Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Roger Scruton on Brexit — and (if inadvertently) Trump
On 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
Wish I was there! A great bar.
Apropos of nothing except it’s a great story. A couple of years ago my family found itself in Groveland, CA. At the Iron Door Saloon, whose claim to fame is that it’s the longest open bar in Cali history. Which sounded like nonsense, as we had never been there. Anyway, we had dog Jake with us. We were informed that Jake could only accompany us if he was a “service dog”. Suddenly, brother John required services, we were seated and a delightful afternoon was had by all.
The only “service” that Jake provided was scarfing up the dropped french fries.
(husband John on the left; brother John on the right. Yes, it gets confusing.)
I was receiving texts from a couple of friends who had promised to listen to the speech at my request. One is an immigrant (and recent US citizen) from Australia. The other the issue of illegal immigrants from Mexico. He is also a Navy vet. They are both gay. And married to each other.
Two thumbs up.
Trump doesn’t strike me as someone who loves his country. Or, if he does, he hides it well and rarely gets lyrical about it. On the contrary, everything is “a disaster” and a lot of people should be fired.
Instead of country, what Trump loves is Trump. The country is a mere stage set for this love and so is the presidency. Nor do I think he cares one bit for his new constituency of “ordinary” Americans. I do believe in late-life conversions, but this one is hard to swallow. If he is a man of the people, where was he in the past 50 years? In large part, shaking them off their few dollars at his casinos in return for some impossible dream (a good metaphor for his campaign) or building apartments they could never afford. He only claims to love them now because he wants their vote.
Where in my post did I say that person had to be a presidential candidate? We settle for statist hacks, because it’s politically expedient, and then complain about how our ideals are kicked to the curb. We should find the right people and rally behind them, in spite of the two politicians in the race.
It strikes me that the surrender of sovereignty by the European states through the European Union’s ability to define the terms of subsidiarity is entirely analgous to the surrender of sovereignty by the American states through the federal government’s empowerment to define such terms as “interstate commerce” in the constitution. What at one point seemed like a rational and reasonable acquiesence has gotten pushed and pushed beyond any recognition by the original signatories to a far reaching forfeiture of sovereignty. Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
And there it is. When Trump says to those feeling disenfranchised, “I am your voice”, most feel straight away a positive thrill, while the anti folk immediately disgorge a dark hidden evil agenda from centuries past. Richard, I just don’t think Trump is a guy who is thinking about the French or Russian revolutions. He’s thinking about our country. Our country right now. As Freesmith said in an earlier excellent comment, Trump is offering to be our champion. As Midge questioned afterwards, do conservatives want champions? I say yes, even though there are inherent dangers in such a strong individual leader, we are at a point where it will take such a leader to stop the snowball of socialism which is building up gigantic momentum. We don’t have time to wait for the perfectly pure intellectual conservative with the strength to be that champion for all. What we have is Donald J Trump. That’s who I am supporting.
I have a pretty good idea. But more importantly, I’d love to share a few cigars and sip some small batch neat with you Doc.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Yep, we were trying to do exactly that since last fall, and failed. I spent a bunch of time talking to friends, family, acquaintances, and even random strangers about politics, religion, and economics. I guess I didn’t have enough help with that. It’s now too late for this cycle. You have to pick between Hilary and Trump. Minimize the damage so there will be a next cycle to try again.
Oh? You want to wave a magic wand to reset the world around you ’cause you don’t like the choices? Try Second Life or World of Warcraft or some such fantasy land. I understand magic wands work in some of them.
Vote for me, Phil, vote for me.
Thanks John – hadn’t heard that term before. Interesting that even the United Nations recognizes it for what it is, probably based on experience with fledgling centralized “governments” in developing nations, which is usually setting the stage for a dictator or warlord.
The message is clear: “Classical liberalism is dead. Jump on the Trump train or you’ll be run over.” Trump fights, but every time I hear him speak he’s fighting against things I stand for. His is the new order. Either classical liberal values matter or they dont. You’ve chosen your side. I’m done compromising. The founding fathers lived in fantasy land. William F Buckley lived in fantasy land. Ronald Regan lived in fantasy land. From there, they fought to keep their ideals alive. Those of us in political exile need to work to rebuild.
Same here.
My list:
1. God
2. Family
3. Country.
Scruton makes a point (briefly) about how regulation more or less damns those who are willing to work longer hours, and therefore make more money. I believe the partial quote is:
“Penalize people who wish to get ahead by working longer hours”
This is, at the root of it, the peonization of the people. You will receive a mandated wage and nothing more, and there will be no advantage for those who wish to work harder for something more.
If we want to see how this works in the real world, please see Shoe Factory #7 in the Kruschev-era Soviet Union, as an example of how well the peons/proles did under that mindset. And how economically catastrophic it is, to mandate mediocrity from everyone. The result was a failed economy with crappy products that nobody wanted.
I don’t think he can help himself. I think Peter Robinson is talking about Trump as his supporters view him, as he as offered himself in the campaign. I think the real Trump is the the guy who spent the morning after the convention running Cruz and Kasich down. Trump does have his better side as his kids testified to last week, but he also has petty and vindictive impulses he’s never learned to control. I’ve begun to wonder how that man will use the resources and power of our government as an instrument of his vindictiveness.
I just listened to this brilliant segment from Sir Roger Scruton and agree with Mark the Rustic that the process by which States lost much of their sovereignty in this country (Congress and the regulatory state run amok, with their power grabs characterized as the regulation of interstate commerce, interpreted by SCOTUS as a nearly unlimited source of federal power) exactly parallels Britain’s gradual loss of sovereignty under the EU.
