Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
One of the criticisms that I heard repeatedly about the royal wedding was directed towards the elitism of the monarchical and aristocratic institutions. You almost get the sense that you're listening to egalitarians promoting pure, direct democracy of the progressive variety. But is the egalitarian ideal right? Is it even American? The idea that everyone has their place in society comes across as condescending but is that because we confuse deference with servility? In our relatively more egalitarian society are we really better off? To quote from The Servile Mind:
Here was the complex system of social gradations that was to mature in later centuries into what was misleadingly described as the “English class system” and into the “English obsession with class."
The feudal presumption that everyone should have someone above him or her had become the modern view that whoever acts must do so under the constraints of some system of authority. No man, as it was put, could be above the law. This was how what we admire as the rule of law emerged from medieval manners.
...we are often persuaded that there is one right principle of social and ethical life, and it is egalitarian. In early modern Europe, the reality was a balance—one is tempted to say a dialectical balance—between two competing ways of understanding human beings: as graded, and as basically equal.
There is a very profound scene in the HBO series, John Adams, in which King George says to Adams that he hopes America does not suffer for want of a king. It always seemed intuitive that getting rid of the monarchy and aristocracy was an unqualified success but now I think that it only means there is a void that must be filled with something else. Jefferson wrote of the "natural aristocracy" based on virtue and talent. I think egalitarianism is something that is part of the democratic impulse, not anything traditionally American.
Not surprisingly I'm an Anglophile and I think that it's interesting that the Brits maintain these traditional institutions alongside their more republican side of democratic institutions. Since we live in a republic with no formal monarchy we don't have much occasion to think about the importance of hierarchy in our society the way they do, and it therefore leaves us with a diminished perspective. It should be an issue we consider because it has a significant impact on how we understand the relationship between the citizen and the government.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
"... but now I think that it only means there is a void that must be filled with something else."
That "void" was filled with Individual Will:
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
Also, the only thing We need to understand about the relationship between The Citizen and Our government is that the government answers to The Citizen.
Jul '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
So, no, I don't appreciate a royal wedding.
Jan '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
That's a very fine observation. Every society has to cope somehow 1) with the fact there are people of differing abilities, 2) promoting its values. Proponents of any hierarchy by nature claim to be "conserving" something, which implies sanctioning and promoting.
Now the question of authority is impossible to dissociate from these two aims, meaning who controls this system and who decides what values get promoted? Of course the situation is seldom if ever that a society is founded ex nihilo. There are also legal, economic, and social dimensions to the hierarchy. Also, how do those three dimensions intersect. Should the social hierarchy have legal authority? Does it need to, or need not, to function?
We tend to look for pure solutions, whereas even in radically democratic Athens there were powerful families and Republican Rome there were powerful families and more formal classes. And yet a "new man" could grow up to be consul. Inconsistent, yes, but effective.
Jan '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Sorry to overflow into another post but one more thought:
Today I think most Americans see each other as equal 1) before the law and 2) in some Christian or humanistic way. The "natural aristocracy," is our way to honor and promoting good, but does it have democratic pitfalls? If the people truly are in charge then. . . then the people choose. A lot of people focus on the economic aspects and the idea of competition, but there are no markets for virtues. Cannot one be respectable and well thought of just by adhering to cultural norms? Ahh, yes. We need a culture to have a society and values, and to recognize individuals for living those values.
A very provocative post; thanks!
Aug '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Sorry, I don't buy a word of it. The notion of hereditary "nobility" is obnoxious; as is the notion of the "commoner."
Jun '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
I do think there's a tendency to misunderstand the American Revolution and reduce it to monarchy vs. democracy. The Declaration never really makes a case against monarchy per se, and there were some who wanted to replace King George III with King George Washington. If Parliament had been more willing to compromise, it's not too hard to imagine an alternate history where we followed a similar path as Canada or Australia and became self governing for all practical purposes while retaining the Queen as ceremonial head of state. How different do you suppose the U.S. would be today if we had gone that route?
Jul '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Well, I'm fairly convinced after lots and lots of reading that the generation of the American Revolution came to loath monarchy...though, interestingly enough, right after rejoicing in it in the 1760's--probably the most monarchist decade in American history.
The aristocracy thing, though, is a really interesting thread to pull upon. The void being filled with "Individual Will" is, God help us, an awful thought; it is the Hobbesian nightmare, the reign of Saturn, of all against all. That's the problem with Jefferson's quote, The other problem is that he didn't believe it. He remained a hierarchical thinker, who believed that society should be shaped like a pyramid. Only, in the New Order, that pyramid would be one of meritocracy, defined by natural genius, aided by a system of public education. Such was intention, unfulfilled, for Virginia. Only the icing on the hierarchical cake, the University of Virginia, was ever completed in Jefferson's lifetime. And, for sure, UVa's selection practices are not as rigorous as Jefferson would have wished; witness Andrew Ferguson's son, and all the other undergrads who are there to paint their chests and get drunk at football games.
Aug '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
That system evolved from a system that put an end to tribal violence and little progress.
Thankfully, it happened the way it did and adopted certain guidebooks that weren't available to others. But then living in arid deserts doesn't lend itself to a leisurely pursuit of knowledge and an accepted pursuit of enhancing your family's comforts. Survival never stopped to write many poems. Only when someone got somebody else to do something for them did the system start to materialize. And only when they refused to pay did alternate systems show up.
