American Revolutionaries Look to Classical Heroes

In my last posted I had noted the fact that, far from being a rampaging, unruly, and unthinking mob – the American Revolutionaries had casted their revolt against the British Crown in terms of an Anglo-Saxon tradition of Freedom and limited government.   In their eyes, itwas the Hanoverian King George III and his Tory allies that were innovators and violators of this patrimony handed down to them from their ancestors.

Many of the leaders of the Revolution looked back at classical models dating to ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration in their struggle.   One particular figure of note would be Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis, known in later history as Cato the Younger.

Cato was a Roman statesman, orator, and Stoic philosopher noted for his moral integrity and stubbornness. He was a champion for republican ideals during a time when the Roman Republic was riven by corruption and ambition.   Because of his stances, Cato came into conflict with Julius Caesar…….and lost.

Refusing to submit to the growing despotism in Rome, Cato committed suicide with a sword after reading a copy of Plato’s Phaedo, the dialogue on the soul.

The English playwright Joseph Addison commemorated Cato’s struggle to defend the Roman Republic in his play, Cato, a Tragedy.   The play was actually a subtle criticism of the growing power of the British monarchy against the liberties and freedoms enshrined in tradition.   For understandable reasons, the play was quite popular in Ireland and the American Colonies.  George Washington even had a production of the play put on for the Continental Army during their time in Valley Forge.

Washington himself modeled his own political/military career of yet another classical hero, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Cincinnatus was a Roman patrician of the Early Republic who worked on his own farm until an invasion by the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians into Roman lands. Cincinnatus was made Dictator of Rome, given absolute power to rectify this dire situation.

15 days later after beating Rome’s enemies on the battlefield, Cincinnatus resigned his position and returned back to his farm.  The relinquishing of power was considered a great act of a virtuous citizen, for a military general could easily turn himself into a tyrant.  Washington took inspiration from Cincinnatus’ example, surrendering power over the Continental Army at the end of the War of Independence and doing so again at the end of his Presidency.

By relinquishing power in this manner, Washington would guarantee a tradition of a smooth transition of power.   Every few years, Presidents would come and go – and this is the way things would be.

 

 

 

 

 

Entertaining Desserts: Eton Mess

The Oxford English dictionary defines “mess” as – “[a] serving of food; a course; a meal; a prepared dish of a specified kind of food.” or “[a] portion or serving of liquid or pulpy food such as milk, broth, porridge, boiled vegetables, etc.“

The Eton Mess‘ particular history dates back to the 1900s where it would be traditionally served at Eton College during the annual Eton vs. Harrow School cricket game – possibly one of the oldest sporting events in the world given that the first match was in 1805.

The “mess” usually involves a mixture of strawberries, bananas, ice cream or regular cream, and pieces of meringue.    A dash of port can also add a bit more flavor.

I’ve found that Nigella Lawson’s recipe has been quite popular amongst friends and guests.  It also is a rather easy treat to conjure within 10 minutes time.   I’ve reproduced it below for those who would like to give it a trial – (Copyright 2007, Nigella Express, Hyperion, All Rights Reserved)

Ingredients:

• 4 Cups of strawberries
• 2 teaspoons of Caster sugar
• 2 cups whipping cream
• 2 teaspoons of pomegranate juice
• 1 packet of individual meringue nests

Directions:

1. Hull/Chop the strawberries and mix it in a bowl with the sugar and pomegranate juice.  Allow it to macerate (soak).
2. Whip cream until soft, then crumble 4 of the meringue nests into the cream, allowing it to settle in chunks.
3. Take a half cup of the strawberries and fold it into the cream.
4. Arrange in cups or as a mound for a dessert center piece.

How “Revolutionary” was the American Revolution?

 

In my last post, I noted that the conservative political thinker Edmund Burke wrote a rather scathing appraisal of the French Revolution.   This came as a bit of a shock to both the French philosophes and Burke’s own allies in the Whig Party who favored the revolution.   After all, given that he defended the American Revolution, wasn’t he in fact betraying his own beliefs when stating phrases like:

 The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.

