3,139 words

Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)

Who belongs to the nation

Many countries explicitly define who the members of the nation are. This is, in fact, quite normal. The United States did so, in a way — “ourselves and our posterity,” as the Preamble of the Constitution says. This meant the founding population and their descendants, of course. This primarily included Anglo-Americans, as well as settlers from assimilable kindred peoples such as Germans, French, Dutch, and Scandinavians.

Any exceptions would live here under our terms. At the time, Indians were members of their own tribes, effectively small nations on foot without fixed boundaries other than the few who were suitably assimilated to the point that they stopped scalping their neighbors. During the turbulent westward expansion, others were granted permanent territories with limited autonomy. (Say what one will about that, but it’s a far better deal than when Indians defeated rival Indian tribes, which they’d been doing for the last 10,000 years or more.) The status of blacks, as later clarified by the Supreme Court, was that they were citizens of their state but not of the US.

No further exceptions were desired. Thomas Jefferson’s administration banned further importation of slaves as soon as it was possible to do so under the Constitution. The first immigration act specified that “free white persons” of good character would be permitted. Further immigration laws were enacted, though the “whites only” policy largely remained in effect for nearly two centuries. Then, in 1965 a new law was passed, and Ted Kennedy swore up and down that it wouldn’t change America’s ethnic composition . . .

All this is the short version, though it could be spelled out in greater detail with a lengthier explanation. Ethnic bloc-voting is a game-breaker for democracy. It encourages pandering to these special interests, though of course there are many other problems with multiracialism. Basically, the US was intended to be predominantly white. The Founders never in their darkest nightmares imagined that any future politician would be so foolish as to change this arrangement, much less connive to make the founding population a minority in our own country. Any future Constitution should make all this very explicit and unmistakable.

The court system

There was little to prevent the problems that arose in the judiciary, such as legalism and judges exceeding their authority. This takes the form of inserting their personal ideology into case law. Defining the role of the courts is essential. An early wrong turn was the Marbury v. Madison decision, in which the Supreme Court granted itself the final authority to interpret the Constitution. That’s rather odd; it’s in fairly plain English and really doesn’t need trained experts to tell us what it means, as if it were in Babylonian-era cuneiform such as Hammurabi’s Code. More seriously, it’s suitable for there to be a final authority on filling in the ambiguous parts. The problem is that the magical power of interpretation eventually lent itself to legislating from the bench by these priestly oracles with the power of infallibility.

For a long time, the system worked well. For ages, there wasn’t much abuse of power along those lines. Then, during the Warren Court, all that changed. Since then, these Solomonic philosopher-kings have delivered one “landmark ruling” after another, often 5-4 decisions along ideological lines, ushering in sweeping changes to the legal, political, and social landscape. They’ll decide based on their personal ideology and write up a ruling with sufficient legalistic word games to justify it after the fact. This type of lawfare, as well as judge-shopping by lower courts, is a major reason the culture war has gone the way it has. It doesn’t matter who is in Congress or the presidency if five out of nine judges can rewrite the law their way.

The Founders’ reasoning in making Supreme Court appointments a lifetime position was that this would prevent them from being influenced by politics. If only they could see us now! As Joseph Sobran (likely influenced by Michael Oakeshott) observed, a judge’s ideology isn’t supposed to matter in the outcome of a court case, any more than whether or not an umpire is a Democrat or a Republican should matter in a baseball game. After all, they’re only there to carry out what the law says. Obviously there’s a big difference between theory and practice.

Appointing moderates and conservatives will only go so far as a remedy. Curiously, a number of these Supreme Court nominees became Leftists upon attaining their lifetime positions. This has occurred since Warren himself, but it’s not clear why this is so. One speculation has been that they’re not immune to flattery, and enjoy all the praise they get from the media for their “brave” Leftist rewriting of the Constitution. Another possibility is that they’d been concealing their true beliefs, perhaps as part of a successful “long march through the institutions” strategy.

In any future Constitution, there must be a provision making it possible to remove judges who exceed their authority. This should go for any position, all the way up to the Supreme Court. (The same goes for unelected bureaucrats as well.) If judges were subject to recall by popular referendum, for example, it might inspire better behavior.

The subversion problem

Open societies are rather vulnerable to being ideologically influenced from outside, or via a well-coordinated inside job. (On the other hand, it would be well-nigh impossible for fans of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises to infiltrate North Korea, stealthily transforming their political system into a libertarian one and reshaping public opinion under Rocket Man’s nose.) The Founders put safeguards in the Constitution to prevent the return of monarchy, but since they didn’t have a crystal ball available, they didn’t predict the problems that would be posed by other competing ideologies that would appear in the future. This includes Marxists and fellow travelers using a wide network of front groups and Agents of Influence to create a vast ideological undertow, as well as staging a long march through the institutions.

Overall, religious tolerance has been a good thing, sparing us almost entirely from the horrors of sectarian violence that often erupted elsewhere. The drawback is that it allows the possibility for highly-networked religions and ethnoreligious entities to exercise undue influence or even take on mafia-like characteristics. Concerns about Papal ultramontanism arose with the large influx of Catholic populations starting in the 1830s. In this case, “Popish” meddling and Jesuit subterfuge turned out to be a nothingburger. Tensions faded away following a long history of good behavior, quite happily.

