Roger Scruton on Brexit — and (if inadvertently) Trump

 

imageOn Radio4, the BBC has posted a 15-minute reflection on the Brexit vote by the great English philosopher Roger Scruton. Scruton’s talk is an astonishing thing: for the sheer calm rationality with which it lays out its argument, for its insistence on championing the humble and traditional and unfashionable–and, I was struck again and again, for its applicability to our own country.

Consider this passage:

In modern conditions, in which governments rarely enjoy a majority vote, most of us are living under governments of which we don’t approve. We accept to be ruled by laws and decisions made by politicians with whom we disagree and whom we perhaps deeply dislike. How is that possible? Why don’t democracies constantly collapse, as people refuse to be governed by those they never voted for? Clearly, a democracy has to be held together by something stronger than politics. There has to be a first-person plural, a pre-political loyalty, which causes neighbors who voted in opposing ways to treat each other as fellow citizens, for whom the government is not “mine” or “yours” but “ours,” whether or not we approve of it.

It is true that a country’s stability depends to a great extent on economic growth. But it also depends upon social trust—the sense that we belong together, and that we will stand by each other in the real emergencies. Social trust comes from shared language, shared customs, instinctive law-abidingness, procedures for resolving disputes and grievances, public spirit, and the ability of the people to change their own government by a process that is transparent to them all.

Urban elites build trust through career moves, joint projects, cooperation across borders, and what the philosopher John Stuart Mill called “experiments of living.” Like the aristocrats of old, they form their networks without reference to national boundaries. They do not, on the whole, depend on a particular place, a particular faith, or a particular routine for their sense of membership….

However, even in modern conditions, this modern elite depends upon others who do not belong to it. The farmers, manufacturers, clothiers, mechanics, soldiers and administrators, for whom attachment to place and its customs is implicit in all that they do. It is surely not difficult to imagine that in a question of identity these people will vote in another way from the urban elite….

An inclusive, first-person plural [a “we”] is the residue of cooperation and trust over generations. Those who have inspired and guided the European project have tried to create such a first-person plural by using gimmicks and subsidies while suppressing the national loyalties of the European people. But it is nationality, the home country and its shared culture, that define the true European identity. It astonishes me that so many people fail to see this, or to understand that democracy, and national identity, in the end, depend on each other.

Take that last paragraph, edit it lightly, and Scruton is speaking directly to us:

Those who have inspired and guided the expansion of the vast administrative state in Washington, DC have tried to create a new American consciousness, teaching the American people to become dependent on the federal government, while suppressing their natural loyalties to their families, their schools, their churches and synagogues, and their neighborhoods. But it is love of country–not some vague loyalty to the globe, but love of the specific and particular, love of this country and its shared culture–that define the American character.

Our democracy, and our national character, in the end, depend on each other.

If Donald Trump stands for anything good and noble, then surely it is this: the freedoms and loyalties of ordinary American. “I am your voice,” Trump said at the convention last week. If that is to mean anything, then surely he must defy the new ruling class, opposing its efforts to use the federal government to remake this country.

Donald Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this: love of country.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 66 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    anonymous:

    Peter Robinson:Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this:

    Love of country.

    Or, perhaps, more precisely, subsidiarity.

    If you believe in that, the priority goes:

    1. Individual
    2. Family
    3. Neighbourhood
    4. Community
    5. State
    6. Country
    7. “International Institutions”

    Have you noticed how the champions of liberty and the slavers read this list in precisely the opposite order?

    Oh, John, that is just beautifully stated.

    Note, by the way, that I avoided the use of “subsidiarity” only because Scruton himself attacks it. He’s not attacking the concept, of course, but the use of the word by officials of the EU–in his view, they’ve subverted the word itself, using it simply as a cover or deception.

    And on point #7, “International Institutions,” it’s telling, isn’t it, that the Clintons named their front organization the “Clinton Global Initiative [itals mine].” Note to Trump’s speechwriters: Use that! Contrast the Clinton Global Initiative with Trump’s program–an American initiative.