However, in point of fact Edmund Burke never “defended the American Revolution.”  What he did do was argue the Legitimacy of their grievances – that the American colonists were standing up for their rights as Englishmen.   He counseled his fellows in Parliament to:

Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government – they will cling and grapple with you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.   But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation, the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.

And here we see a demonstration of his conservative philosophy – the respect for traditions and conventions coupled with a pragmatic sense of politics.

Burke’s speeches in Parliament were printed and received with much acclaim in the American Colonies precisely because many felt they were still in fact Englishmen fighting against a tyrannical king.

And that leads to the bigger question – just how “revolutionary” was the American War of Independence?

Compare the American experience with the Russian and French Revolutions.  There are in fact significant differences.  The French and Russian Revolutions aimed at a transformation that would re-order the foundations of society in a manner that had never been tried before.   In a sense, both French philosophes and Marxist ideologues truly believed that with enough effort and resources they could rewrite human nature.   In one fell swoop, they intended to usher in a new golden age while banishing superstition and regressive causes to the dust bin of history.

The American Revolutionaries however, decided to wage war against Great Britain for the high minded cause of……taxation.

To put this into context we must remember that England had recently fought the French and Indian War on behalf of their American colonies.   Although they had achieved victory, we should note the old adage that victory can be quite expensive.   It seemed reasonable to the government of Great Britain that the Americans should pay their fair share of the war costs.

The Colonists had a different perspective.   From the outset, the American Revolutionaries strongly identified their positions with the Whig party against the monarchy and Tories.   Part of this strong animus came from the fact that the important officials of the colonies – governors, judges, and custom house officials owed their livelihood and thus their loyalty directly to the Crown.

The Stamp Act only made matters worse.   Now the colonists were essentially being told that they could not participate in the process of assigning taxes that they would eventually have to pay for.   Hence the cry of “no taxation without representation.”   Many thought that their rights as Britons were being violated.

We should stop on that point and think about that for a second…… their rights as Britons were being violated.

This would be a good time to recall the character of the men who led the War of Independence.   They were lawyers, merchants, planters, and officers in the colonial army.   They comprised the elite society of the colonies and were educated in a manner similar to their counterparts in England.

As such, they were raised in a belief that a golden age of freedom had existed prior to the Norman Conquest of the Anglo-Saxons in 1066.   They clung to the idea, like all educated Britons of their time, that this freedom was fully restored by the Glorious Revolution of 1688.   A person can even make the argument that the American revolutionaries believed themselves to be defending a fundamental tradition of freedom from an innovating monarch whose actions looked like the first steps toward autocratic tyranny.

It is no surprise than that a Founding Father like Patrick Henry could invoke the phrase, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” for he would be making that appeal within the context of the British traditions of limited government and personal freedom – the fruits of the Glorious Revolution.

And so the American Revolution, although containing radical elements, was by most standards a rather orderly and procedural affair led by a political elite that wanted to reassert their lost rights.

It was only after the decision had been made to create a Declaration of Independence that one could say a new course was being charted….and even then…the inclination of the Founding Fathers was to look back in the past toward Classical sources that spoke of the successes of the Roman Republic.

Poisson d’Avril: Of Fish and April First..

In America, today is the day when we are often somewhat on guard against being the victim of a practical joke.

In France, young and old alike must watch their backs….literally!   This is the day when a lovable Gallic prankster will attempt to stick a Fish on your back.

April First is known for the tradition of poisson d’avril, which is a tradition that supposedly dates back to the 16^th century.

The origin of the tradition remains a mystery – but a general theory or popular legend goes that until around the middle of the 16^th century, people celebrated the New Year around April 1^st.

It wasn’t until the ascension of Charles IX that the French state officially recognized January 1^st as the beginning of the New Year.   This change to the French calendar was enforced by the Edict of Roussillon.

Old habits die hard, as many people at the time still continued to celebrate the New Year around April 1^st.   For those who had embraced the new calendar, this presented an opportunity for them to have a little joke on those who did not wish to change with the times.

Supposedly, April 1^st happened to coincide with the end of the Christian liturgical season of Lent, wherein Christians were forbidden to eat meat until the end of Good Friday – when the remembrance of the Crucifiction of Jesus of Nazareth would end.