Much differently, Zionism is an obvious example of aggressive ethnic networking allowed to go unchecked. The “Kosher Nostra” hardly needs further explanation here. (If our forefathers had known how they’d be repaid for delivering these ingrates from the Czar’s Cossacks, they would’ve reconsidered.) Islamism is a growing problem given the continued influx of immigrant populations; several very serious terrorist attacks wouldn’t have happened if they’d remained where they belong. Other than that, history demonstrates quite clearly that when the Muslim population reaches a critical mass, they want things done their way. Although squishy pluralism helped them enter our societies in the first place, they’re none too keen on it themselves once they get the upper hand. There’s potential for other sects to misbehave, too — but if Scientologists take over the film industry, that might not be such a bad thing. Surely Hollyweird can’t get any worse!

Large and powerful organizations might also act as secret combinations. There was some concern about Freemasonry early on. (This remains so among certain conspiracy-minded circles, which unfortunately side-racks them down an unproductive rabbit hole, diverting their attention from real problems.) It’s true that they could’ve gotten whatever they wanted long ago. Nonetheless, whatever agenda the Freemasons had — if any — aligned with old-school Americanism prior to its transformation into Clown World. Lately, it’s apolitical — at least in the US — and seems like a pretty nifty “conspiracy” to join.

On the other hand, the Founders didn’t anticipate non-governmental organizations throwing their weight around, or globalist networks such as the W6rld Ec6nomic F6rum and others. Back in the eighteenth century, that stuff didn’t fly. Any politician toadying up to an international cabal telling us to eat bugs or announcing “you’ll own nothing and be happy” would’ve been lucky merely to be tarred and feathered.

Internal problems exist, too, thanks to networks of unelected bureaucrats. The US State Department has been riddled with shady Leftists from Alger Hiss to Cupcake. For hindering our foreign policy on behalf of the Soviets and ChiComs, many of them are long overdue for their Order of Lenin medals as well as a complementary tug-and-rub from Chairman Mao. The FLEAs (Federal Law Enforcement Agencies) are repeat offenders. Time and again, the CIA has proven itself to be out of control, and the lunatics are running the asylum. The FBI likewise suffers from a lack of oversight, leading to fiascos such as Ruby Ridge. It’s high time something was done about this FLEA infestation.

The Founders didn’t predict the ideological monopolization of the media, academia, and other opinion-forming institutions. They had no idea that 90% of the press would one day be concentrated in half-a-dozen gigantic conglomerates. Newspapers used to be locally owned, and corporations weren’t even a thing until railroads came about. Instead, back in the day some of the Founders floated an idea that every house should have its own printing press. That was pretty ambitious back then, if they meant it literally rather than as an idealized concept. Nevertheless, the Internet finally did bring it to life in a way. Unfortunately, to a significant degree it fell into the orbit of the Tech Tyrants of Silicon Valley, imposing their Left Coast values on cyberspace. Today, these Woke Tech monopolies can restrict a citizen’s access to the digital Town Square on a whim.

Likewise, it was unimaginable that Leftist radicals would turn universities into propaganda mills, or that toxic ideological slop would be pumped into the soft heads of children in K‑12 schools. For that matter, there was no World Council of Churches to speak for the Christian denominations. The implications have been huge. Whoever holds the Big Megaphone has a tremendous influence on public opinion and the political process itself.

What would work better?

Overall, the concept of government by the consent of the governed remains a good thing. This is so even if the implementation has been remarkably spotty lately. The litany of problems listed here make it tempting to dump it all and start from scratch. But if we do so, then we’re left back at Plato’s stage, pondering how to manage the despotism problem.

There’s much to be said for benevolent autocracy. For one thing, some enlightened authoritarianism would be a much-needed antidote to the aggressive abnormality continually pushing the envelope of late. Still, the major problem is this: How does one keep it benevolent? Dictatorships are an option, though they’re only as good as the dictator. Despite some worthy exceptions, most turned out to be despotic, corrupt, or both. Even if there’s a great lineup at first, there’s no guarantee that it won’t degenerate into a typical banana republic at some point in the future, or perhaps a tricky managed democracy such as our own.

There are generally only a few recourses open to a brutal dictator. One is a revolution, which entails the usual hazards. Another is for powerful subordinates to stage a palace coup, which might well leave the guy best skilled at backstabbing in charge. A foreign power could intervene, but the results might not go as expected. (Ask Bush the Younger about that one.) Finally, in time it may eventually fall apart from mismanagement, leading to a chaotic interregnum. Either way, it’s an awful lot of trouble, and the outcomes are uncertain. Then there’s the problem of succession, which also can result in much turbulence when El Jefe dies and it’s time to pick a new chief. Even if an orderly transition occurs, the successor might lack the predecessor’s vision, and then proceed to screw everything up — the short version of what happened to Spain after Franco.