    • #1
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    My list starts with God.

    • #2
  3. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Yes, if Trump would concentrate on this theme of love of country rather than (as Rob Long says) re-winning his loyal followers by attacking Ted Cruz, it would be a cakewalk.

    • #3
  4. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    Peter Robinson:

    anonymous:

    Peter Robinson:Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this:

    Love of country.

    Or, perhaps, more precisely, subsidiarity.

    If you believe in that, the priority goes:

    1. Individual
    2. Family
    3. Neighbourhood
    4. Community
    5. State
    6. Country
    7. “International Institutions”

    Have you noticed how the champions of liberty and the slavers read this list in precisely the opposite order?

    Oh, John, that is just beautifully stated.

    Bryan G. Stephens:My list starts with God.

    I’ve already written a post today, so I won’t tackle it now -but I think it is worth, some time, quibbling about the exact order of 0-6.  It’s also worth noting whether “International Institutions” come before or after “humanity” or “the world.”  No doubt, though, that any changes in the sequence would be adjacent and pairwise.

    • #4
  5. Kofola Inactive
    Kofola
    @Kofola

    Peter Robinson:

    anonymous:

    Peter Robinson:Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this:

    Love of country.

    Or, perhaps, more precisely, subsidiarity.

    If you believe in that, the priority goes:

    1. Individual
    2. Family
    3. Neighbourhood
    4. Community
    5. State
    6. Country
    7. “International Institutions”

    Have you noticed how the champions of liberty and the slavers read this list in precisely the opposite order?

    Oh, John, that is just beautifully stated.

    I agree. That said, I disagree with you Peter that somehow Trump is reflective of a major inherent difference. The left is starting at #7, and you’re trying your best to cheer on Trump for ham-handedly working down from #6.

    Which politician is starting at #1? That’s who we should be rallying behind.

    • #5
  6. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    anonymous: Or, perhaps, more precisely, subsidiarity.

    Curiously, Roger Scruton heaps scorn on subsidiarity, beginning at 8:48.

    The term subsidiarity is a term of newspeak, which means the opposite of what it pretends.

    The EU purports to delegate authority to member states in most matters. The trouble is that since the EU decides which matters are subject to local control and which are not, it’s a fiction. When the EU is in charge of delegation of authority, the member states do not enjoy sovereignty. In other words, the EU’s version of subsidiarity is top-down instead of being bottom-up.

    Edit: Just noticed that Mr. Robinson made a similar point. The Remainers and EU have co-opted the term to serve as cover for their power grab.

    • #6
  7. TG Thatcher
    TG
    @TG

    Rodin:Yes, if Trump would concentrate on this theme of love of country rather than (as Rob Long says) re-winning his loyal followers by attacking Ted Cruz, it would be a cakewalk.

    I wonder why Mr. Trump would think/feel/divine that attacking Cruz would be more effective in winning support than attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton?

    That was a rhetorical question, I know you don’t know the answer.  Only Mr. Trump knows the answer to that.  If that is even his conscious intent?

    • #7
  8. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    anonymous: I was unaware of the extent the EU has been corrupting the meaning of the word, just as “liberal” has been destroyed.

    This was news to me also. The Left ruins everything.

    • #8
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Peter Robinson:If Donald Trump stands for anything good and noble, then surely it is this: the freedoms and loyalties of ordinary American. “I am your voice,” Trump said at the convention last week. If that is to mean anything, then surely he must defy the new ruling class, opposing its efforts to use the federal government to remake this country.

    Donald Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this: love of country.

    Trump is too busy beating Cruz in the primaries to notice this, or that the primaries are over.

    Trump is a strategic knucklehead.

