|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
One of the Democrats’ favorite smears of Republicans is to accuse them of political hero-worship. Ever since Donald Trump took up residence in the NeverTrumpers’ brains, his constituency, especially the MAGA base, have been ridiculed as unsophisticated rubes with low-brow sensibilities and fascist inclinations, while clinging to their tin-pot hero, forgiving all his sins and cheering for “racist dog-whistles.”
In other words, Republicans are inherently vulnerable to political “great men,” the charismatic (to weak-minded “deplorables”) demagogues whose flashy, duplicitous rhetoric easily brushes aside the feeble critical faculties of hoi polloi. That’s why the progs abuse the question-begging epithet “fascist”––it crudely evokes despots like Mussolini or Hitler or Franco, while studiously ignoring totalitarian mass-murderers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro.
And who can forget the Dems’ “slobbering love affair,” as Bernie Goldberg put it, with Barack Obama? Nothing MAGA fans have ever said about Donald Trump comes close to the cringing, creepy encomia of Obama’s acolytes. According to numerous “brights” among our intelligentsia Obama was a “rock star,” the Democrats’ “Tiger Woods,” a politician “it’s hard to be objective when covering,” “so impressive, so charismatic,” “something special,” graced with “chiseled pectorals” and a “keen analytical intelligence,” “prodigious talents,” an “amazing legislative agenda,” and “huge achievements”––that’s just a small sample of the cult-like accolades redolent of the propaganda more typical of totalitarian regimes than of free sovereign citizens.
Remember this embarrassing catalog the next time you hear a progressive mock MAGA idolatry, and recall that postwar political hero-worship has always been a bad habit of the Left and progressives. Who is the conservative version of the psychotic, bumbling Che Guevara, whose famous photograph is an obligatory leftist icon? How is it that communism, a failed ideology responsible for 100 million dead, still retains its allure for cognitive elites, while Nazism, responsible for one-fifth of that toll, is universally condemned except by a tiny fringe of cranks?
But fanatically following a “great leader” transcends party or ideology. Historically, for centuries it was the default form of leadership. The mass of people were the mere subjects to aristocratic elites whose power was a function of their descent from the gods, their innate abilities, legendary myths, and personal charisma. They ruled because of who they were, accountable to no other mortal, but only to fate and their fellow gods.
The epochal change came with the creation of “politics” in ancient Greece, the rules-based government by citizens according to shared laws and procedures that transcended human beings––what John Adams called the “rule of laws, not of men.” Power became the collective possession of citizens who used it subject to limitations, but did not own it. They were accountable to one another, and were defined by a common human nature flawed by passions and interests, particularly the desire for power, which was of “an encroaching nature,” never satisfied but always demanding more. The goal was the freedom and political equality of all citizens, and the unalienable rights given by “nature and nature’s God,” not by other flawed men.
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution was created to curtail the inevitable excesses of power, and to protect that freedom. For the question was not if men would succumb to the lust for power, but when. The debates during the Constitutional Convention continually circle back to these dangers of even limited power to turn into unlimited tyranny.
For example, during the debate over compensation for the president, Benjamin Franklin cautioned against adding greed for wealth to the already potent attraction of political power: “There are two passions which have a powerful influence on men,” he argued. “These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money.” When united, these have “the most violent effects.” They inevitably lead, as they had in England, to “all of those factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars.”
The new nation’s chief executive, then, would not be granted any titles or privileges not limited by the oversight of the citizens and the laws. There would be no “great leaders” in America, no kneeling or bowing, no excessive pomp and deference, only fellow-citizens accountable to the laws that, in the unique case of the United States, citizens themselves had created, debated, and ultimately voted for––the roots of our historic exceptionalism.
For as Adams wrote a few months before the Declaration of Independence, “How few of the human Race, have ever had an opportunity of choosing a System of Government for themselves and their Children? How few have ever had any Thing more of Choice in Government, than in Climate?” And we Americans also were singularly blessed with the character and virtue of George Washington, a leader whose greatness lay in the surrender of power, as George III himself acknowledged when, upon hearing of Washington’s resignation after the Revolutionary War rather than making himself king, he exclaimed, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Time and change, however, have degraded those Constitutional bulwarks against tyranny. The rise of progressivism more than a century ago, and its technocratic pretensions, favor a “managerial elite” and an “imperial presidency,” who oversees unelected and unaccountable executive agencies. These bureaucracies over time have aggrandized more and more power at the expense of Congress, the states, the Constitution, civil society, and individuals.
Next, new communication technologies such as radio, newsreels, moving pictures, television, and the quantum leap the internet has made in the reach and scale of political speech, also expanded the reach of the president and the centralized federal government, buttressed by the purveyors of public information that, as we have witnessed over the past few decades, reflects the political prejudices and goals of the Democrat progressives.