How about monarchy? In the absolutist form, it’s basically a hereditary dictatorship. The hazards are generally the same, except that succession is usually less turbulent. On the negative side, other than the dynasty’s founder, a King doesn’t do anything to get the job. They’re merely born in the right place in the right family. Much like certain ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers, they might be badly out-of-touch or at least acquire a severe case of trust-fund kid syndrome from a pampered upbringing. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, but your mileage may vary. This is unlike a dictator who must have ambition and cunning, at the very least. In the better cases they’ll have some charisma and talent, perhaps having unexceptional origins but rising to the top through sheer determination. To make a long story short, monarchy worked for a good while. In fact, it made a lot of sense in the days when illiterate peasants comprised 95% of the population — but it isn’t well suited to modern conditions.

That said, were we to reverse the American Revolution, the US would become a British Commonwealth nation. The Deep State would persist without skipping a beat. The difference would be that the new nation of South Canada would nominally be headed by the squishy House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha Windsor, monarchs who have few remaining powers — and don’t use them. Oh, please! Could we invite someone from another has-been dynasty with a family tree that grows straight? I think I’ll give it a miss. Could we pick one of our own? Okay, but who gets to be the King? What do we do, have a nationwide arm-wrestling contest?

Although I don’t have all the answers, it looks like reforming what we have now is better than the alternatives. If the Athenians represented the first major crack at the despotism problem, and the Age of Enlightenment was the second, I’d say it’s high time for a third. There’s enough intellectual sparkle in the Dextrosphere that we could give it a whirl, laying down some ideological foundations for the future.

Now for some good stuff

One thing that paleoconservatism and libertarianism get right is their pessimism about human nature, which informs their views about limited government. (This is opposed to Leftist notions of the perfectibility of human nature.) Separation of powers with checks and balances is helpful, too, even if diminished by the uniparty’s end run around democracy. If the state is run responsibly, then limited government actually is a hindrance; this is why benevolent dictatorships are appealing. On the other hand, if the state is run irresponsibly, then limited government becomes a very good thing! As it happens, America’s illegitimate so-called head of state is presently a senile figurehead who recites whatever the teleprompter says, sniffs girls, poops his pants, and takes orders from the Easter Bunny. A good number of his associates attend spirit cooking parties and apparently know what a pizza-related map on a handkerchief means.

Once more, the principle of government by consent of the governed does have some value, even though it didn’t turn out to be a cure-all for the problems we faced. With a hundred million votes being cast, a single vote isn’t going to sway anything, but the “wisdom of crowds” principle does theoretically apply. We just need to work on the implementation. Limiting the franchise somewhat does make sense, though.

First, those currently on certain forms of public assistance should be excluded from federal elections in order to prevent politicians from being able to buy votes with free goodies. Although that may seem harsh, they could quit sucking the welfare tit and find a job. (Earlier “elitist” standards sometimes required voters to be property owners for the same reason, though we needn’t go that far.) Also, literacy tests should be reenacted. It makes no sense to give functional illiterates input into how the country is run, for reasons which should be obvious. Perhaps dropouts should also be excluded, at least until they get a General Education Diploma (GED). Although education has been considerably dumbed-down in recent times, it makes little sense to enfranchise those who can’t even hack that. Since large elections depend on “the wisdom of crowds,” then the crowd should be somewhat wiser.

The federal system’s granting of limited autonomy to the states turned out to be a good measure as well. That should be restored to the way it was intended to work. If anything, the subsidiary principle should be expanded further.

Finally, one of the Founding Fathers’ best achievements was the Bill of Rights. At the time, some considered it unnecessary to prohibit the government from doing things that the Constitution never permitted it to do in the first place. If only they knew! It turned out to be a very wise move. It’s only after those centuries-old checks on government have become eroded, often through lawyerly word games, that we’re starting to feel the encroachments of despotism. For example, the Fourth Amendment has been partially gutted. This is thanks to the “Patriot Act,” as well as a judge’s novel “interpretation” of the Constitution that somehow permits a massive domestic spying program that would’ve made Comrade Brezhnev eat his heart out with envy. Nevertheless, the rights of man haven’t all been dismantled.

For one thing, without the First Amendment, surely Democratic pukes in Congress would’ve clamored for a federal “Hate Speech Act” long ago. They almost certainly would’ve gotten it, because chicken-livered Republican weenies would’ve feared to oppose it lest their opponents call them names. Besides that, both sides of the uniparty are addicted to Zio-bucks. Such a law would’ve put us in the same position as the British, who will receive a prompt visit from the political police for saying something naughty on Fakebook. Meanwhile, migrants get away with rampant “knife crime,” acid attacks, and even beheadings on the streets of London — and don’t even get me started on the Rotherham horror. Also, we’d be in the same position as Germans, who get jailed for propagating forbidden historical narratives, even while their vibrants run the streets. This sordid anarcho-tyranny is commonplace in most other Western European countries deemed to be beacons of freedom, of course.

As for the Second Amendment, this provides the teeth to back up the rest of the Bill of Rights. I’ll just say that the heirs of the American Revolution didn’t put it there only to guarantee the right to pop a cap in Bambi, or even merely for protection against muggers.

I’d better stop right here, lest I be accused of being a dangerous Right-wing extremist like Thomas Jefferson.