    • #9
  10. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    anonymous:I live in Switzerland. Subsidiarity is a very big thing here (commune > canton > confederation), and I was unaware of the extent the EU has been corrupting the meaning of the word, just as “liberal” has been destroyed. I was using it in the sense of Tocqueville’s analysis of bottom-up institutions in America in the early 19th century or the tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

    I define it at tweet length as:

    The laws you live under should be made by the people you live with.

    Unfortunately, our beloved bishops are as prone as EU politicians to disregard their own stated value of subsidiarity when applied to political ethics.

    Consistency of ethical judgments between high- and low-level scenarios is a difficult devotion and a rare gift. It can even be reasonably debated how much person-to-person and political or global ethical equations should mirror each other.

    • #10
  11. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Great post !!  We’ve got a leader here!  And the Left can snark and sneer all it wants to,  but it’s like they say on a plane:  ” adjust  your own oxygen mask first, then assist others”.

    We have what everybody in the world  wants.  We’re the light of the nations.  And we’ve gotta preserve that light first–or we can’t help anybody else.

    • #11
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Peter Robinson: Note, by the way, that I avoided the use of “subsidiarity” only because Scruton himself attacks it. He’s not attacking the concept, of course, but the use of the word by officials of the EU–in his view, they’ve subverted the word itself, using it simply as a cover or deception.

    Does he address this issue in that video?

    • #12
  13. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    anonymous:I live in Switzerland. Subsidiarity is a very big thing here (commune > canton > confederation), and I was unaware of the extent the EU has been corrupting the meaning of the word, just as “liberal” has been destroyed. I was using it in the sense of Tocqueville’s analysis of bottom-up institutions in America in the early 19th century or the tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

    I define it at tweet length as:

    The laws you live under should be made by the people you live with.

    That tweet-length definition is just gorgeous.

    • #13
  14. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    The Reticulator:

    Peter Robinson: Note, by the way, that I avoided the use of “subsidiarity” only because Scruton himself attacks it. He’s not attacking the concept, of course, but the use of the word by officials of the EU–in his view, they’ve subverted the word itself, using it simply as a cover or deception.

    Does he address this issue in that video?

    He does indeed. And it’s only 15 minutes. See if you can find time to listen. You’ll enjoy it. A true mind at work.

    • #14
  15. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Quotes from Sir Roger’s talk:

    “They [those who voted for Brexit] were voting for the right to vote… on matters of shared national concern.”

    “A government has sovereignty only if the [European] Commission permits it.  And that is not sovereignty at all.”

    “There is one circumstance in which only a referendum can answer the need of the moment, and that when what has to be decided is the question: Who has the right to decide?”

    • #15
  16. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Sabrdance:

    I’ve already written a post today, so I won’t tackle it now -but I think it is worth, some time, quibbling about the exact order of 0-6. It’s also worth noting whether “International Institutions” come before or after “humanity” or “the world.” No doubt, though, that any changes in the sequence would be adjacent and pairwise.

    The terms “humanity” and “the world” are so broad as to be meaningless.  Who can claim to speak for either?

    • #16
  17. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    Richard Fulmer:

    Sabrdance:

    I’ve already written a post today, so I won’t tackle it now -but I think it is worth, some time, quibbling about the exact order of 0-6. It’s also worth noting whether “International Institutions” come before or after “humanity” or “the world.” No doubt, though, that any changes in the sequence would be adjacent and pairwise.

    The terms “humanity” and “the world” are so broad as to be meaningless. Who can claim to speak for either?

    No one claims to speak for the world or humanity, but surely we have some obligation to people just because they are people.  I’m not saying its a bit obligation (it is less than any obligation placed on us by the nation), but I’m quite willing to believe our obligations to random people who don’t live in our country but are still people are greater than our obligations to the United Nations.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Peter Robinson:

    The Reticulator:

    Peter Robinson: Note, by the way, that I avoided the use of “subsidiarity” only because Scruton himself attacks it. He’s not attacking the concept, of course, but the use of the word by officials of the EU–in his view, they’ve subverted the word itself, using it simply as a cover or deception.

    Does he address this issue in that video?