This development has also been enabled by our incredible wealth and its wider distribution, which has increased our expectations for well-being and comfort. Our utopian expectations have been exploited by our “soft despots” who promise to gratify these expectations by redistributing wealth to political allies and clients.
This phenomenon was recognized by ancient political philosophers like Polybius, who linked redistributed wealth to tyranny, “government by violence and strong-arm methods. By this time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors, and as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring . . . they introduce a regime based on violence.”
The “great leader” the Founders feared has flourished in these circumstances, for aspiring tyrants can bypass the cumbersome, frustrating process of a divided and balanced government. Executive overreach via executive orders, and legislating laws through agency rule-making that bypass diverse Congressional representatives, promise to be more efficient. Meanwhile, widely distributed visual propaganda created by media both dead-tree and digital facilitates this process.
This modus operandi was exploited by the despotic regimes of the early 20th centuries like Hitler and Mussolini, who were masters of using new technologies like film and radio to seduce their followers. As did FDR, for that matter, and his New Deal programs that expanded the reach and power of the federal government at the expense of individuals, families, and civil society. As Mussolini said of him, “the spirit of [FDR’s New Deal program] resembles fascism’s since, having recognized that the state is responsible for the people’s economic well-being, it no longer allows economic forces to run according to their own nature.” A relatively “soft despotism,” to be sure, but despotism nonetheless.
Finally, the traditional forms of rule that for millennia defined power as the personal possession of “great men,” reflect a permanent human proclivity, as our cult of political celebrity shows. As T.S. Eliot once said, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.” Our adversarial political system and its checks and balances can become frustrating, if not annoying or infuriating. People often yearn for a “great man,” the hero on horseback who cuts through the equivocations and pettifogging of smaller men whose grubby ambitions are hidden by the obfuscations of process.
Fortunately, we still remain––for now–– a nation under the “rule of laws, not of men.” We are blessed by the Constitution’s barriers against tyranny, battered and weakened as they may have been, but still the best means that we the people have for pushing back on the growing tyranny of the technocratic Leviathan.
Indeed, the recent Supreme Court decisions against racial discrimination, government compelled speech, and overreach by government agencies and executive orders––all popular with voters––confirm the genius of our divide government, despite its occasional inefficiency. So too with Trump-appointed federal District Court judge Maryellen Noreika, who recently rejected the corrupt, egregious plea-deal federal prosecutors engineered for Hunter Biden.
In the end, however, it is up to the voters to cast their ballots in support of the Constitution and its bedrock principles of political freedom, equality, and unalienable rights, and to restore the “equality under law” that has been serially violated by the current administration and corrupt federal agencies.
Whether freedom endures is up to us citizens, not to “great men.”
Great article again Bruce.
Good words. Thank-you.
I come to David’s site for the unvarnished straight from the shoulder truth. This one is a keeper. Thank you Mr. Thornton . Adams also said our experiment wouldn’t stand without a moral center. I fear we have crossed that Rubicon. The very essence of our freedom relies on fair and free elections. Anyone that denies they are corrupted are part of the corruption.
One thing’s for sure, there ain’t nothing great about the demented Joe Bite-Me.
LeftTwat sycophants are they most inane, hypocrites on the planet
Great article.
The 2024 election will decide whether “we remain…a nation under ‘the rule of laws, not of men’.” There’s the rub.
“Whether freedom endures is up to us citizens, not to “great men.”
It’s not up to the citizens; it’s up to the intellectuals teaching at the universities. Intellectuals like Bruce Thornton who seem to be unwilling or unable to clearly and precisely identify the philosophical essentials needed to defend freedom, liberty, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
Christianity is not the answer. Christianity prepared the ground for modern totalitarianism. Indeed, the roots of America’s welfare state lie in the Populist-Progressive Era of the late 19th century and early 20th century, especially with the Protestant social gospel movement, which held that Christian ethics and “social justice” should drive public policy.
“By its nature, changing the course of a nation is a task that can be achieved only by men who deal with the field of ideas. In the long run the people of a country have no alternative: they end up following the lead of the intellectuals.
The intellectuals cannot escape ideas, either. They may become anti-ideological skeptics, who offer the country for guidance only subjective feelings and short-range pragmatism; but it is the ideas — ultimately, the basic ideas — they still accept, explicitly or otherwise, which determine the content of their feelings and of their pragmatism. In the long run the intellectuals, too, have no alternative: they end up following the lead of the philosophers.
If there is no new philosophy to guide and rally the better men among them, the intellectuals will follow one that is old and bankrupt. If there are no living ideas, they will follow dying ones and take the country with them.” – Leonard Peikoff, “The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America”
The ONLY new philosophy that can intellectually, rationally, demonstrably, and objectively defend freedom, liberty, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.
