospital for treatment when I chanced upon a most curious situation.  Two individuals, college students I assume, caught in a somewhat civil discussion regarding the upcoming presidential election and the state of affairs of the world.

What struck me as curious however was the increasing level of vitriol between the two, especially given that they agreed on so many different issues such as the rising income gap, the need for single-payer healthcare reform, gay marriage, the danger of climate change, and other topics often associated with the Political Left in the Western world.

The one topic that was causing all the furor was: What to do about Islam and the Middle East?

“Islamophobic Neo-Con,” one person said.

“Regressive Leftist,” said the other.

Without going into to many details , their conflicting ideas outweighed whatever commonalities they had.

There is a part of me that simply brushed this exchange off as part of the idles of youth, as “fellow travelers” in any great movement will often argue with each over the details.  It was only after a few months had passed when I started seeing the term “Regressive Leftist” used by adults and other media personalities did I begin to realize my error.

Our modern society’s culture seems to have enshrined the notion that Customization is King.   We see this in our ability to watch whatever we like on-demand from streaming services such as Hulu or Netflix.   We can order whatever we can afford at the click of a button from distributors like Amazon, Best Buy, Target, et al.   And many shape their virtual personas on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Youtube to appeal to a selected audience.

In other words, all that we do these days is À la carte.   Goods and services that were traditionally bundled together, such as Cable Television channels, are slowly being separated out to suit the individual tastes of the consumer.

I can’t help but feel that this is the current attitude has taken root in our relationship to political and social beliefs.   The “old alliances” between certain interest groups on the Left and the Right have become disrupted, as people attempt to redefine their political affiliations with their personal interests.

And I begin to wonder what the practical effects of ideology a la carte will be in the future…