    He does indeed. And it’s only 15 minutes. See if you can find time to listen. You’ll enjoy it. A true mind at work.

    I did listen to it, and among its good attributes was that it didn’t waste the listener’s time. Scruton used just the right number of words and sentences.

    • #18
  19. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    If it is in our power to help people halfway around the world, then that is an opportunity that should not be ignored. But…

    1. We will never understand problems so distant and foreign as we understand the needs of our own neighbors, and it is dangerous to meddle without understanding.
    2. The spirit of charity, an aspect of love, drives us to concern ourselves with each person as a unique and precious soul. Aid arranged by distance and via large organizations inevitably reduces truly personal concerns to abstract sympathies and rules of obligation.
    3. Though a group or society is only capable of addressing some needs through governments, corporations, or other large organizations, monitoring and directing situations overseas is even more difficult than keeping such organizations in check domestically. Individual agency should never be surrendered easily to a representative organization.
    4. While each person is called to care for all people, each person is also afforded by Providence a particular family, neighborhood, environment, country, and so on to focus on. Subsidiarity is both pragmatic and morally just. When the particular persons and situations we are responsible for are not chosen by us, those bonds are not so easily broken.

    I’ve probably missed other reasons to prefer face-to-face expressions of charity to care via government/corporate agency.

    Note also that this relates to news consumption. Though some individuals must focus on national or international concerns for the good of all, most of us should be more concerned with people we know.

    • #19
  20. Michael Stopa Member
    Michael Stopa
    @MichaelStopa

    Peter, a propos of this great piece by Scruton, I recommend to you and our fellow Ricocheti Dan Carlin’s recent “Common Sense” podcast on Brexit called “The Revenge of the Gangrenous Finger.” For those who know Carlin’s stuff this is really him at his most brilliant.

    On my drive home from Cleveland to Boston, I stopped in Rochester NY to pick up my repaired car (where it had died on the NY Thruway five days earlier…longer story there than you want) and was driven from the rental car place to the repair shop. The middle-aged Enterprise Rental guy was excited when he heard that I was a delegate coming from Cleveland. He asked what I thought of Trump’s speech and I said I thought he hit is out of the park. He enthusiastically agreed. Hadn’t been a Trump guy but was now. Said there were “about seven, what I call ‘tingle moments’ in the speech.” And I said I loved the “I am your voice” line and he said Yeah! that was one of them.

    • #20
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator:

    Peter Robinson:

    The Reticulator:

    Peter Robinson: Note, by the way, that I avoided the use of “subsidiarity” only because Scruton himself attacks it. He’s not attacking the concept, of course, but the use of the word by officials of the EU–in his view, they’ve subverted the word itself, using it simply as a cover or deception.

    Does he address this issue in that video?

    He does indeed. And it’s only 15 minutes. See if you can find time to listen. You’ll enjoy it. A true mind at work.

    I did listen to it, and among its good attributes was that it didn’t waste the listener’s time. Scruton used just the right number of words and sentences.

    I should also mention that when Scruton talked about the Treaty of Rome, the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution came to mind.   These days conservatives tend to take the position on it that old conservatives resisted when it was held by the left, which means they are working against any Brexitification of our own governmental system.

    • #21
  22. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Sabrdance:

    Richard Fulmer:

    Sabrdance:

    I’ve already written a post today, so I won’t tackle it now -but I think it is worth, some time, quibbling about the exact order of 0-6. It’s also worth noting whether “International Institutions” come before or after “humanity” or “the world.” No doubt, though, that any changes in the sequence would be adjacent and pairwise.

    The terms “humanity” and “the world” are so broad as to be meaningless. Who can claim to speak for either?

    No one claims to speak for the world or humanity, but surely we have some obligation to people just because they are people. I’m not saying its a bit obligation (it is less than any obligation placed on us by the nation), but I’m quite willing to believe our obligations to random people who don’t live in our country but are still people are greater than our obligations to the United Nations.