As such Fish were plentiful at this time and were often given as fake presents to those still keeping to the idea that April First was the New Year.

Edmund Burke: Anti-Imperialist Founder of Modern Conservatism

studio of Sir Joshua Reynolds, oil on canvas, (1767-1769)

Who was Edmund Burke?

An Irishman who as a member of Parliament argued eloquently in favor of the grievances of the American Colonies against the British Crown.   He made his case based on the fact that the Americans were fighting for their rights as Englishmen against the Crown which had violated custom and tradition for the sake of taxation.  Burke was also part of the effort to reconcile Great Britain with the United States after the War of Independence had ended.

A skilled Orator who impeached the Governor-General of Bengal, Warren Hastings, for unscrupulous, arbitrary, and tyrannical conduct against the Indian people.   While Burke acknowledged the necessities of commerce by the East Indian Company, he pointed out that Hastings and others had essentially extorted or plundered their way to vast wealth – conduct that put them beyond the pale of what was deemed moral.

A lawyer who favored a policy of tolerance to Roman Catholics in English political life.   He sought to enfranchise the Irish people, allowing Catholics to stand for election in Parliament.

And finally an excellent political essayist, who foresaw the bloodshed that would be caused by the French Revolution.   At first he was accused of being an alarmist, as those sympathetic to the wave of revolution in America and France thought this would lead to a new era of reason and rational government.     However, with the death of the Bourbon monarch Louis XVI and the beginning of the Terror, Burke’s views would come to be vindicated.

As a proponent of moderate political reform and champion of the underdog, most today may find it confusing that Edmund Burke also has the distinction of being the Originator of Modern Conservatism.

—————————————————————————

At first glance, it is a difficult thing for a reader to evaluate the political thought of Edmund Burke.  He was no academic, but rather a man in the midst of the action – writing speeches, pamphlets, and essays as an active member of the political class.     He wasn’t theorist, he was a do-er.

Burke also had a powerful allergy against philosophical abstraction.   This forms the basis of his critique around the ideas that motivated the French Revolution.  His key work remains the Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), here he takes aim against a certain conception of natural rights.

For Burke, an appeal to natural rights would lead to “the commonwealth itself in a few generations, crumble away…into the dust and powder of individuality.”   This may sound incredibly strange to modern ears, but it depends on how a person understands “natural rights.”

1. John Locke:  Natural Rights derive from the State of Nature.  They are preserved by and form the basis of the powers of the government.  In fact, government can be called to account for infringement upon these rights.
2. Thomas Hobbes:  Natural Rights  are whatever promotes survival.  They must be surrendered to the State which rescues people from a life that is “nasty, brutish, and short.” Therefore, appealing to natural rights is destructive of State power and returns us back to that Dog-Eat-Dog existence.

 

Burke is reacting to the Hobbesian definition.   In his view, the viability of government rests on customs, conventions and traditions which form the habits and expectations of the populace.   These “prejudices” (or rather pre-judgments) form the real basis for the rights of man and are particular to the countries of origin.

Often these conventions are not capable of rational demonstration.   They may even rest on historical fictions.  But that doesn’t really matter to Burke, because as long as they are believed they work to hold society together.  

Here we see that pragmatic sense of the art of politics, rather than an abstract understanding of how the state should operate.   It is for this reason that Burke has a sincere attachment to the British Constitution and other bodies of traditional law in other countries.

Ultimately, all law is a kind of historical achievement whose authority depends on their age rather than on abstract rights.  This is the reason why when new unpopular laws are passed, they are often difficult to enforce even if they can be articulated in terms of natural rights.   People only begin to respect laws that have been in effect for a very long time as they become “the norm.”  And in some cases the law isn’t respected at all if it clashes too much with the character of the population.

Prudential management and practical statesmanship must triumph over abstract plans, or else the result will end not in the rule of reason, but the rule of brute force.   The outcomes of the French Revolution validated this viewpoint as factions with different interests justified actions based on their understanding “natural rights” and the extant of government power should be.   And when an impasse was reached – one group was purged at the expense of another.

 

 

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…