This excerpt from his remarks says it all. Responding to the defense of EU regulation of trade and commerce as concerned only with purely technical matters governing the “internal market” while leaving member nations with “full sovereign choice” over all other matters, he tersely explains how it really works:
“The Scope of the Treaty (of Rome) is unlimited since all laws and decisions can be undertaken as bearing on trade between the nation states. Thus, free movement of people across borders has been justified as a integral part of the internal market, while laws concerning the terms and conditions of employment have been used both to impose a moral code of no discrimination and to penalize people who wish to get ahead by working longer hours than their competitors. In the name of the internal market, we have discovered people can be bossed about in every aspect of their social being and no parliament can defend its electorate from this.”
Sound familiar? For all the talk about our courts citing foreign law, this is one trick we taught them.
As I see my country under great strain in the past several decades, I realized that my love of ‘country’ is really a love of the principals upon which my country was organized. We are a diverse group; we have no real cultural history. What we had in common was this great experience of banding together under the umbrella of freedom and liberty – of ‘rule by the people’. As we move away from this, I find myself rather adrift in the ‘love of country’ area.
Damn the Balanced Budget Amendment (actually I support the notion), what this country needs is a good Secession Amendment! That is the ultimate way to hold the b…uzzards in Washington accountable.
Unfortunately, in some respects he may be something of a tactical idiot savant (and I do emphasize “idiot”).
Trump has Walker’s excellent list backwards like a progressive, but with a nationalistic twist. The Democrats will learn from Trump that nationalism and eventually militarism serves the interests of the centralizers. The Democrats lost that leverage because the Socialist Homeland was our enemy. That’s over and now we are the Socialist homeland and, like every left wing dictatorship we’ve known, power ultimately rests on the military. Watch and learn.
It seems to me supporters are hoping that Trump will exercise his vindictiveness against the right people – that he really does prefer the ordinary to the weird, and that he’ll be bold about using the office of the Presidency to assert his preferences.
The Founders had reason to be concerned about the “tyranny of the majority”, but right now,
That Trump himself does not have exotic tastes and is strongmanny enough to not let fear stop him from attacking weirdness and preferring ordinariness is not so implausible, though neither is guarantee that he won’t see some greater advantage in giving the “weird people” what they want.
Many of our contemporary cosmopolitans are unaware of the paradoxical character of their views. While heaping scorn on the local or the particular as nothing but mere prejudice and intolerance, their multiculturalism and relativism have as their basis existentialism, or historicism. If even the grounds of one’s own thinking are confined to one’s time and cultural milieu, if “nature” does not exist and everything is a construct, if transcendence on basis of reason or faith in Divine Law is impossible, how can one be called a cosmopolitan at all? There is no “cosmos” if there is merely chaos.
In this light, contemporary cosmopolitanism is really nothing but a kind of intellectual flatness, a sham cosmopolitanism that eats Ethiopian food on Tuesday nights and feels itself sophisticated, while entirely oblivious to the fact that its other moral and “theological” convictions rest on contrary premises. In a sense, this sham cosmopolitanism is the most virulent form of the love of rootedness in the particular because of its blind, adamantine confidence that it has transcended prejudice while in fact affirming that there is nothing truly universal.
A disquieting thought: ancient thinkers who recognized the universal in contrast to the particular, but who also never managed to wander more than a few days travel from their homes, are more cosmopolitan (and simultaneously more rooted), than our jet-setting Davos Man.
I was troubled by the line and peoples’ reaction to it as well.
This is not the promise of limited government. This is not the promise that government will protect your individual / natural rights, but rather the promise that the leader will pull the levers of government for YOU! Bad trend.
I know our current government needs changing. But we also need to be careful where we are heading…. Be careful not to get too caught up in emotion, too caught up in leaders’ promises. Our safest course is to stay in control of our own lives, as much as possible.
Trump’s particular schtick has been remarkably effective so far. It ought to work on Hillary if anything does, but instead of focusing on his last meaningful target, he’s still hammering Cruz, which isn’t winning him any friends.
I know this seems petty, but its how I feel about the man. I don’t think Trump has any dictatorial leanings, and I think he truly would like to be a wise and just leader if he were to win (and “winning” is really his main goal – nothing more, nothing less), but I think he has no deeply held principals, but possesses some profound character flaws, and this will cause him to be a disaster as a leader.
But the dye is cast, and baring traumatic unforeseen events, the choice is between this knucklehead and Miss Above-the-Law. It’s a terrible choice to have to make, and I’m not sure what to do.
Well… it’s true that Western Christianity and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church do differ on some doctrinal points. Nonetheless – and admitting my sample size is a small one – the Ethiopian immigrants I know seem to have made especially good Americans, in a way that had me venturing to guess that perhaps the fact that they were Ethiopian might have had something to do with it – that their moral and theological convictions rested on premises less contrary to becoming an exemplary American. They were hardworking, enterprising, cheerful and confident (in a way I only wish I could duplicate), and far less debauched than other youths without being puritanical killjoys about their debauchery-avoidance.
Obviously, there may be a huge difference between Ethiopians who successfully immigrate to America and those who stay behind in Ethiopia, as well as between the immigrants I’ve met and those I haven’t. And equally obviously, not all tasty ethnic cuisine is Ethiopian. Nonetheless, it was a choice that brought up interesting associations for me.
John, apologies in advance, but I’m stealing this line.
Me too. I’ll never get over missing the 2013 Las Vegas meet-up. Damn a-fib.
He was devoting his resources and energy to passing on his wisdom through the halls of Trump University. That’s why he spent so much time handpicking its illustrious faculty and honing its unmatched curriculum. In the moments left to this tireless protector, he somehow found a way to lavish praise and crucial financial support on his fellow champion, Hillary Clinton.
He’s always been about bettering the lives of The People, donchaknow.