    Taking the world or humanity into consideration when we make decisions is a very different question from the one on the table.  The issue was subsidiarity – at what level should issues be addressed.  Trying to control things at the level of “humanity” or “the world” is an impossibility.

    • #22
  23. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Michael Stopa:And I said I loved the “I am your voice” line and he said Yeah! that was one of them.

    That line creeped me out.  I thought it had echoes of the “will of the people” meme of the French and Russian revolutions.

    • #23
  24. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    Bryan G. Stephens:My list starts with God.

    Of course it does.  Maybe so obvious that it’s unstated?  Pace.

    • #24
  25. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    Kofola:

    Peter Robinson:

    anonymous:

    Peter Robinson:Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this:

    Love of country.

    Or, perhaps, more precisely, subsidiarity.

    If you believe in that, the priority goes:

    1. Individual
    2. Family
    3. Neighbourhood
    4. Community
    5. State
    6. Country
    7. “International Institutions”

    Have you noticed how the champions of liberty and the slavers read this list in precisely the opposite order?

    Oh, John, that is just beautifully stated.

    I agree. That said, I disagree with you Peter that somehow Trump is reflective of a major inherent difference. The left is starting at #7, and you’re trying your best to cheer on Trump for ham-handedly working down from #6.

    Which politician is starting at #1? That’s who we should be rallying behind.

    Um, there are only two politicians in the race.

    • #25
  26. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Peter,

    Just got back online. I listened to Scruton. He was magnificent. It was to listen to the Britain of old. That beautiful erudite discourse filled with knowledge and wisdom that we all considered uniquely British. This gives me great hope. All is not lost. We can recapture our sense of deep culture and purpose. If the British can do it others can do it.

    Welcome back Britain. Now for America and the rest of Europe, there is work to be done.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #26
  27. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Michael Stopa:Peter, a propos of this great piece by Scruton, I recommend to you and our fellow Ricocheti Dan Carlin’s recent “Common Sense” podcast on Brexit called “The Revenge of the Gangrenous Finger.” For those who know Carlin’s stuff this is really him at his most brilliant.

    On my drive home from Cleveland to Boston, I stopped in Rochester NY to pick up my repaired car (where it had died on the NY Thruway five days earlier…longer story there than you want) and was driven from the rental car place to the repair shop. The middle-aged Enterprise Rental guy was excited when he heard that I was a delegate coming from Cleveland. He asked what I thought of Trump’s speech and I said I thought he hit is out of the park. He enthusiastically agreed. Hadn’t been a Trump guy but was now. Said there were “about seven, what I call ‘tingle moments’ in the speech.” And I said I loved the “I am your voice” line and he said Yeah! that was one of them.

    Common people have been forgotten by the politicians on both ends who focus on the chronic welfare, Wall St, K St or Harvard  crowds.

    I’m sitting in the Hellfire Saloon in Reno drinking whiskey with about 100 people.  Guess who 90% are going to vote for

    • #27
  28. Caleb J. Jones Inactive
    Caleb J. Jones
    @CalebJJones

    John Harmon McElroy’s 1999 book, American Beliefs: What Keeps a Big Country and a Diverse People United, is a good explication of what made the US strong and good. I used to use it as my reference text when teaching US Culture here in Japan. Although it’s almost too late to salvage those beliefs today, it’s still worth a read if you can find it. And Harmon said all those years ago about the same thing as Scruton about the culture.

    • #28
  29. Eeyore Member
    Eeyore
    @Eeyore

    DocJay: I’m sitting in the Hellfire Saloon in Reno drinking whiskey with about 100 people. Guess who 90% are going to vote for

    With that kind of set-up, I’m guessing Yosemite Sam.

    Yosemitr Sam

    • #29
  30. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Eeyore, I’m the rootenest tootenest shootenest populist pablum peddler in the North South East aaaaaaaaaand West!

    And someone else is driving home ;-)

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.