Bruce Thornton should discover that philosophy and promote it if he really wants to defend America.
THX: “Christianity is not the answer. Christianity prepared the ground for modern totalitarianism.”
Totalitarianism has been the default government from the beginning of time.
You will never be great. You are a downer, a loser, an anti-intellectual curmudgeon, and a throwback to true totalitarianism. Your post in the other article on the state of loneliness is you personified. Those remarks by Schopenhauer, Welles, Jodi Picoult and Janet Fitch are so typical of the faux NYC intellectual who fancies himself to be the superior human.
When have you ever defended freedom and capitalism. The only thing you ever do is bash Christianity and exalt yourself at the expense of everyone else.
On the other hand, perhaps you should watch these two short videos of soldiers and marines singing worship and praise songs. They are not officers, they are the grunts and field guys who pack and carry the gear. They are the great men and women. Unlike you they are patriots.
And you are actually dumb enough to think your stupid little religion is going to get anywhere.
“I don’t recognize any such absurdity as service to my country. I recognize a moral responsibility to my freedom and liberty and the freedom and liberty of those I love.” — THX 1138
Sorry but i must respectfully disagree.
There are NO great men. There are only ordinary men who have great moments. To be otherwise is to not be a republic. Of course, after Obama and Biden, we are no longer one.
Elections matter. For a decade, I was actively involved in the tea party movement since 2009. Reduce government and government spending. Anti-Obamacare. Secure borders. When Mr. Trump was elected in 2016, I thought he would fulfill his promises. Even in the first two years of his presidency (with a gop house and senate) he was failing on these fronts. I witnessed my tea party “patriots” abandon these principles for Mr. Trump. It was a cult for them. (Mr. Trump built less than 50 miles of new wall. Wall which wasn’t there previously. He spent more than Mr. Obama in 4 years than the 8 of Mr. Obama’s term. Obamacare remains.)
Some of his followers even stormed the Capitol on January 6. If that’s not a cult and hero worship… I don’t see what qualifies as such. Mr. Trump lost the election fair and square on a good economy to an aged dolt. If Mr. Trump gets the nod again, he will lose again. Just like before. He’ll be a sore loser about it. Just like before. Bombastic talk isn’t a qualification of a great man. It’s simply repellent.
Long live the Constitution of the United States of America.
Actually, the gop did not lose, rather the election was ‘stolen’. Yesterday we learned of a 3rd party investigation that found 34,000 illegal ballots in Michigan, just one state. I heard multiple affidavits from poll workers in the NE states swearing they witnessed highly questionable behaviors with poll managers. I saw documented videos of multiple people stuffing ballot boxes in the wee hours of the morning. We have read of many counties that changed election rules illegally very late in the game. At minimum, the election had multiple highly suspicious activities. Enough so that it is very difficult to have much confidence in the actual outcome. Our elections are now 3rd world nation at best.
Excellent comments. I’ve never seen any purported Republican pol receive the kind slobbering idolatry Trump gets from the cult. That includes one of the chief slobberers, Bruce Thornton.
Of course, he is not alone on FPM as most or all of the columnists are totally devoted to their idol like the rest of the common cultists.
I think people like Thornton know how flawed Trump is. But then the cult won’t read his articles.
It’s a far better thing to be considered a “great man” than to concern oneself with leftist dogma. Our nation needs droves of great men: setting aside liberal diatribes in favor of conservative reason. Saying out loud that Democrats directions and leadings are WRONG, while espousing truth, reason and a better way.
This concept isn’t far fetched. Teach your children well, for they are a nation’s future. “What you’ve learned in school is wrong.”
Spoken like a great man.
A great man need not be one of public fame, but a quiet, strong, courageous and indefatigable warrior for what is good and true. When life becomes terrible, the great man is revealed and he is often not what anyone imagined he would be. I think there are, in reality, a lot of great men now doing work that is largely invisible, but that work, too, will be revealed in time.
It’s always good to read an article by someone who knows that hoi in hoi polloy is the article and not part of the noun. The rest of the ariticle is good too.
#2 indeed has a very high probability of being correct. I agree.
The elite toyed with the very foundation of our civilization: law, military, education, civil education, etc, and they have created a mess that seriously threatens to destroy us and western civilization. It is destructive to encourage illegal aliens to participate in our government, military, use of our education system. But that is what they did and do and much more.
President Ronald Reagan warned us about dictatorships and evil empires. As you can see, these marxists aren’t believers in God, the Constitution, or Freedom, that way they think they are accountable to no one, and do whatever they want. When a nation believes in God, with Godly principles, accountability for their actions, and lives by honesty, morally, and responsibility, the nation thrives.