I agree wholly and wonder how one would analyse the Italians in the same mode.
Apr '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Bah! Monarchs...
What void does the British Monarchy fill aside from that which would be left on the front cover of London Tabloids in their absence? To call them superfluous is to give them to much credit. They are props, a tourist attraction to be wheeled out at official state functions and to utter pleasantries. Who was the last monarch of england that said something publicly significant? This is a hollow existence to subject any human to, but to make it hereditary is diabolical for it dooms their children too until the end of the world.
People are too enamored with fairytale kings and Disney movie princes. Which is fine if your 6, but not if your an adult.
Jul '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Conservatives should appreciate the wedding because Prince William didn't marry Elton John.
Aug '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
And not for lack of trying....the one picture I saw of the crowd featured the Jet and Bennie
Mar '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
I am a little disappointed by how "Conservatives" here on Ricochet didn't appreciate the Royal Wedding - they found it bizarre.
Oct '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
I'm glad I now know what it takes to get a post onto the main feed.
The author does point out that no system ever meets its ideal always. When we look to the past we are to remember that it's a foreign country and they have different customs from ours.
Rob, I like the image of a pyramid and I think it works very well. I guess my point would be that egalitarians make the argument that the hierarchy should be a cube instead and that a pyramid does not mean that everyone isn't equal.
Nick, I like what you said too and I would say that it's related to the debate between liberty and equality that we have today. Anybody can ascend to important positions in our society but we can also recognize that those best fit for such places must be made of right stuff. I think what you're saying might apply to the Ivy League, which is as close we get to an aristocracy. Or how about Americans enamored with the Kennedy family and other families in politics? What does that say about our views of aristocracy?
Oct '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Sorry, one other thing I forgot to ask. Do the responses to the wedding reflect the different flavors of conservatism? That is, I have a feeling that those who are conservatives because of their appreciation for traditions are likely to respond positively and those who aren't will respond negatively.
Mar '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Bereket: Excellent points. In the UK, Conservatives are mostly pro-Royal (not always, but mostly).
In the US, today has opened my eyes to how this is not true. Well, tis kinda obvious after 1776 - I should have known.
Apr '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Hm... interesting point. By conservatives who do not appreciate traditions do you mean libertarians? Or are there other species of conservatives you were thinking of?
I for one like to think of my self as not a libertarian since I associate that with an extreme individualism, like an Ayn Rand parody. I know that is not the case really and I don't wish to start a debate about that...here at least. But, I object to the meaninglessness of the the British and for that matter all European monarchies. They are vestigial governmental organs, as are all royal families in Europe. They are kept in place for no good reason other then inertia.
The current queen is popular, and people like her, thats good for her and for England. When she dies her less popular son will inherit. But, I hear the fix is in the works to skip him and go to the grandson that just got married because he is better likes. Why not just hold a contest and elect a King or Queen. We do that in America, it's called the Miss America Contest, or American Idol.
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Does a lack of in the wedding undermine one's "conservative" bona fides? I didn't find the wedding bizarre; I just didn't care. Royalty as a British institution may be a subject worthy of study and appreciation, but aside from the Queen I find the Royals a tedious crowd.
On the other hand, the institution inspired this: Walton's Coronation March. (Don't think John Williams didn't hear this one before he composed all the Star Wars themes.) At 3:00 or so it gets so damned English you want to go back in time, stop flossing, drink Bovril, read Punch, and wear tweeds and date women named Beryl. Holst's "Jupiter" has the same effect.
That was composed for the '36 coronation. For Elizabeth in '53, Walton wrote this.
(Ignore the irrelevant images. Napoleon? No.) Around 2:00 he pulls out another theme that summons the spirit of a culture still present in 1953 - but even then the piece was regarded by the right-thinking people as an anachronism, a pastiche, as if the event would be better served by atonal cacaphony.
Oct '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
I was referring to fiscal conservatives who are apathetic on "social issues" and the foreign policy hawks. You can also apply it to libertarians, but I'm basically talking about those who do not emphasize the importance of family, religion, and our civic rituals.
Thanks again for reminding to bring up another point I forgot to mention about the social function of a monarchy. It has quite a unifying effect and is a strong cultural force in society. As conservatives we can only wish to have such a force that can periodically remind the nation of our identity and our past. It's not that we don't have anything as an alternative but we do not have anything like a monarchy to fulfill that purpose. And I'm not saying that we should either.
Apr '11
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Traditions are good, they define who we are and let us know who we were, and shape who we will become as a society. Yet, traditions change over time as does society. Things once important become unimportant and trivial things take on new meaning. Some people think that what it means to be conservative is to fight against the changing of society and culture. I think that what it means is to realize that nothing is static and nothing can be preserved forever, it is to accept change as an organic byproduct of a free and dynamic society. The only societies that do not change are dictatorships where coercion is used to maintain a static social state for the benefit of a few.
Monarchies are the last vestiges of European dictatorships, that once ruled and structured all of society. These societies now have left those systems of government behind and moved on. With each passing year and decade the relevance of the Royal Family fades, to the detriment of none except the royal family. Events like the wedding today only lengthen their stay, when we should just let it fade away as it has been, and as it will.
Oct '10
Re: Why Conservatives Should Appreciate the Royal Wedding
Not all conservatives have such warm feelings towards traditions though and my question was about understanding how people who have different flavors of conservatism view the wedding. My guess was that the more important tradition is the more positive the response towards the wedding.